David Futrelle and the Advocacy of Child Rape & Murder

*EXTREME TRIGGER WARNINGS - This article describes Time Magazine writer David Futrelle and his sickening opinions on child rape and murder. Multiple child abuse trigger warnings are in place. You have been warned.

david futrelle

Any Ladies Fancy A ManBoobz Meet Up With This?

Summary - The Worst of David Futrelle

  • Spent much of early career as a radical statutory rape apologist.
  • Suggested adults who rape and impregnate kids shouldn't go to prison.
  • Repeatedly denied the reality of the wide-scale sexual abuse of children
  • Thinks pederasts fantasising about violently raping boys is 'tender' and 'erotic'.
  • Claims no sexual difference between a 5 year old and a 17 year old - boy or girl.
  • Discussed whether criticisim of abortion should be criminalized as hate speech.
  • Uses pro-abortion logic on toddlers and small children.
  • Like Kyle Payne, the male feminist blogger jailed for rape and child porn offences.
  • Boasts of handing out condoms and lube to teenagers and offering to teach them good sex.
  • Organizes 'Meet-Ups' with female readers of his blog - some of whom are children.
  • Admitted to fantasising about an adult celebrity dressed up as a small child
  • Pleaded for an end to the regulation of internet pornography newsgroups, fearing mass arrests...in the late 1990's, when such groups were infamous and the internet was known as the 'Wild West'
  • Claimed that the raising of the age of consent from 12 to 16 was motivated merely by the prudish desire of Victorian suffragettes to 'control the sexuality of young girls'.
  • Despite his disturbing opinions on paedophilia, child rape, boy rape fantasies, and child murder, currently writes for both CNN and Time Magazine (letters@time.com)

See also : Are All Male Feminists Sex Predators, Paedophiles, and Rapists?

David Futrelle Image Search

David Futrelle

A collection of cells

How low can a 'man' crawl underneath the open legs of the opposite sex, before he not only loses his dignity as a man, but also his very essence as a moral agent and a human being?

Maintaining your kewl, progressive feminist persona, by defending those creatures who compare the morality of killing children to the decision on which sofa to buy for your lounge, is surely about as low as it possibly can get.

I think most of my regular readers are a relatively liberal bunch.  Many of you, no doubt, have tolerant views regarding abortion, though probably not grounded solely upon 'a woman's right to choose'.

All I know about abortion is that it is an extremely complex moral issue, despite the hijacking of the 'pro-life' debate by the Dumbville Christian brigade.  So complex, in fact, that the impressive secular intellect of Peter Singer, the most famous moral philosopher of recent times, can only defend it by likewise defending infantacide.

To state that such a 'choice' is equivalent to choosing furniture, is an act of callous wickedness and betrays an utter disregard for any possible concern for child welfare.  It should also, to any sane person, reveal that when those same feminsts claim that men should be arrested, imprisoned, killed, or tortured, for allowing a 17 year old girl to choose what she does with her own body, then we can be sure she is not speaking out of any concern whatsoever for the 'child's' welfare.  Only from the same disgustingly narrow selfish regard for her own reproductive interests.

Yet the fleshcreeping mangina David Futrelle appears to believe that even to call into question such views is 'misogyny'.  In fact, in one of his many articles written for the Chicago Reader in the early 90's, he appears to intimate that any discussion of the ethics of abortion should be defined as criminal hate speech.

Recently, he made a comment at Reddit.com over a scientific study that found that featuses have a memory at only a few weeks old. He expressed his indignation and outrage that such a scientific finding could have any bearing on the 'right' of a woman to kill her unborn child, and claimed that he could not remember any of his childhood before the age of 5.

I'm not even sure that I want to know what the creep is advocating for here, but if we join the dots, it would appear Mr Frutrelle not only thinks that women should have the unquestioned right to an abortion, but also the right to kill their (small) children.   Not only that, but anyone who criticises the right of a woman to kill her young child should be locked away for hate speech.

Whatever gets you laid David, whatever gets you laid.  So long as you can still sleep at night.

Not women and children first for white knight David Futrelle.  Women first and children a very distant second, if anywhere, according to his perverted moral compass.

