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 ‘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’ regularly held competitions amongst it’s 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 concerned 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 improvements 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.

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.

Rape charge anonymity pledge dropped after protests

Critics said the anonymity plan would lead to fewer convictions

Plans to grant pre-charge anonymity to men accused of rape have been dropped after protests from MPs on all sides.

Instead, the government will put pressure on media outlets through the Press Complaints Commission not to name suspects.

The coalition originally planned to grant pre and post-charge anonymity but has now dropped the plan altogether.

Labour and women Tory MPs said it could send a negative signal about women who accuse men of rape.

What is there to be said about this?  Only that I feel like spitting in the face of every ‘men’s rights activist’ who identifies himself as a conservative.  Stop jerking off to Sarah Palin. STOP IT NOW I tell you!

All Women Should Aspire to Hour Glass Size 14 Figures

Well o.k., seems that the British ‘liberal’ party is riddled with Sistaria law feminists now too.  The hideously ugly Lynne Featherstone believes that all women and young girls should aspire to size 14 buxom figures.  This, despite the fact that the UK has by far the highest Teen obesity rates in Europe.

And, of course, no mention is ever made of the ‘epidemic of white male suicide’, particularly amongst young white boys in inner cities.  Young white boys killing themselves because they have the wrong colour dick.

I was walking through a busy park in Paris a few weeks ago, when I passed a black man with his top off, proudly showing the world his chiselled abdoman.  One of a group of four Australian female tourists walking behind me loudly remarked - ’now  girls, we made a promise that we wouldn’t fuck the first black man that we saw’.  I turned round to see all of them smiling.  The look of disgust on my face didn’t seem to register with them.  By the way, I too have a fairly chiselled body.  And was probably better looking than the black man.  Would it register on those Australian women that I might feel degraded or inferior as a result of their comment because I was born with a white penis, instead of a black one?  Lol.  As if.

Later that same day, I was sitting outside the Louvre with an American couple nearby.  As a group of beautiful, perfect bodied adolescent Russian girls walked past, I suddenly re-called the comment of that Australian woman. I decided that I wasn’t a castrated bitch and that, I too, could openly appreciate the beauty of the opposite sex.  So I made a point of looking respectfully, but admiringly, at these visions of perfection.  The castrated American male beside me looked aghast and whispered to his wife ‘he’ll get arrested’. His wife nodded approvingly. ’Well castrated bitch’, I thought to myself, whilst restraining myself from kicking him in his shrivelled dick,’ in France it will be a few more years yet before the femirapists can have men arrested for admiring les jolie filles in the street’.  But only a few more years.

And he knows that his wife will still leave him for black cock. 

He always wore a baseball cap and a pair of Nikes; I was convinced he had a huge dick. All the girls threw themselves at this big baboon and here I was trying to teach them about Mallarmé – what the fuck was the point? This is the way Western civilisation ends, I thought bitterly. People worshipping in front of big dicks, like hamadryas baboons.

(*Michel Houellebecq – Atomized)

*Disclaimer for stupid people : I’m not making any racist points, no more than I’m sure Michel Houellebecq is in the above quote.  It is so many white women that are disgustingly racist, in that they objectify black men as walking cocks, as well as perpetuating harmful racist stereotypes regarding black male violence, simply because it makes them wet.

Why we should celebrate the release of Roman Polanski :

• Because the American justice system is misandrist and corrupt as fuck.
• Because the American justice system takes bribes from private prison firms to lock up kids.
• Because the American justice system jails young teens as sex offenders for sending each other naughty pictures.
• Because it’s an abomination to even consider sending a 76 year old holocaust survivor to a justice system in which male prisoners are routinely raped, and in which sex offenders can be held indefinately after they have served their sentance.

Obviously, one MRA who always has got his finger on the pulse is Angry Harry :

Sympathy For Cop Shooter Downing Street is to contact Facebook to express the Prime Minister’s dismay after hundreds of people left messages of sympathy on the website for gunman Roaul Moat.

The tide continues to turn.

How long will it be before government and government workers dare not leave their houses, eh?

For four decades now, western men have had to put up with a ceaseless onslaught against them emanating largely from government.

