Guardian on Paedophilia and AVfM on is the Mutiliation and Torture of Men by Feminists Misandry?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light
In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament’s criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple. “Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult,” it read, “result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.”
It is difficult today, after the public firestorm unleashed by revelations about Jimmy Savile and the host of child abuse allegations they have triggered, to imagine any mainstream group making anything like such a claim. But if it is shocking to realise how dramatically attitudes to paedophilia have changed in just three decades, it is even more surprising to discover how little agreement there is even now among those who are considered experts on the subject.
Of course no new scientific or independent research has emerged in the decades since to justify these changes in attitudes – just increasingly desperate paedohysteria from femihags across the world in the context of an increasingly free sexual market in which they cannot hope to compete with nubile teenage girls. In other words, a clear and unambiguous crime against humanity, or rather, against men.
Disturbingly, while the left-wing feminist Guardian can admit this, the men’s rights movement appears to be having trouble even accepting the idea that the mutilation and torture of ‘paedophiles’ – defined thus by feminists, under feminist laws that clearly bring a sexual advantage to themselves and which supposedly ‘protect’ young people from harm of which there is not even any evidence for – is a men’s rights issue.
Apparently, after much reflection, and very grudgingly, Lucian Valsan thinks that it is – but only because it applies to men only. Equal mutilation for all! In fact, many of his readers seem even to baulk at that suggestion, instead musing on whether the phrase ‘chemical castration’ is ‘over emotional’ and should be replaced with ‘chemically induced impotence’ :
http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/is-chemical-castration-misandric/
Is the men’s rights movement really now the first political rights movement in history to support the torture and mutiliation of members of the group it supposedly represents by the group it is supposedly fighting against?
These guys are starting to sound almost like the Male Auxillary of the STU. I’m almost wondering now how many of them actually fantasize about eliminating male sexual competition in the same way their neo-feminist cohorts have been eliminating female competition.
After all, there are only so many of the ‘lovely sheilas’ to go around…
Eric
6 Jan 13 at 11:53 pm
It’s also interesting that (I haven’t been there – I remember from what theantifeminist said about it yesterday, under the post ‘Bernard Chapin: Shaming MRA Thugs), that Dr F is all for this mutilation of his fellow (sexually normal) men: that he, with his femi-serving, indoctrinated mind: considers to be ‘paedophiles’.
This is the same Dr F who recently wrote in a reply to the skanky, tattooed, fugly and trailer-park dwelling femRA: TyphonBlue: how beautiful and sexy he thinks she is…(Excuse me while I go and puke).
The disturbing thing is that many mRAs look up to this mangina (and others like him) as some sort of men’s right’s authority or even ‘expert’ on men’s issues; when he’s clearly just some lonely old desperado loser. (Possibly residing in his mothers basement – like manboobz says of all MRAs).
And people such as HIM could soon have a say (well, they would at least like to have some influence) on whether or not thousands of men will even be able to have sex, based on his ‘expertise’ and ‘expert advice’!
(In reality: On HIS paedocrisy)!
Alan Vaughn
7 Jan 13 at 12:44 am
Alan:
Well, this same gaggle of Manginas today announced the addition of yet another ‘lovely sheila’ to their team: an appropriately named femiserative blogger named ‘Judgybitch.’
Here’s a couple of cool snippets from Judgybitch’s blog:
“Sluts, especially the teenaged ones, aren’t sluts because they like it. They are sluts because they will do ANYTHING to get attention from a male.”
It seems to me that lowering the AOC might rectify that situation. But Judgybitch doesn’t think so:
“The tragedy is that what sad little sluts REALLY want from a man is love; and don’t quite understand that the attention they get from men isn’t love and very likely never will be. The more guys they have sex with, the less likely it is that any man will want to have a relationship with them.”
To solve this dilemma, of course, men need to marry bitter femihags and become role models for these wayward daughters:
“A girl who grows up with a Daddy doesn’t have a hole in her heart that she needs to fill.”
I would suggest that maybe if these judgemental bitches would stop chasing thugs all over the planet, that would be a much better role model for young girls when it comes to chosing men. However, the new ‘sheilas’ disagree. On raising sons, she says:
“When he gets to be a teenager and spends a lot of time in his room, let your husband show him the best porn sites. He probably knows some good ones.”