And in the debate over the age of consent, it is conveniently forgotten that the alleged victim is undeniably harmed too.  A girl dragged through court and forced to give evidence to jail a man she loves, then told repeatedly that she is a child abuse victim who will be traumatised for life, IS undeniably harmed.  Of course, the central question is whether it is necessary to protect herself and others from even greater harm.  Whether or not such harm even exists, can hardly be established without rational debate.

David Futrelle is what might be called a 'militant mangina'.  A man who considers it his masculine duty to make a career out of defending the honour of feminists online.  As well as his only way to get laid. And he's by no means the first.  A couple of years back, feminist bloggers had a white knight by the name of Kyle Payne to defend them against the collected online forces of misogyny.  Sadly, Mr Payne's mission came to an abrupt end when he was jailed for filming himself touching up a sleeping college girl's breasts.  This hasn't prevented himself continuing his male feminist blog, much to the disgust of Jezebel readers (take a look at what feminists really think about manginas David), but really, truth be told, the burden of defending feminists online against those awful men's rights pigs has now fallen entirely upon the not so manly shoulders of David Futrelle.

David justifies his website as a voice of reason against the 'irrationality' and blind prejudice of the men's rights movement.  However, he doesn't feel it necessary to supply any reason or argument in support of the current age of consent laws.  Just an emotional conviction that anybody who questions it is a pervert.  And an equal conviction that shouting that anyone who questions it is a pervert proves one's own non-pervert credentials.  And perhaps inches one a little closer to the rancid interior of some feminist pussy.

Hmmm.....

There was a recent piece on display at his site about a man attending a parade dressed up as a female vagina.  Anybody who doesn't like it is apparently a homophobe.  Even those who are a little uncomfortable at the thought of their children bumping into a man pretending to be a sexual organ.

So it's a sign of madness to question the ethics of any homosexual behaviour, a sexual behaviour criminalized for most of human history.  Even if you had constructed the most exhaustive, complex, and evidence based argument against homosexuality, your efforts would be in vain.  You would still be a..homophobe.  A thought criminal. Discussion closed.  (btw, I personally have no objection to others practicing homosexuality).

Yet at the same time, it is a manifest sign of utter perversion to question existing sex laws that still do not obtain in 'Third World' nations such as Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, Korea.... and, in fact, which have never held anywhere where there has been permitted a rational and sane discussion upon their validity.  If and when feminists (and their American conservative loon allies of convenience) raise the age of consent to 21 and beyond, will it be just as shameful and odious then to question its validity?  Before the law is passed, but not after?  Or for a time after, perhaps, but certainly not when the new age  has finally become widely accepted and an unthinking social norm?  What if the absolute penalties for 'statutory rape' continue to increase?  If it becomes illegal, punishable by death, to have sex with a woman of 20 years of age, would it then become permissible to question such a law?  Slightly?  Or always simply 'creepy'?

I wonder what this progressive mangina thinks of the previous British  government's state apology to Alan Turing, jailed and driven to death over his imprisonment and chemical castration for picking up and sodomizing a teenage boy in the 1940's?  The boy was 19, under the age of consent for homosexuality at the time, and presumably there were others even younger, given that every homosexual of note in history has been a hebophile (from Socrates to Wilde)....how, I wonder, could we ever have come to change our minds and come to 'know' that an injustice had been committed against Turing, if discussion of the matter had been permanently shamed or criminalized?

Incidentally, I wish to make clear that I have nothing in particular against pederasts. There are of course, some extra issues in determining at what age a boy could consent to sex with a man. For example, through most of their teenage years boys are physically, sexually, and emotionally less developed than their female peers. (something that mysteriously has no relevance to those liberal progressives happy to champion an equal age of consent at 16. It also makes the American practice of jailing 17 year old boys for screwing their 15 year old girlfriends even more obscene).

I don't hate pederasts.  Western civilisation was built almost entirely by pederasts (and Jews), with the odd girl loving subhuman hebophile thrown in (for example Beethoven, or Goethe).  The age of consent for homosexuals should be determined in the same fashion as it ought to be (and isn't) for heterosexuals (i.e. girls) - through logic, reason, dispassionate argument and evidence.  Otherwise, serious crimes against humanity are the likely result, such as that committed against Alan Turing.

No I don't hate pederasts, although I think it is reasonable and consistant to hold that the age of consent for boys ought to be higher than it is for girls (though that would be impractical within a co-education system).

However, I will never condone the type of violent pederastry that David Futrelle appears to be advocating, or at least empathising with, in the following book review (or maybe I'm reading him too literally?).