And they are also expected to pay for – and maintain – all the luxuries that so many government workers enjoy; despite their own failing fortunes arising from the current economic crisis.

And governments continue to stack all the odds against men when it comes to the law, the benefit system, the health system etc etc etc.

Is it surprising, therefore, to see that people are now actually cheering acts of murder?

Of course, personally speaking, I feel quite sick at the thought that people are pleased to see a police officer being killed or maimed.

But look at how the police treat men.

Tens of thousands of men every year are treated absolutely appallingly by police officers, social workers and the justice system.

So who can be surprised to find that so many people will cheer at the thought of these government officials ‘getting a taste of their own medicine’?

Now, I’m not wishing to have a pop at Spearhead commentators en masse, the best of whom justify that site being an essential place to visit (though perhaps not for much longer).  Also, credit to Welmer, on this occasion, for highlighting a story that obviously had relevance.  It did strike me as indicative though, of the MRM once again failing to ‘seize the moment’.  (you’re entitled to ask why I haven’t mention the Moat case up-to-now. I should have.  But my site is primarily an attack on feminism as a sexual trade union harming and raping men through legislation surrounding pornography, prostitution, and ‘paedophilia’).

However, just in case any men’s rights supporters are still puzzled at the ‘sick’ sympathy for Raoul Moat then please read the following (and, like Angry Harry, I’m in no way condoning Moat’s tragic actions, simply empathizing with what drove him to destroy his own life and that of others).

Raoul Moat’s uncle has accused the killer’s former girlfriend of having “blood on her hands” over his nephew’s shooting spree.

He wrote: “This lady has the blood of two deaths and a maimed PC on her hands, all caused by the lies and the goading on the mobile (phone) prior to the incident.

“A second phone call to Raoul told him that her new boyfriend was a policeman and had a black belt in karate and if he wanted to come to the house, her boyfriend would ‘do’ him.

“She then went on to describe what her boyfriend was about to do to her when they went upstairs.

“She told him this knowing that he was a powder keg waiting to explode after she had previously told him that he wouldn’t see his daughter again.

“I can’t imagine what his state of mind must have been.”

SOURCE : Killer’s former girlfriend has ‘blood on her hands’.

Raoul Moat died after a stand off with police, sobbing as he cried that nobody in his life had ever loved him.  The British police, who have repeatedly killed civilians and then deliberately lied in order to cover their actions up, claimed that he killed himself with his shotgun (after being fired at with police tasars).  This version of events is already coming under suspicion.

Is the Men’s Rights Movement really growing?

However stupid sections of the MRM are, I’ve always taken comfort from the apparently obvious reality that the movement as a whole is growing.  Whatever else, the heretical idea that men might be of ethical concern in themselves, is slowly being raised in the public consciousness.

But is this really happening?  I’ve been considering for a while whether this is simply an illusion given by the increased opportunity for men’s rights supporters to give voice to their feelings via web2.o media such as YouTube.  Five years ago, you only had Angry Harry and a few other dedicated sites to read.  Now, you can watch any number of videos, post links on Reddit, and with the magic of WordPress, even start your own blog in minutes yourself.  But are there really MORE people interested in men’s rights, or is the number of those people expressing their interest merely increasing?

An optimistic way of looking at this graph is that it is simply misleading.  The graph measures Google searches for ‘men’s rights’.  Perhaps people are searching less for men’s rights, not because of less interest, but because there are MORE places they can readily bookmark that, in effect, do the searching for them.  Simply bookmarking a regularly updated site such as Men’s Activism is far more efficient than searching for ‘men’s rights’. 

The graph is still troublesome though, in that it surely indicates some kind of drop in the wider casual interest for men’s rights.  The widely held assumption that the men’s rights movement is growing is questionable.

Ribery has never denied having paid for sex with Zahia Dehar, now 18, but his lawyer has said that the player had no idea in that she was under-age. Miss Dehar has also said he was unaware of this.

Barbara Stockinger, a spokeswoman for the public prosecutors’ office in the southern city, home to Ribery’s club Bayern Munich, said: “We are looking into whether to begin a formal investigation.”