This stellar advice following a long article describing men as half-civilized neanderthals who think with their dicks. And BTW, Judgybitch also thinks that little boys wearing dresses, make-up and otherwise acting like little girls is perfectly alright.
Anybody who wants to wade through this slop can find it all at:
http://www.judgybitch.com
The once ‘MRM flagship’ is starting to look more like the all-female submarine Obama recently commissioned!
Eric
8 Jan 13 at 1:11 am
Eric,
Well, I’ll take your word for it, thus needn’t bother clicking your link to her blog.
I burst out laughing when reading your remark,
The AVfm ‘persons’ would surely have to agree with that, since Dean
ExcrementEsmay advocates that we’re all victims of the matriarchy: If it’s okay to be (feminist defined) victims of child-sexual abuse (from adult men OR WOMEN), we might just as well ‘look the part’ and be feminine as well! (Look like what manginas should look like: the little girls that they really are)!Most of the commentators there would be or, should be: quite happy with the idea of raising their sons as feminized sissies, to grow-up into total manginas; since that’s what they are themselves…
I don’t know why they don’t just open the door and leave it open for all their friends from Jezabel.com and the RadFemHub or even manboobz and others, to join them in their ‘merry misandry’ around the paedophile bonfire…
Alan Vaughn
8 Jan 13 at 4:38 am
Alan:
True—and the Abuse Industry will also need a further supply of ‘victims’. After those teenaged boys have good porn surfing sessions with their dads they can claim ‘abuse’ later on.
I have a feeling that Judgybitch is going to win a Paedocrite Award at some point in the future. She’s already close, all she has to do is keeping talking!
Eric
9 Jan 13 at 1:46 am
Alan:
It was also noticable how vulgar and profanity-laden this blog was. This seems to be a noticable trend among the ‘sheilas’: almost all of them fit the coarse, unfeminine, abrasive Ameroskank archetype. Really none of them seem even to advocate for anything like traditionally feminine behavior.
All I can guess is that the AVfM jesters are so low on the desirability scale themselves—or have been away from female contact for so long—that the ‘sheilas’ easily wrapped them around their fingers. If these guys run true to type, there’ll be an outburst of paedohysteria and xenophobia from them within a few months…
Eric
10 Jan 13 at 4:17 am
Actually, Human Stupidity keeps reporting on mainly old research, like the rind study who was condemned by unanimous vote by the US senate and the US congress.
Later, a feminist indoctrinated researcher accidentally stumbled over the truth. Her book caused me to write a still on-going series of
articles about the Child Sex Trauma Myth (#1 disclaimer,#2, #3, #4)
There are a few more rare pieces of research, but they are very rare indeed
Human-Stupidity.com
10 Jan 13 at 9:14 pm
I just read the guardian article you cited.
Amazingly correct and open-minded reporting.
Look at this commentator. It seems there still are a few sensible people around (thought they seem not to be at r/mensrights or avoiceformen)
feministe
03 January 2013 8:56 AMLink to this comment
Recommend
280
http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment-permalink/20353604
Good article. It seems to be rare to see rational argument rather than sloganising or outright hysteria when talking about these matters.
Reminds me of an interesting suggestion from Dutch academics that I recently read about. Like so many law and order issues the UK seems to have a completely different public debate from the rest of Europe.
‘Virtual child porn could reduce child abuse’
Monday 29 October 2012
Paedophiles could be given ‘virtual child pornography’ in order to reduce instances of child abuse and the market for child porn, two sexologists say in Monday’s Trouw.
Erik van Beek and Rik van Lunsen, who treat men with paedophile tendancies, say allowing paedophiles access to material which did not involve children being abused would give such men an outlet.
‘Hopefully, this would mean real child pornography involving child abuse would become less popular,’ Van Beek is quoted as saying.
Van Lunsen says there is academic evidence the ban on child pornography has led to an increase in child abuse because paedophile leanings can only rarely be changed.
Virtual child porn has been banned in the Netherlands since 2002. Only one in 20 users of child pornography may actually go on to physically abuse children, Van Beek told the paper.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/10/virtual_child_porn_could_reduc.php
Human-Stupidity.com
10 Jan 13 at 9:21 pm
@Human-Stupidity
Which is in a nutshell what that article alludes to and of course what this blog exists for: To point out to the brainwashed, paedohysterical public that the sexual trade union is NOT interested in protecting children at all.