Extract from a review by David Futrelle of 'A Queer in America'

Throughout the essays Wojnarowicz describes how he turns inward to realize what is unattainable on earth. The book is filled with impossible erotic longings--desires deferred, turned into fantasy. Driving across the country, Wojnarowicz turns his fleeting glimpses of truckers, construction workers, and so on into extended erotic reveries. At times, though, even imagination cannot ease the pressure of unrealized desire; watching a Chicano boy play pool in a waterfront bar, Wojnarowicz feels lust rising like a "humming" from his stomach. "Standing there sipping from a green bottle," he recalls, "I could see myself taking the nape of his neck in my teeth as he turned and stared out the window at the rolling lines of traffic for a moment. Light curved around his face and the back of his head, the shaved hair produced sensations that I could feel across the palm of my hand, my sweating hand, all the way from where I stood on the other side of the room." Stung by the boy's mocking glance, Wojnarowicz flees the bar, seeking escape from an onrush of dizziness.

Throughout the book Wojnarowicz combines tenderly remembered erotic episodes with unflinching descriptions of their sordid surroundings.

 

If Futrelle thinks that a pederast violently raping a boy in a bar is 'tender' and 'erotic', one shudders to think what his more 'hardcore' teen fantasies involve.

Uhhh...I'm beginning to debate with this freak, something about as meaningful and pleasent as trying to deconstruct one of his many intellectual vagina farts.

An unborn baby is far more of a child than any teenager is, and far more defenceless and in need of protection.  Furthermore, having sex with somebody is always an ethical matter of far less importance than is the taking of life.  So long as feminists can advocate the killing of children without the need for any conscience or moral deliberation, I will continue to question the locking up of men as subhumans for life by feminists, on the basis of no valid reason or evidence, for doing something which is entirely lawful in the majority of civilised nations on Earth (and would always be if it wasn't for the hysterical witch hunting of the sexual trade union).

The sight of 'men' supplicating themselves before the feminist vagina is always an uneddifying sight, even if one accepts that it is the only way that these unfortunate manginas can get laid.  But when it is taken as far as defending the casual killing of defenceless children, it becomes something more than sad and degrading.  It becomes truly evil.

Now, excuse me, I really have to throw up.

 

***UPDATE :  In a seriously disturbing development, Futrelle has been caught boasting on his blog that he is going to start handing out condoms and lube to teenage girls and to 'teach them how to have good sex' like only he can.  See the following excellent article at the Spearhead that warns parents to remain extra vigilant against the paedocrite....oh sorry...I mean 'ephebocrite' : http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/04/09/david-futrelle-to-teach-coeds-how-to-have-good-sex/

David Futrelle Mangina 2

53 thoughts on “David Futrelle and the Advocacy of Child Rape & Murder

  1. I’m not even going to get into all the errors and distortions here, but …

    the “boy” in the book review is some guy hanging out in a BAR, you know, a place that serves booze; he’s not a child.

    And in what article exactly did I suggest that discussing the ethics of abortion was hate speech? URL please.

  2. theantifeminist

    Post author

    So you’re saying that underage boys are fair meat for biting and rape, so long as they are being served alcohol illegally?

    We all know what age group ‘boy’ refers to.

    You can look your own essay up, but to help it was in the one on the Unabomber.

  3. evilwhitemalempire

    “I’m not even going to get into all the ERRORS AND DISTORTIONS here, but …

    the “GIRL” in the book review is some WOMAN hanging out in a BAR, you know, a place that serves booze; SHE’S not a child.”

    I wonder how far a line like that might help Mr. Futrelle if he’s arrested someday for unknowingly picking up an underage girl?

  4. theantifeminist

    Post author

    “I’m not even going to get into all the ERRORS AND DISTORTIONS here, but …

    the “GIRL” in the book review is some WOMAN hanging out in a BAR, you know, a place that serves booze; SHE’S not a child.”

    I wonder how far a line like that might help Mr. Futrelle if he’s arrested someday for unknowingly picking up an underage girl?

    Probably zero, but if he ever gets his teeth into an underage boy, I’m sure his feminist white knighting and paedohysterics will keep him out of jail – just as it did for Mark Foley.