Of course, in any fair system of justice, if anyone should be prosecuted here it is the girl for entrapping an unwitting man into committing a crime.  The reason why feminist rapists are so adamant that ignorance is not a legal defence in these cases, is because the intent of these laws (including the British law against sex with trafficked women) has little to do with stopping ‘children’, or anyone else, being exploited.  Rather, it is to deter men from seeking out prostitutes at all (lest the prositute turns out to have been underage or one of the very tiny trafficked minority). 

Similarly with age of consent laws.  I’ve often read that the justification for an age of consent at 18 is that it makes it less likely that an older looking 14 or 15 year old will be (unwittingly) propositioned and seduced.  In fact, the true reason is that it makes it less likely that any man will dare try to pick up an 18 or 19 year old. 

An excellently (ironic) summary of Julie Bindel’s article on the Swedish government’s prostitution report : 

(she) immediately announced to the world that the law presents one great and unequivocal success against evil forces of patriarchy and male domination over women. and that’s how we stumble upon the greatest fan of snoop dogg among lesbian-feminists, julie bindel and her commentary “Legalising prostitution is not the answer”.
in the article (which by the way was published by the guardian on the same day as swedish report) our feminist diva provides her fans as well as other casual readers with her invaluable insights into the background and realities of work as a researcher in the context of prostitution and trafficking..

..without single qualm she then proceeds to mercilessly criticise, mock and sneer at all the pimps, traffickers, punters and at all other kinds of rapists who backed by hordes of ignorant academics dared to reject her holy principles and her sacred quest to crush the patriarchal oppression of women in prostitution..

..after cynically listing few of the numerous doubts expressed by opponents of the law she exaltedly shakes above her head 300 pages long copy of the Swedish report (even though she probably read no more than fifteen pages of its English summary) pointing at it as a solid and undeniable proof against all those of small faith and most certainly fable mind who expressed any doubts about the sexköpslagen.

Female Czech MPs pose for calender (keep ‘em on, keep ‘em on!)

The 2011 calendar features four women MPs from the Public Affairs party wearing little in the way of clothing in a series of images that dispatch the traditional image of staid and serious parliamentarians. The country returned its highest ever number of women MPs at the last general election.

These are the same MP’s who last year furiously vetoed a bravely progressive bill in the Czech parliament that would have lowered the age of consent (and criminal responsibility) from 15 to 14. 

Czech MP Calender Girl

No More Wanking in the Office! Sorry for the video quality, but if you like British humour, you should enjoy this.

Maybe that’s so.

But it’s also the case that the internet is giving unprecedented power to the increasingly dumbed down mob, who are free to dispense vigilante ‘justice’ on to any individuals who fall foul of their primitive moral sensibilites (and allowed, and often encouraged and manipulated to do so, by powerful vested interest groups).

Recently we witnessed this with the re-visiting of the historical cases of Roman Polanski and Jon Venables (a British man who had killed a younger child when he was a 10 year old boy).   These were in effect modern day public lynchings, performed largely via the technology of the internet, on people whose crimes, or alleged crimes, were committed decades ago.  And at least these people did, or were accused of doing unspeakably bad things (although Jon Venables was little more than a toddler himself and the Polanski affair, dating from a particularly anarchic period of the early free sexual market, was never a black and white moral case of ‘drugging and raping an innocent child’).

But what I’ve witnessed today takes this to a whole new level and has shaken my last vestiges of faith, respect, and hope for humanity.  What I’ve witnessed today is the first Western ’civilised’ equivalent of a girl being stoned to death.

And the girl is only 11 years old.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/7931577/viral-video-girl-under-police-protection

It seems that the pretty if rather foolish young girl, using the monikers ‘jessi slaughter’ and ‘kerligirl13′, participated in video chatrooms where she attracted the ire of the Sistaria dress code police, as well as pedocrites, for apparently wearing low cut tops that revealed her bra strap.  The spite and the ‘slut’ name calling continued until the girl posted a video on YouTube of herself making a tirade against her tormentors that was littered with bad language and childish threats (she is a fucking 11 year old for christ’s sake). 

That was the worst mistake that young Jessica ever made.  In what has quickly become the most extreme case ever of online bullying, one of her social networking accounts was hacked into and her home address and telephone number published on a notorious alternative internet forum.  Within hours, she was recieving dozens of phone calls, including death threats, as well as a fake phone call from a ‘police officer’.