They are however, very determined to protect their own rapidly falling sexual market-place value that those HOT (young adult) girls, (young adults they have redefined with their pc manipulated language as ‘children’) seriously threatens, by making them untouchable to normal men by whipping up hysteria based on nothing but jealousy and myths about ‘paedophilia’ and ‘child-sexual abuse’; then introducing Draconian laws with ridiculously severe penalties, based upon the same myths and paedohysteria…
Feminists are generally man-hating lesbians and anti-family (not at all maternally swayed) anyway, so WHY would they care at all about children?
Just read theantifeminist’s essay on the NSPCC and you’ll soon see how feminists USE children as a disguise for their real agenda..
And of course read Angry Harry’s analysis for more detail on the ‘child protection’ RACKET that it is!
Alan Vaughn
11 Jan 13 at 12:43 am
„Apparently, after much reflection, and very grudgingly, Lucian Valsan thinks that it is – but only because it applies to men only. Equal mutilation for all!” – Ok, first of all, I did not say „equal mutilation for all” – I just pointed towards an obvious double standard, in which male pedophiles are punished (with severe cruelty, if you ask me) and female pedophiles walk Scott free.
Moreover, you do not make it clear where have I stated that I „support the torture and mutiliation of members of the group it supposedly represents by the group it is supposedly fighting against” ?! I never said that. You, sir, are making a straw-man.
Yes, I am no fan of pedophiles (male or female), but I am no fan of cruel punishments and misandric laws either. What or where is the problem in this position?
I am asking solely with regards to me, since this article contains my name in the title.
I know that questionable things have been said on AVfM by certain contributors and, quite frankly, I am now at the point of disagreeing with at least 35% of what is being published there. But this does not change the fact that what I wrote in that article is true.
Lucian Vâlsan
23 Feb 13 at 2:57 am
To most of us here, Lucian, it would be obvious that men being mutilated for breaking feminist laws is a men’s rights issue, whether or not women are also being mutiliated under those same laws.
I was referring more to some of the AVfM commentators who appeared to sympathise with the mutilation and torture of ‘paedophiles’, and even went as far as expressing their demands that ‘less emotional’ terminology be employed – such as ‘hormonal rebalancing’ or some crap like that. But yes, it could be implied from your lack of outright condemnation of castration itself, and rather objection solely on the grounds that female ‘paedophiles’ are not similarly mutiliated, that you could in principle support the mutiliation of men by feminists (so long as the occasional female teacher is also mutilated for giving a 17 year old student a blowjob).
I’ve already answered that above, but just to articulate one aspect of it more clearly – the definition of a paedophile has been inflated and abused by feminists with a clear sexual and financial self-interest in mind. The term paedophile refers to somebody with a psycho-sexual obsession for pre-pubescent children -i.e., in today’s world, somebody with a sexual preference for children under the age of 10 or 11. This has been inflated by feminists to cover normal male sexuality, even to the point of jailing men as paedophiles for looking at pictures online of 30 year old women who might look like 17 year old ‘children’ (and bear in mind that most females have completed puberty and physical growth by the age of 16). This is something that clearly AVfM, and in particular Paul Elam, supports or even wants extended further.
Most of these ‘paedophiles’ in prison will be men who have had sexual relationships with entirely willing teenage girls, or increasingly more likely, simply have looked at sexy pictures of teenage girls online. They are in prison because of misandric laws, and to be honest, if you deny that then you are most likely simply screaming at yourself, to Paul Elam, to others readers, and any FBI or ‘monitors’ reading these sites, that you personally are in no way a ‘paedophile’ – recall your absurd boast on AVfW that you even preferred having sex with adults when you were 14 years old (do you accept, by the way, that you were sexually abused and have been left traumatised and fucked up for life by those sexual encounters?).
theantifeminist
23 Feb 13 at 6:59 am
„do you accept, by the way, that you were sexually abused and have been left traumatised and fucked up for life by those sexual encounters?” – I never said that and I do not consider myself a victim in this regard.
From what I understand, this is more an attack on the commentators and on Paul Elam – even though my name is mentioned.
Yes, I know there is big disagreement between Paul Elam and some MRAs (including me) with regards to age of consent laws.
In my country, the age of consent is 15 and, to be honest, I think the law is OK like it is now.
I have seen this line of argumentation (like yours) on Eivind Berge’s essays and, albeit I do agree that definition of paedophilia has been corrupted by the feminists (just like the definition of “equality” and other words), I do not agree with lines of argumentation claiming that pedophilia does not exist.