  5. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I’m not going to quote the same passage again, but it seems we’re reading it completely different ways. To me ‘therefore no surprise’ means b follows from a. And the passage you quoted appears to me to be ambiguous. I’m not exactly sure what he’s saying.

    I’ll agree, though, that Futrelle was a much better writer back in the 90′s. What the hell has happened to him? I would quite enjoy debating the issues here with him, why does he use the shaming language of a 9 year old? Perhaps he’s old and senile, and that’s why he hasn’t written much for the last 15 years and decided now to spend his retirement mocking the men’s rights movement as a full time hobby?

  6. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Haha, agreed.

    Funny how the Daily Mail thinks men who admit that teenagers are sexy are perverts, yet claiming that Vorderman looks like a teenager is clearly a huge compliment.

  7. Snark

    The Daily Mail also provides plenty of 16 and 17-year old eye candy for its readers’ entertainment, so it can shut the fuck up.

  8. Tina

    Sex actually is a decision that can cause life changing effects like a child or and std that can kill you. Those under 18 cannot rent and apartment or sign legal contracts, those under 16 cannot work a job that pays bills for a household. I wonder if those that think the age of consent should be lowered also believe other rights given to those older should be lowered as well, like the right to vote, drinking, signing up for the armed services, or if the age of consent is lowered and those things are not changed, what responsibilities should be put legally on a much older person having sex with one much younger if pregnancy or std’s happen?

  9. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Well if you read my blog I’ve repeatedly stated that as far as sex with teenagers is concerned, age of consent/statutory rape laws should largely be replaced with age of impregnation laws.

    A sensible, experienced older partner is more likely to know how to use proper contraception that reduce the chances of stds or pregnancy to near zero. If these were the reason you and/or feminists objected to younger females having sex, you would be encouraging older men to seek sex (with precautions) with teenage girls (who will have sex regardless) instead of creating inhumane and draconian laws.

    Is it merely co-incidence that America has the highest age of consent in the world and also the highest teen pregnancy rate in the world? Japan has one of the lowest age of consents and the lowest teen pregnancy rate (8 times lower than America’s). This correlation between age of consent and teen pregnancy/std rates is found throughout the world.

    Furthermore, thanks to feminism, a 16 year old girl who gets pregnant can have an abortion at the drop of a hat. So really, your argument is completely invalid as regards ‘having a child’.

    However, I do agree that older men should face legal consequences if they recklessly impregnate or give stds to a young teenage girl. I’ve stated that belief many times.

    I find it quite offensive your absurd attempt to equate a girl having sex to a boy being put on the frontline and being asked to sacrifice his life for his country.

    I assume that if and when (likely very soon) that teenage girls can have sex with effectively zero risk of std’s or pregnancy (which is already the case if a guy simply wears a condom) your objections to a lower age of consent would vanish? Actually, I assume that they wouldn’t. But I hope you can accept that these objections do not apply to cyber sex?

    Your analogies are completely invalid. The reason under 16′s cannont rent apartments is because they are deemed to be too immature to live independently from their parents. Actually, as many 15 year olds probably could live independently, the reason is probably more as a safeguard to stop parents ejecting their teenage children out into the street. It doesn’t particularly have anything to do with teenagers being unable to understand the implications of a legal contract.

    Sounds like you would like adults to sign contracts every time they went to bed with somebody? Actually, you’d probably be furious if a government ordered that you personally had to sign a contract every time you had sex. What is your view on casual sex, btw?

    Choosing which university to go to and which subject to study is a life defining decision. A thousand times more so than the decision whether to have sex with somebody. Yet teenagers have to make that choice usually at 16 or 17.

    Personally I think the voting age should be higher than the age of consent. The idea that going to bed with somebody is more complex than the experience, wisdom and education required to understand global and national politics is entirely consistant with brood mare psychology but quite offensive and absurd. And are you really suggesting that a 16 year old girl is more at risk of dying from having sex than a 16 year old boy is from volunteering to fight the taliban in Afghanistan???

    However, giving the vote to 16 or 14 year olds would make it more difficult for older feminists to exploit younger girls and restrict their sexuality for their own selfish ends. For that reason, I would support lowering the voting age, or at least give young teenagers the chance to vote on sexual leglislation that effects them – as a way of preventing feminist child exploitation and abuse.

    Do you accept that Austrian 16 year olds should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies, given that they can vote in national elections from that age?