Jessica posted another video on YouTube of herself in tears pleading for her tormentors to stop.  Unfortunately, her father makes an appearance, rather inarticulately threatening her bullies with legal action, something that’s only poured more fuel onto their spiteful fire.  That video has quickly gone viral and already spawned hundreds of vicious parodies, most often made by adult women, invariably ugly and in their late teens and early twenties.   The girl and her family are now under armed police protection.

Perhaps you are thinking ‘how does this story relate to anti-feminism?’.  Perhaps, or even probably, if you have reached this site via Googling for ‘anti-feminism’, you might be thinking the little whore is deserving everything she is getting.

Well, if that’s the case, I wish a thousand plagues upon your home.  It disturbs me to think I share DNA with you, let alone a political identity.  Even the most barbaric shit-hole Islamic countries under Sharia Law do not do this to 11 year old kids, and if they do, they certainly do not simultaneously pretend to be a society that has child protection as its number one priority.

I oppose feminism on the grounds that it hijacks and degrades both civilisation and morality as nothing more than a vehicle for the selfish simian reproductive interests of one particular group in society (middle-aged women).  Feminism, ostensibly about ending the ‘objectification’ of women as reproductive mechanisms, simply serves as an elevation of their own brood mare interests as all that is valuable and ethical in life.  This is why they care nothing for stopping websites that make money from videos of young children being bullied, and yet criminilize half the male population of the world who search for porn (and inevitably at some point click on an illegal picture of a cartoon ’17 year old’ smiling in a bikini).  This is why they have allowed a high-tech civilized secular society to morally regress to the point where an 11 year old girl can have her life destroyed for showing a bra-strap. 

And in this, conservatives (including ‘anti-feminist conservatives’) have been the sexual trade union’s most useful idiot allies.

A 29 year old post-peak fertility muslim woman explains to Islamaphobic white knights why she is against their attempts to ban the burqa (even though she detested the idea when she was a hot 18 year old – yes, neither she nor I should have to explain it anymore to enlightened readers of the antifeminist.com)  :

At the age of 18, the thought of covering my body in a shapeless black gown and hiding my face so that only my eyes would show was inconceivable. It was humiliating, violating, dehumanising….

…The uniform black costume has a charming egalitarianism about it, and is both a social and physical leveller. Once social status or physical beauty cannot be established, all sorts of hierarchies are flattened…

..Eye make-up and footwear took on extra significance. As the feet were the only part of the body one could legitimately flaunt, a good pedicure was not only necessary, it was an integral part of the ensemble. All of a woman’s sexuality resided in how she carried herself, and how groomed her extremities were. In that context, the outfit became empowering, enabling a reclamation of one’s sexuality by not fulfilling modern commercialised definitions of what makes a woman attractive….

…as a fashionable 29-year-old, I sometimes pop it on to go to the corner shop rather than show the world my tracksuit bottoms…

…I sincerely hope that no 18-year-old Muslim girl will ever arrive in the UK and be forced to take off her niqab.

Female Judge let’s Muslim mother walk free for murdering her sexually promiscous 14 year old daughter

CALGARY — Calgary mom Aset Magomadova doesn’t have to go to jail for strangling her promiscuous, 14-year-old daughter, a judge ruled Thursday.

Justice Sal LoVecchio said a non-custodial punishment would be sufficient for Magomadova’s killing of daughter Aminat.

LoVecchio sentenced the city woman to a three-year term of probation.

A feminist warning to little sluts everywhere.

Michel Houellebecq on just what drives the feminist bitterati :

I felt no desire for Catherine Lechardoy; I hadn’t the slightest wish to shaft her.  She was looking at me and smiling, drinking Cremant, trying her hardest to be brave ; nevertheless, I knew she really needed to be shafted.  That hole she had at the base of her belly must appear so useless to her; a prick can always be cut off, but how do you forget the emptiness of a vagina?