Lucian Vâlsan
23 Feb 13 at 3:38 pm
So do you think that the age of consent should be raised to 15 from 13 in Spain, and from 14 to 15 in Germany and Italy? And do you think, for example, that Spanish men’s rights supporters should actively campaign to raise the age of consent to protect boys from sexual abuse, just as Spanish feminists are campaigning to raise the age of consent in order to protect girls (and, ostensibly, boys)?
Now you’re making a straw man argument. Nobody here thinks paedophilia doesn’t exist. I explained what the (historical and non-feminist) definition of paedophilia is. You’re also being devious in implying that as few would have a serious problem with the age of consent being 15 (in terms of it being too high), then age of consent issues aren’t a men’s rights concern. I don’t know what the present situation in Romania is, but as your country is now a member of the EU, Romania has a legal obligation to introduce criminal offences relating to sex with ‘children’ above that age (for example, ‘grooming’ laws).
If you think the age of consent of 15 is ‘o.k’ then presumably you agree that it is a serious men’s rights issue that feminists have introduced laws that allow men to be imprisoned for merely looking at sexual pictures of 17 year old girls (who may be their actual legal girlfriends) online, or even women or cartoon figures who ‘look like’ 17 year olds?
theantifeminist
23 Feb 13 at 4:20 pm
„So do you think that the age of consent should be raised to 15 from 13 in Spain, and from 14 to 15 in Germany and Italy?”
No, I don’t think they should be raised.
I think you’re missing a point here. I don’t know about Spain, but in Germany, albeit the official age of Consent is 14, if you look through the other laws, the de facto age of consent is 18. And I agree with you that this should be changed – first of all for the reason of consistency, since we can’t have two ages of consent in the same law. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Germany )
“And do you think, for example, that Spanish men’s rights supporters should actively campaign to raise the age of consent to protect boys from sexual abuse, just as Spanish feminists are campaigning to raise the age of consent in order to protect girls (and, ostensibly, boys)?” – No, I don’t think that.
Moreover, we should go back to biology. There is empiric evidence that shows that both boys and girls reach puberty younger in warm zones and older on cold zones.
In Spain (or Romania, my country) puberty is reached generally at the age of 13-14. However, in Norway, puberty is ON AVERAGE reached at the age of 16-17.
And the laws are in many cases, if you look at the world in its totality, are correlated with this observable fact.
“Romania has a legal obligation to introduce criminal offences relating to sex with ‘children’ above that age (for example, ‘grooming’ laws).” – I know, and I agree with you that consensual sex with a 16 year old (hence, a person over the legal age of consent) should not be an offense and I agree that the EU is wrong about this.
“If you think the age of consent of 15 is ‘o.k’ then presumably you agree that it is a serious men’s rights issue that feminists have introduced laws that allow men to be imprisoned for merely looking at sexual pictures of 17 year old girls (who may be their actual legal girlfriends) online, or even women or cartoon figures who ‘look like’ 17 year olds?” – I do agree that it is a serious issue period. Not necessarily a strictly “men’s rights issue” – since my girlfriend when I was 14 was 18 so she could also have been affected by this regulation.
I also do agree that the ban on porn that depicts people that “look like minors” (though they might be 19, for instance) is a hysterical regulation originating from feminist bullshit.
However, this issue originates not necessarily from feminist bullcrap (though undoubtedly they now dominate the narrative) – but it originates more from the lower side of the human brain (the primitive side) that tends to have an emotional reaction to child sexual abuse (be it real or just alleged).
But yes, in general lines most of the “child porn” regulation are bullshit and I am convinced by that after reading this article a few months ago: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/01/14/130114fa_fact_aviv?currentPage=all
But then again, from what you’re saying, this is more an attack on Paul Elam’s beliefs on this subject (beliefs that I do not share). And since this is the case, I don’t see why you trashed my name into it.
Lucian Vâlsan
24 Feb 13 at 8:20 pm
Lucian:
Just out of curiosity: you say that you don’t share Paul Elam’s views on the subject (and they aren’t just his, but many of the editors there as well)—what do think the reaction would be at AVfM if you were to publish an article there explaining why you believe that the AOC laws are misandric?
Eric
25 Feb 13 at 4:14 am
Well, I will do that the moment I will have enough evidence to support this. And I am in the process of doing that since I discovered that story from the newyorker.