  10. eks

    “Furthermore, thanks to feminism, a 16 year old girl who gets pregnant can have an abortion at the drop of a hat.”

    What is wrong with being able to get an abortion when needed? Once a girl or woman finds out she is pregnant, and does not want to have (I mean carry and give birth to, not raise) that baby, having an abortion sooner than later is of the utmost importance if you ask me. If the woman/girl wanted an abortion, wouldn’t you be in favor of aborting a cluster of cells, an embryo (or as close as you could get to that stage) instead of waiting until later when the embryo was closer to being a fetus? I believe it is good that we can react so quickly, and do believe there should be a shorter time in which a woman can have an abortion.

    However, whoever compared having an abortion to buying a couch is insane. I do not agree with them. The decision to have an abortion is NOT made at “the drop of a hat,” and IS FAR FROM EASY. A friend of mine had to make that decision, and I saw what the debate did to her, emotionally. She did NOT decide at the drop of a hat. However, I believe that having that decision, regardless of what she chose, was important to her. I do not think it should be a political debate, I do not think that extreme feminists (there are feminists who are pro-life, you know) OR anyone on the other side of the spectrum who will not give a woman that option should shut up. It is THE WOMAN’S CHOICE, it is her womb (the man should have a say in it too, unless he raped her or left her after impregnating her) and no one should determine that for her, regardless of moral or religious opinions. They make it sound like she just “felt like” getting an abortion, or that she played eenie-meenie-miney-moe with her two options and didn’t give abortion a second thought. Let the woman who is pregnant have that choice. It is not an easy one, but it IS her choice.

    “A sensible, experienced older partner is more likely to know how to use proper contraception that reduce the chances of stds or pregnancy to near zero. If these were the reason you and/or feminists objected to younger females having sex, you would be encouraging older men to seek sex (with precautions) with teenage girls (who will have sex regardless) instead of creating inhumane and draconian laws.”

    Yes, perhaps a “sensible, experienced” older partner is more likely to know how to use contraception, but that does not mean that feminists would be encouraging older men to have sex with teenage girls. And how dare you say that teenage girls will have sex regardless of proper precautions! All teenage girls do NOT have sex whenever they feel like it, with whoever comes their way. You are generalizing far too much, and I think if you want to write about pressing issues like these, you should think more about how you sound and the assumptions you are making.

  11. eks

    I also have to say that I’m really appalled by your ignorance. There are different types of Feminism, and there are Feminists who have different views on different subjects. You made another bogus assumption about teenage girls having sex regardless of precautions or who they are having sex with. Seriously, stop making assumptions, it is offensive.

    “The rancid interior of some Feminist pussy”? Again, offensive. It’s not a pussy. It is a vagina, and mine smells like daffodils.

  12. theantifeminist

    Post author

    What is wrong with being able to get an abortion when needed?

    A lot of things, given that the greatest moral philospher of the last century debunked every single feminist argument for abortion and can only justify it on the basis of allowing infantacide as well. Anyway, the point made was in response to your claim that a teenage girl having sex was a life and death decision because she might become pregnant. Please try to stay relevant if you want to debate with me.

    And isn’t the decision to kill your unborn child a life defining descision for a young girl? You agree it’s a greater moral matter than buying a couch at IKEA but apparently less than the decision to drop your panties.

    Yes, perhaps a “sensible, experienced” older partner is more likely to know how to use contraception, but that does not mean that feminists would be encouraging older men to have sex with teenage girls

    Yes it does if your objection to men having sex with girls is the possibility that they might become pregnant or catch an STD. But of course, your objection is that allowing men to have sex with young females is that it would put older women such as yourself at a huge disadvantage in a free sexual market. And that argument does not have any logical or objective moral justification. Allowing white women to have sex with black men puts me (as a white man) at a huge disadvantage in a multi-cultural city. That fact has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the morality of white women having sex with black men.

    It’s also funny that you claim that teenage girls should ‘have the choice’ to kill their unborn child, and who the hell am I to tell them otherwise, but you see no inconsistancy in telling those same girls what they can’t do with their own bodies, and are happy to restrict their choice of sexual partner.

  13. evilwhitemalempire

    “It is THE WOMAN’S CHOICE, it is her womb”
    It’s also the man’s sperm and the child’s life.
    Funny that a woman can kill her child if she wants to while the guy who knocked her up pays child support whether he wants to or not.