(extract from ‘Whatvever‘)

 Lionel Tiger on Sex and Rules

Lionel Tiger explains how differing male/female reproductive strategies account for our obsession with sexual morality :

Girl Get’s Beaten into Coma (NSFW – but safe for feminists)

What on earth is wrong with two girls fighting? Will their wombs drop? Do you think that only boys should fight? You don’t have any real arguments! Absolutely ridiculous. Besides, you can moderate any comments out- so you may have had hundreds of rational, well argued, legitimate comments, but you won’t have published any of them.

I’m not devoting an entire post to this feminist’s comments because they contain any semblance of logic or reason.  Rather, it is because they sickeningly highlight how little feminists care about the indisputably real and graphic abuse of children when it doesn’t limit their own adult sexual interests in a free sexual market.

A young girl, obviously being bullied, being beaten into what appears to be a coma whilst her schoolmates gather round cheering and recording it on their mobile phones, is a clear and transparent case of abuse. At least to normal, healthy, non-feminists. The fact that those children then upload the video to an American website that openly makes money from its millions of morality lite viewers clicking on advertisements from American companies (often including Google Adsense) is indescribably sick.  The fact that child protection societies such as Barnardos, the NSPCC, and ECAP do NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, to stop it, speaks volumes for what they are.  Middle-aged feminist sexual pressure groups that do not care in the least about stopping real child abuse, but which are only interested in 1/ limiting competition to themselves from teenage girls in a free sexual market 2/ making themselves lots of money and 3/ weakening the family unit and demonizing men.

One thing I do want to make clear though is that I’m in no way suggesting that videos of young girls being beaten half to death for video entertainment are in any way worse than those featuring boys.  In fact, if anything good comes out of these videos it is in revealing how infinitely much more evil and vicious girls are than boys and how the greatest threat to the welfare of young girls is not boys, nor even ’online predators’, but other teenage girls.

In fact, on these morally depraved sites, boy fights are much rarer, and most often much less violent.  Boys seem to know when to stop.  Boys don’t seem to actually want to kill each other over who said what about who on MySpace.  Boys don’t seem to gang up and bully and beat into comas smaller, weaker boys.  However, the very worst are just as indescribably evil :

http://www.mentalzero.com/Bathroom-Beatdown-Leaves-Nerdy-Kid-Bleeding-1049.html

I also don’t wish to ignore the fact that most of the viewers of these sites are probably male.  Men are programmed to enjoy watching violence, just as those who aren’t homosexual, or attracted to small children, naturally enjoy looking at fertile teenage girls.  The relevant question is why do female dominated child protection charities focus only on criminilizing men world-wide for merely looking at a picture of a sexy 17 year old girl in a thong, and yet completely ignore websites that make money from showing graphic physical abuse of children (in which the corrolation between ‘the demand feeds the supply’ is far more obvious)? 

If I have to spell out the answer one more time, I may as well give up.

Here is a suggestion to the Men’s rights community.  Let’s make a concerted  campaign of stopping these schoolchild fight video sites.  Let’s show that we, unlike feminists and their fake child protection charities, actually care about putting an end to the indisputable and obvious abuse and exploitation of children.  If they are unwilling to stop the genuine abuse of girls, then we sure as hell will stop the abuse and exploitation of boys.

Hey, wait a moment.  I forgot myself there.  95% of MRAs are too busy trying to prove that as many women break feminist sex laws as do men. And to criminilize pre-marital sex.  And to tell boys (and girls – we believe in equality) that they’ll go to hell for masturbating.

 Forget it.  Let’s crack open the beer and watch two teenage Russian girls go at it – go at it in the sense of beating the other into a coma… obviously. This is the American way. This is the British way.  This is the feminist way. This is the Men’s Rights way.

Insane brutal kicks to the face leave a girl helpless

But what really angers me is the constant media portrayal, and general assumption, of the burqa ban being something championed and carried through by French feminists. Is this really the case? A recent opinion poll found that over 80% of French people were in favour of a ban. In fact a majority in most of the European nations surveyed were in favour of a ban in their own countries. Interestingly, there was ‘little or no variation between the genders‘ in the level of support. Now, given that we know only too well how prone women are to vote for their own selfish gender interests, it does seem a little surprising that if this is about the oppression of women that there is no variation between genders. It should also be noted that the socialist opposition party abstained from voting in favour of the ban.