In almost every article I publish there I am challenging the views of many from there regarding the fact that modern day political militant feminism is the result of cultural Marxism and the Left in general. How do I do that? By providing more and more examples (mostly from Europe since Europe is my area) and evidence.
Moreover, as I stated in the previous comment, I do not believe that this is necessarily a misandry issue but rather an anti-normal sexual behavior issue – since women can also be affected. So this is a touchy subject (regardless of ones opinion on the topic) so I’d better have enough evidence when I’ll rock the boat.
Even this mild article of mine, that you are criticizing here, had an enormous effect on that community. Nobody on AVfM thought about the chemical castration laws as being misandric before I asked the uncomfortable question.
Minds CAN be changed, but it takes time and patience. And I am willing to give it time after placing the seed of doubt.
Let’s see how it goes with my Voice of Europe radio show and, if it goes well, I will make show dedicated to this issue (probably in late April if it all goes well) and you are invited to join in and state your thoughts.
I am a libertarian conservative and I regard both AVfM and the MRM in general as a tool to make a difference on individual level. At least 50 people changed their minds or gave it a second thought and now they are not regarding anymore the chemical castration as a “normality” but as a barbaric practice infringing on people’s rights, particularly men. So, from where I’m standing, I made a difference.
You can’t change everyone and some people are simply refusing to see the evidence – feminists have been doing it since forever.
Anyway, the only reason I came on this thread is to ask you why have you decided to trash my name without even asking me what do I think. You basically jumped into conclusions. It’s your right to do what you want on your website, but I just think it’s uncivil. You might have had an ally in me.
You have my e-mail, try to communicate with me when you think I’m in the wrong or you think there’s something I have forgotten. Quote mining and attacking the commentators (as if I can control what they say) will not help anyone in the debate.
Have a nice day.
P.S.: I like that you’re using a template made by a Romanian guy whose name is the same with mine and whom I happen to know (Lucian E. Marin)
Lucian Vâlsan
25 Feb 13 at 4:55 am
Lucian Valsan said:
“However, in Norway, puberty is ON AVERAGE reached at the age of 16-17.”
This is blatant nonsense. It certainly does not fit my experience and not even the most rabid feminist supporters of age of consent around here make that claim. According to the Norwegian Wikipedia article on puberty, the usual age of reaching puberty is 12-13 years for girls and 14-15 for boys. It also says that for both sexes it can vary from 9-15, so 16-17 would be highly abnormal and I have never seen anyone reach puberty that late.
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pubertet
Eivind Berge
25 Feb 13 at 9:45 am
@Eivind Berge
“This is blatant nonsense.”…
Thanks for clearing that one up Eivind. I’m sure I would not be the only reader on this blog who seriously doubted that claim along with a lot of what he recently claims to oppose, or views he says he challenges.
Fuck me… It doesn’t matter if it affects women or fucking baby kittens for that matter.
Whatever way he ‘dresses it up’ it IS a MENs RIGHTS ISSUE. Why can’t he and his girlfriends over at A Voice for mangina’s and the rest of the ‘manosphere’ just cut the bullshit and accept that it is?
They’re just too frightened of that dreaded ‘p’ word to dare say anything…
And that’s exactly the way the femihags want them to be.
Alan Vaughn
25 Feb 13 at 12:17 pm
I don’t know about Spain, but in Germany, albeit the official age of Consent is 14, if you look through the other laws, the de facto age of consent is 18.
You’re right. In fact when it comes to prostitution, the actual AOC in Germany is 21 (no prostitutes under 21).
Such confusion only emphasises the need for a clear MRA stance on the subject. Such a stance should aim at furthering men’s rights and liberties – not at maximising imprisonment rates.
jack
25 Feb 13 at 1:00 pm
I accept that you have your hands effectively tied at AVfM Lucien, and at least you have introduced the criminalistion of male sexuality there (the very day you published the article on the proposed Icelandic ban on porn, I’d written a draft article pointing out that a search for ‘porn’ on AVfM came up with zero results). To be fair to Paul Elam, he may have brought you in for that very reason, as well as to offset accusations of American bias (contrary to what some readers have said here, I’m sure Elam does visit here occasionally, and is aware of the criticism we have been directing against him and his site).
To be honest though, after the treatment of Angry Harry, I’ve totally given up on AVfM. Stray ever so slightly off Paul’s limits, and you’ll find yourself unceremoniously dumped like Harry, and the same goes for Steve Moxon or anyone else who tries to introduce some STU issues to AVfM.