    “You are generalizing far too much, and I think if you want to write about pressing issues like these, you should think more about how you sound and the assumptions you are making.”
    Is this a threat?

  14. evilwhitemalempire

    “There are different types of Feminism, and there are Feminists who have different views on different subjects.”
    I get it!
    Sort of like the way the KKK and neonazis don’t always agree with one another.

  15. Snark

    eks, if women are so easily “offended” in conversation, why do you think they are capable of debate at the same level as men?

  16. eks

    Women easily offended? There are men who read things like this who are offended by this. And just because one woman is offended by this does not make every single woman offended by the points brought up. Also, being offended does not make me cry and go into a corner, it only gets me more fired up and ready to debate. Again, generalizations…

  17. eks

    If you read a little further, evilwhitemaleempire, you will see that I said “(the man should have a say in it too, unless he raped her or left her after impregnating her).”

    And of course it’s not a threat. I simply said that the author should think before writing assumptions as if they were facts. I’m not sure where you read that as a “threat.”

  18. eks

    “Older women” like me? I am 19 years old. You are really proving to be bad at this whole assumption game.

    I really don’t care what the greatest moral philosopher said about abortion. I don’t care what feminists have to say about abortion. I don’t see why anyone but the woman (and her husband) have to decide what to do about abortion.

    Also, your response to my argument about feminists being ok with sensible, responsible older men is confusing. Could you explain it a bit further?

  19. eks

    wow, comparing me to neonazis and the KKK? that’s how you “debate?”

    and no, of course we don’t need laws against this. There are men who read things like this who are offended by this. And just because one woman is offended by this does not make every single woman offended by the points brought up. Also, being offended does not make me cry and go into a corner, it only gets me more fired up and ready to debate. Again, generalizations…

  20. evilwhitemalempire

    “that’s how you “debate?””
    No.
    There is no debate.
    Feminism is selfish and wrong.
    It’s that simple.

  21. Snark

    It is a generalisation because feminist women ALWAYS pull the ‘offended’ card when they see something contrary to their (misandrist, predatory, sexual) interests.

    This has been observed by myself and others.

    We have observed it happening many times.

    We also observe that they are not really ‘offended’, it is all about control. Oh, the princesses might be shocked that somebody actually has the gall to disagree with Her Objective Righteousness. But it is entirely about controlling the situation.

    We have observed all this, and have observed that it happens like clockwork.

    Hence, yes, it is a generalisation – because generally speaking, it happens.

    I will ask you to explain why this is necessarily a bad thing.

  22. namae nanka

    “What is wrong with being able to get an abortion when needed? ”

    Indeed, you should be asking what is wrong with abortion?

    “Once a girl or woman finds out she is pregnant, and does not want to have (I mean carry and give birth to, not raise) that baby, having an abortion sooner than later is of the utmost importance if you ask me”

    And no one’s asking you.

    ” If the woman/girl wanted an abortion, wouldn’t you be in favor of aborting a cluster of cells, an embryo (or as close as you could get to that stage) instead of waiting until later when the embryo was closer to being a fetus? ”

    Of course killing a cockroach is less messy than killing a lizard.
    Also dumping an infant’s body is much easier than an adult’s.

    “The decision to have an abortion is NOT made at “the drop of a hat,” and IS FAR FROM EASY.”

    You probably haven’t seen women haggling in shops.
    Even murderers don’t make the decision to kill someone at the drop of a hat, should we care for their internal monologues outside of hollywood?

    ” Let the woman who is pregnant have that choice. It is not an easy one, but it IS her choice.”

    It ISN’T.

  23. eks

    “Even murderers don’t make the decision to kill someone at the drop of a hat”
    Stop generalizing. There are different types of murders, there’s the crime committed within seconds (someone flew into rage, went too far, and killed someone), and then there’s pre-meditated murder, which you are talking about when you say “even murderers” don’t make that decision quickly.

    And if you are angry about women comparing abortions to making decisions on furniture at Ikea (which I am also angry about), then I’m not sure why you’re comparing it to haggling in shops. It’s beginning to sound like you are anti-woman, not only anti-feminist, and I don’t think that’s what you’re trying to convey.

    If we are all debating about abortion, and none of us can seem to find something that we all agree on, then what is the use for this debate? It seems like it’s not so much a debate as it is an argument… I’m sure we could find some common ground.