Isn’t it a little more likely, given the general deafening silence of feminists towards Islam, that this is all about Sarkozy and his center-right party appealing to the ‘Islamaphobic’ fear that the white population in France have of the rapidly accelerating demographic shift between themselves and their un-integrated muslim minority? This ban is about preventing white working-class votes falling into the hands of the far right and, in itself,  likely no more to do with feminists standing up against the Islamic ‘oppression of women’ than is the recent Swiss ban on building minarets.

Don’t believe me?  Well why don’t you listen to the voice of third wave feminism herself?

Jessica Valenti on the French Burka Ban :

Banning the burqa doesn’t further women’s rights – it limits them. Now, obviously there’s a difference in Islamic women’s dress from the hijab to the burqa – but legally banning any of them erases all agency from Muslim women.

Is anyone really surprised by this?  Surprised by the fact that a feminist who wants men caged for having sex with love dolls is opposed to a law that increases men’s buying options in a sexual market?

Well, actually, depressingly, I think most MRA’s are still surprised by this.  But thankfully, not anti-feminists with intelligence.

An adequate discussion of men-women in the Islamic and Hebraic traditions would require a whole book, so I limit myself here to one sentance : Islamic garb, like other phenomena such as foot binding and female circumcision, is as much to do with female-female competition as it is with men jealously guarding their women.

(a footnote in the forward of Steve Moxon’s ‘The Woman Racket’)

Pretty girl get’s choked and humiliated by feminist school bully

Warning – very disturbing video

Now, the supposed oppression of women under Islam is not the only thing that feminists are mysteriously silent about.  Whilst feminist sexual pressure groups such as the NSPCC, posing as child protection charities, are busy organizing massive freebie conferences from Brazil to Japan, dedicated to ridding the world of the tragic scourge of 17 year old Lithuanian girls happily showing themselves on webcam, another internet phenomena has grown up in the last few years – the YouTube bitch fight.  And strangely, whilst those who profess to care about ‘children’ will stop at nothing to prevent nubile 16 and 17 year old girls from freely giving sexual enjoyment to men, somehow, the existance of thousands of online videos showing children as young as 5 beating, bullying, and maiming each other has somehow slipped under their collective radar. 

Slipped under their radar?  WTF am I talking about?  Dozens, if not hundreds of websites (mostly openly based in America – a country which locks up teenagers for ‘sexting’ each other) feature hardly anything but these horrific videos.  And the sole purpose of these websites is to make money from the graphic and undeniable, but non-sexual, abuse and traumatisation of children.  In fact, judging from the invariable calls of ‘this is going on YouTube’ intermingled with the screams to ‘fuck her up Ashley’, there is no doubt that if these websites didn’t exist (i.e. were shut down by the FBI after being lobbied to do so by ‘child protection’ groups) then thousands of young children wouldn’t have had their trauma viewed by millions, if not avoided altogether in the first place.

But of course feminsts and their sexual pressure groups have no interest in stopping the abuse of children. Their only desire and motivation is in limiting competition to themselves and their female supporters by preventing teenage girls from entering the free sexual market that their feminist predecessors were only too happy to proclaim back in the 60′s and 70′s.

Two girls, who appear to be no more than 10 years old, fight each other, apparently spurred on by adults, in a YouTube video that was uploaded over 6 months ago and has thus far received 7,000 viewers.  5 people have upvoted the video, 2 have downvoted it…presumably because they feel it is not violent enough.

If any feminists reading this (and I know most of my readers are feminists) can give a satisfactory explanation as to why NOT A SINGLE feminist or A SINGLE ONE of their sickening child protection charities are campaigning against these videos, and yet it has been necessary (and easy) to introduce world-wide legislation to imprison any man who looks at a picture of a 17 year old girl in a bikini, I hereby promise to abandon this website and become a committed supporter of feminism henceforth.

The silence is deafening.

The flames of hell are not good for the skin.

Ministers have vowed to press ahead with plans to give anonymity to men accused of rape despite a cross-party campaign led by a new Tory MP.

Members from all sides of the House said the Coalition’s plans not to name men until they are charged would deter victims from coming forward to the police.