It is simply unhealthy now to have the men’s rights cause pooled so heavily in the hands of one man and resource. Paul Elam has done a hell of a lot of good, but it’s a pretence to claim that the recent growth of the MRM hasn’t been inevitable. Furthermore, a lot of the recent interest in men’s rights and AVfM in particular has come from the backlash against the UofT’s treatment of Warren Farrell – who were persecuting him for questioning the incest taboo. Which completely gives the lie to the claim that any questioning of feminst child abuse dogmas would be suicide for the movement.
I do find this claim absurd, and it just highlights the danger of promoting the ‘female paedophile’ hysteria. It is simply not part of normal female sexuality to lust after teenage boys in the way it is for men to find teen girls attractive. If nothing else, boys mature later than girls. Most 14 year old girls these days are almost fully developed and have bigger breasts than their mothers. Most 14 year old boys, on the other hand, have barely begun shaving (if at all).
What will happen if we succeed in our Men’s Human Rights Movement goal of ensuring that females recieve the same draconian punishments as men for screwing teenagers? A lot less women screwing teenagers. You won’t get any fewer men doing the same, given that they are already being punished enough. Most of these female college teachers sucking off their students probably only do so because they think the law doesn’t apply to them. So what will the upshot be? Just prisons full of male sex offenders, and the newspapers full of stories of male ‘paedophiles’ (and less and less female examples). in other words, even more hatred and suspicion of men and men only as potential paedophiles.
You still seem to miss the essential point – men being criminalized and punished under feminist laws are a men’s rights issue, even if women recive the same unfair treatment. There is no such thing as equality of injustice, at least it shouldn’t be a politcal and moral goal.
Yes, I agree, but I still feel you pushed the ‘no fan of paedophiles/I’m not a paedophile’ a bit more than was necessary, as well underplaying the fact that the mutiliation of men under feminist laws is simply wrong in itself (see my point above).
Yes, I agree again. And I’m not expecting AVfM to publish any time soon articles on the injustice of ‘child porn’ laws or demanding that the age of consent be lowered. However, the actual promotion and validation of the feminist abuse industry is unforgiveable.
O.K, I accept that it was unfair to do that, and I’ve removed your name from the title of this article and the url, as I see that a Google of your name turns up this piece on the first page, and I had no intention to ‘Google Bomb’ you. I won’t change your name from the content itself however, as you did after all write the article at AVfM. If I’m being unfair to you, people can quite easily see that as I posted the link to the article.
theantifeminist
25 Feb 13 at 1:02 pm
I have to agree. I haven’t noticed any difference in the onset of puberty by climate. I know in the UK girls must be starting puberty at 10 or 11 these days. My local swimming baths are often used by groups of primary school children (so no older than 10 or 11) and when the oldest groups come in, over half of the girls have clearly started growing breasts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4530743.stm
theantifeminist
25 Feb 13 at 1:13 pm
Note how the above BBC* article is quick to blame “precocious puberty” on everything from DDT to pollution to excessive calories. Anything or anyone except Mother Nature.
On another note: the word puberty comes from latin “puber” which means “adult” (not “child”). Basically, puberty is latin for “adulthood”.
*British Bullshitting Corporation
jack
25 Feb 13 at 4:16 pm
Jack says: “British Bullshitting Corporation”
) Ha, ha – I love this name. Should use it more often.
Eivind Berge says: “According to the Norwegian Wikipedia article on puberty, the usual age of reaching puberty is 12-13 years for girls and 14-15 for boys.” – Well, first of all, I said “puberty is reached” (meaning it’s done and full sexual maturity is reached) not “puberty commences”. From your article: “i norske klima oftest i 12-13 års alderen og puberteten varer i 2-3 år. Mange fysiske og psykiske forandringer skjer i denne perioden:” – So it lasts fort 2-3 years – which means girls reach sexual maturity ON AVERAGE at the age of 16, which is exactly what I said.
Lucian Vâlsan
25 Feb 13 at 6:05 pm
More like you’re grasping at straws, evident by your lack of response to the more relevant points that were raised by theantifeminist. After the correction by Eivind to your relatively trivial (but incorrect) claim of puberty being influenced by latitude or climate, which despite being refuted, you are still trying to uphold this nonsense argument by playing with words. To most people it means what Eivind said: ‘blatant nonsense’…
Alan Vaughn
26 Feb 13 at 12:49 am
Alan:
That’s true, and it dovetails into the reply Rookh wrote to the ‘WiseMisogyny’ video.