  24. theantifeminist

    Post author

    what are you talking about? What assumption did I make about ‘about teenage girls having sex regardless of precautions or who they are having sex with’. The point I made was that teenage girls will always have sex in a society like ours, so if STDs and pregnancy are your concern, they should be encouraged to choose older, more sensible sexual partners. Look at the results of the abstinance movement. Even in Islamic shitholes where young girls are stoned to death or murdered for having sex it still doesn’t stop them from screwing.

    And where the hell are all of these feminists who are pro-male sexuality? If there are any they are clearly insignificant.

    I’ll make offensive remarks regarding dispicable manginas who make a full time occupation of mocking the men’s rights movement. If you don’t like it you can fuck off.

  25. eks

    t is necessarily a bad thing because I am not a feminist, but you are making me out to be one. I understand that there are some extreme feminists, and that they have bad ideas and act very selfishly, but just because I am a woman and playing devil’s-advocate on this blog (because it seems pretty one-sided to me), you decide to label me as a feminist? And more than that, you attack me as if I were what you consider all feminists to be: old, angry women who don’t enjoy sex, who hate pornography and revel in forcing teenage girls to get abortions they don’t want? I am a 19 year old woman, I don’t agree with what those Feminists think, I don’t agree with what most feminists say, but because I am here debating this issue and because I am a woman, you label me.

    That’s why it’s a bad thing.

  26. eks

    “A sensible, experienced older partner… you would be encouraging older men to seek sex (with precautions) with teenage girls (who will have sex regardless) instead of creating inhumane and draconian laws.”

    Right there, in the second parentheses.

    Again, I will say that I am not a Feminist, but it seems that because I am playing devil’s advocate in these debates, and because I am a woman, that you are labeling me as one. I am not mocking the men’s rights movement, and never agreed with anyone who is or was. So I will not fuck off.

  27. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Teenage girls will have sex regardless, for the empirically supported reasons I just gave.

    I don’t care if you define yourself as a feminist or not, not many women do these days. If your support abortion on demand and the restriction of teenage girl’s sexuality, then those are core feminist beliefs – anything in the reproductive interests of ordinary women. You are a feminist.

  28. eks

    No, I am not. I think I know better than anyone what I am, and you are in no place to tell me so. I am an “ordinary woman,” why should I have to be a Feminist to be concerned about my reproductive interests?

    It also doesn’t matter how many “empirically supported” reasons you give, you are not a teenage girl and never have been. No matter what believe, you can’t pull stuff out of your ass and tell people they are facts. That is not true, and you have to shut up and stop pretending like everything you say is fact. Yes, you do have many valid points and are able to eloquently defend your points and I will acknowledge that, but this is just not one of them. I study Sociology, and minor in Women and Gender Studies. I am also a young woman, and I think I know better than you what the majority of my age/sex group do with their bodies.

  29. eks

    I also never advocated the restriction of teenage girls’ sexuality. Please find the quote where I said that.

  30. namae nanka

    “Stop generalizing. There are different types of murders, there’s the crime committed within seconds (someone flew into rage, went too far, and killed someone), and then there’s pre-meditated murder, which you are talking about when you say “even murderers” don’t make that decision quickly.”

    haha are you seriously dumb? You think that I didn’t think of that? “Stop generalizing” – what were you doing extrapolating your friend’s mental gymnastics to millions of abortions that have taken place?

    “And if you are angry about women comparing abortions to making decisions on furniture at Ikea (which I am also angry about), then I’m not sure why you’re comparing it to haggling in shops.”

    Different cultures.

    “It’s beginning to sound like you are anti-woman, not only anti-feminist, and I don’t think that’s what you’re trying to convey.”

    I am anti-woman, but not for the whole society. I am anti-feminist, for the whole society. Let’s leave your assumptions at that.

    “If we are all debating about abortion, and none of us can seem to find something that we all agree on, then what is the use for this debate? It seems like it’s not so much a debate as it is an argument… I’m sure we could find some common ground.”

    Hegelian dialect is wonderful, isn’t it? I hope that someday you see the futility of it. Like when someone starts to justify rape and tells you that you can find common ground with him or her(see ma no sexist).