But junior justice minister Crispin Blunt yesterday confirmed he was pressing ahead with the controversial proposals, which were imposed on the Tories by the Lib Dems as part of the coalition agreement.

Louise Bagshawe, a successful chick-lit author who became a Tory MP at the last election, told the Commons that by ‘ singling out rape in this way ministers are sending a negative signal about women and those who accuse men of rape’.

SOURCE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293169/MP-Louise-Bagshawe-leads-rebellion-anonymity-rape-defendants.html#ixzz0tOkFq6Ni

The attempts by the Liberal Democrats to give men accused of rape anonymity are looking increasingly fragile.  The rebellion, led by a CONSERVATIVE female MP tells us a lot about female politics…as well as confirming Arthur Schopenhauer’s ‘misogynistic’ observation that ‘the fundamental defect of a woman is a lack of a sense of justice’.

Whether they are representatives of ‘the left’ or ‘the right’, female politicians invariably speak for the interests of women. On this issue, only one question is relevant for them. Will granting anonymity to men accused of rape increase female sexual power, or decrease it?  No brainer.  It will decrease it, and therefore every woman MP, no matter what supposed party political allegiance, will fight against it.  Men’s rights? Human rights?…pffffff.

And again, to the deluded majority of the men’s rights movement who assume that our cause is synonymous with conservatism – this bill (to grant men anonymity) is being re-introduced by the liberals.  When British women were granted anonymity in rape trials several decades ago, the accused men were given the same protection.  It was the CONSERVATIVE party who changed this in 1982, allowing hundreds of men’s lives to be ruined by false allegations in the years since.

As you would expect, the False Rape Society is doing an excellent job in covering developments in what might turn out to be a defining moment for the future of men’s rights.

If you live in the UK, please write to (e-mail) your MP stating the case for anonymity for accused men : Write to Them

Steve Moxon’s The Woman Racket – looking forward to reading this

I’ve read a few anti-feminist books, and I think I’m aware of the existance of most of the few that I haven’t yet got round to, but this one has somehow slipped under my radar.  Until, that is, a loyal reader by the name of ‘Highwayman’ informed me of it in a comment left here a few days ago.  I can only think that the reasons it doesn’t get mentioned a lot in the MRM community are similar to the relative neglect of Neil Lyndon’s classic ‘No More Sex War’ :

1. It’s by a British author.
2. It’s pro sex (or at least against the feminist rape of male sexuality).
3. The author has probably never had a wet dream involving Sarah Palin.

Anyway, here’s the Highlander’s excellent comments on the book – comments that prompted me to order it from Amazon the same night and have left me drooling in anticipation at reading one of those rare books that might affect my entire intellectual landscape.  Hopefully it lives up to my expectations and I’ll try to put up a review here very soon.

I highly recommend reading the chapter on prostitution in Steve Moxon’s book The Woman Racket. He really tears into the arguments that feminists and others try to use to suppress prostitution and to punish the men who patron sex care workers.

His theory as to what motivates people to oppose men patroning prostitutes is interesting. He belives it is caused by the “cheater detection mechanism” whereby people become outraged by what they PERCEIVE is a lower status male having access to females that his position in the dominance hierachy would not allow him to if he were not to patron prostitutes. This could explain why some men are also opposed to men seeing sex care workers because they might fear that if lower status males can “cheat the system” then perhaps the entire dominance heirarchy could be undermined. Of course it could also be that some men oppose the patronage of sex care workers because they believe that a deity commands them to or because they are trying to suck it up to women too.

BTW according to research men who patron sex care workers come from all varieties of socio-economic backgrounds and even if some unattractive or “lower status” men are able to find some sexual fulfillment through patroning sex care workers…good for them I say!

Bernard Chapin, author of one of the classic anti-feminist works himself, has compiled this excellent Men’s Rights Book List

Also check out this classic old skool Chapin’s Inferno :

 Brock Lesnar and Kurt Angle Fight Over Emma Watson

You see old femiwhores – you could introduce the death penalty for glancing in the street at a girl under 21 and castrated bitch MRAs might be the first to applaud you. But you know what? Ultra alpha males like Brock and Kurt would still fight over who caught the pretty jailbait’s eye.