No less a feminist than Andrea Dworkin admitted that gender polarity was the main obstacle to feminism; and that equality alone was not enough. That’s what I see the femihags at AVfM promoting: equality WITHOUT polarity. The lesbian presence there is no accident; and they are no allies of men, regardless of how much ‘equality’ they preach.
Eric
26 Feb 13 at 1:37 am
Jack:
I can’t imagine why the AOC has historically always been around 12-13, if puberty wasn’t always common at that age.
It has to be the Anglosphere’s hopelessly dumbed-down educational system that allows the BBC to get away with saying things like this.
Eric
26 Feb 13 at 1:41 am
Great you managed to lure Lucian Vâlsan here to your site, antifeminist.
Lucian, you would be very welcome to comment on Human-Stupidity.com in the categories teenage sexuality and child porn
I would love to see your comments, but I suggest you use another anonymous nick name to ensure you will not get kicked out of AVM instantly and rather survive a few more months.
Now, Lucian, it seems you still did not understand the irony that, by Paul Elam’s standards, you were a victim of child rape. Worse, you still have not understood this fact, you still don’t know you were raped, you need consciousness-raising.
And if you were 14 when you had sex with an adult woman, then even by your own standards you suffered grave abuse and trauma. You said that you are happy with the AOC of 15 years, you think it is perfectly right.
You were so severely damaged by this terribly traumatic sex abuse that until today you don’t understand how horrific this sexual abuse was.
/sarcasm in case someone does not get it.
Human-Stupidity.com
26 Feb 13 at 2:22 am
Antifeminist, what is the story of Angry Harry on Avoiceformen? I only know hearsay.
Of course, after reading his recent articles I knew that Angry Harry violates the beliefs of Avoiceformen.
I myself wrote about it. I hope I did not cause this rift. If I did, on the other hand, it was probably inevitable.
Lucien, I got kicked out from AVM for the following sin:
There was a great article at AVM about how MRA need to unify and stop fighting each other. So I could not but mention that AVM are the worst offenders: they attack sex positive MRA’s to the point of kicking them out.
I gave a few example about CP prosecutions for owning one’s own jerk off video when one was 12. And about imprisoning mom and dad for bath tub photos of the little kids.
That was reason for being evicted.
Human-Stupidity.com
26 Feb 13 at 2:25 am
Human-Stupidity dares to go beyond where everyone else dares to go.
We know the Antifeminist disagrees with us, and we are not sure he allows this to be posted here.
We are firmly entrenched in the scientific method.
It just so happens that very clear evidence points to the fact that real sex with real children seems pretty harmless, as long as it is consensual and the child’s intelligence is normal or above normal.
We were shocked about this ourselves.
We are too shy to promote adult child sex.
BUT
if that is true, if science shows that consensual adult child sex is harmless, then all age of consent discussion is moot. Age of consent laws should be scrapped unceremoniously.
Children and their parents should watch out for themselves and leave government out of this picture.
And all other sex repressive laws about harassment, prostitution, etc become moot if real children are able to consent or refuse sex and not damaged if they voluntarily consent.
If children don’t get damaged by consensual sex, certainly adult women will not suffer irreparable damage by cat calling, compliment, invitations and the like.
Before writing this, we spent weeks to formulate a
disclaimer that We are NOT pedophiles. Read this before condemning me or sending the child porn squad after me.
=========================
We wrote about other clear cases of grave damage to children which are scientifically proven:
Alcohol use in pregnancy
And overfeeding obese infants with junk food.
Unlike the child porn hysteria, the above 2 examples are clearly scientifically proven to do grave long term life long harm to children.
Nevertheless nobody suggests draconian laws to imprison women and men who raise obese children. Not even to imprison women who binge drink while pregnant and give birth to fetal alcohol syndrome sufferers.
Human-Stupidity.com
26 Feb 13 at 3:05 am
found the eviction of Angry Harry
http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/the-rape-victims-they-refuse-to-see/#comment-135452
Human-Stupidity.com
26 Feb 13 at 1:50 pm
@Human-Stupidity.com
Yes we already know and have for a while now…
Alan Vaughn
27 Feb 13 at 3:06 am