  31. Eric

    When it comes to motherhood, the typical response of an American female is: ‘Choose to abort, or sue for support!’. If they do the latter, of course, that also means dumping the kid in daycare centers. In America today, most preganancies end in abortion and most children are born out of wedlock or living in single-parent homes.

    The real issue here is that American women are simply unfit for motherhood; and the best way for men to address the issue is stop getting them pregnant in the first place. It’s a main reason why I dropped out of the American relationship scene altogether, as an increasing number of men are doing.

  32. The Highwayman

    This is old news but it still might interest you:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/caitlin_moran/article1072677.ece

    Here we have feminist Caitlin Moran ADVOCATING sex selective abortions on the grounds that the abortion of baby girls will increase women’s sexual market value. Consider this quote from the article here:

    QUOTE: “Consider, now, if there were a two-year waiting list for Indian women. Those 1000 men would soon be duking it out for those 793 ladies. Indeed, it may well be that, in order to get married, dowries would have to be paid to the bride’s family, just to interest her in a man.

    On finally getting his $80,000 woman, the man would then be doing the marital equivalent of polishing his wife every night with protective dubbin, and putting her on a special peg in the hallway.” END QUOTE

    If this is not a blatant case of sexual trade unionism I don’t know what one is. She then goes on to describe Britain as a hellhole for women due to the fact that there are slightly more women than men in the UK (DUH! women have longer life expectancies what is the gender break down in the 16 to 34 age bracket?) while peddling standard feminst BS about the pay gap etc… The man-drought that she describes is likely caused by a very rational fear that many British (and other Western men) men have of getting married in the present legal climate and not demographics.

  33. evilwhitemalempire

    That feminists consider it a war crime to take advantage of a drunk woman but not to kill unborn children is, I think, their most seldomly exploited achilles heel.
    When presented with graphic imagery like this it’s a hypocrisy that only the most callous and indoctrinated can possibly ignore.
    Small wonder that feminists are outraged at such pictures. For they know darn well how powerful they are.

  34. Alan Vaughn

    @theantifeminist

    So it’s a sign of madness to question the ethics of any homosexual behaviour, a sexual behaviour criminilized for most of human history. Even if you had constructed the most exhaustive, complex, and evidence based argument against homosexuality, your efforts would be in vain. You would still be a..homophobe. A thought criminal. Discussion closed. (btw, I personally have no objection to others practicing homosexuality).

    Just to help emphasize your point, thought you might find this little gem of ‘homophobia’ and how it was dealt with by an Australian sexual trade union department: The Queensland Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.
    Read about it here (if you haven’t already heard or read about it):
    http://www.news.com.au/news/anti-gay-bumper-sticker-is-beyond-a-joke/story-fna7dq6e-1111117565851

  35. Alan Vaughn

    And just to put an interesting twist into the same story, imagine the public approval and praise and even the small fortune he might have made (from sales of the stickers) had he produced the same bumper sticker with only ONE of it’s few words changed: If the word “Gay” which appears only twice on the sticker was substituted with “Paedophile”…

  36. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Well, as you said earlier Alan, the world is starting to resemble a second rate dystopian sci-fi movie…

  37. Pingback:

  38. John Rambo

    Manginas should go fucking jump off a bridge and rid themselves from this world. The world will be a much better place without them!

  39. Dr. Pell

    Is that the boob’s real pic because it’s just as I imagined he would be like.And no, fat Davie is not meeting up with anyone or getting laid with anyone from his boob site. If you’ve actually read those comments you’d see that the “females” there are lesbians, confused shemales and lower class loser females who don’t have 2 nickels in their pocket and are so stupid that they don’t even know they’re stupid, anymore than a skunk knows it stinks. Not one of these fem losers would even have the bus fare for any “meetup”.3/4 of them are living off someone else or trying to suck the government into paying for their upkeep and filing fake disability claims. Apparently obesity is now a disability along with being depressed about being a lardarse lol One hag over on the boobsite even thinks that the government should supply her with an SUV (motorised wheelchair) so she can get to the store and ride the fatmobile to buy junkfood with her foodstamps. She also thinks that someone else should pay for her shoes and entertain her brat at themovies haha

  40. Advocating abortion rights for men would be a great way to drive a wedge between feminism and the population control agenda.

  41. Zorro

    Fuetrelle is a carbuncle on the ass of the world. May his fat eunuch corpse litter the East River ASAP.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>