Sixties Supermodel Jean Shrimpton Not Such a Heartbreaker Now

The Daily Mail regularly carries stories 'proving' how hot modern women over a certain age are.. sandwhiched between advertisements for beauty cream promising to make their (mainly over 40 and female) readers look 17 again, and news stories trimumphantly proclaiming that another pervert paedo has been rightly locked up for looking at pictures of 17 year old children in bikinis.  But occasionally, in a kind of sado-masochistic manner, it does like to remind its aeging readers of the truth.  This week it published a picture of the 1960's supermodel Jean Shrimpton as she is today, the girl who once captivated playboy photographer David Bailey's heart with her teenage beauty :

Jean Shrimpton 1960's

jean shrimpton today

Jean Shrimpton today

 Of course, this is a little cruel, especially for Jean Shrimpton, but in the Daily Mail's case it is simply sado-masachistic cruelty as entertainment.  The reason why I have the right to stress how ugly older women generally are is because older women are raping men through their legislation and hysterias that have little basis or justification other than sexual jealousy and bitterness at what nature has done to them, and where the free sexual market has left them.  All the while, resting upon the pretence that men who prefer ripe fertile youth to old hags are subhuman perverted monsters.  The only interesting question is why the male response has thus far been confined to a handful of 'offensive' blogs such as this one.

Meanwhile, the same paper reveals with indignation that most British women think that females over 35 are too old to wear mini-skirts.

I've noted here before that girls and women aged from 13 - 45 are going about everywhere these days in lycra leggings so thin and figure hugging that they may as well just be painting their bottoms and legs black.  Men similarly garbed would be arrested for indecent exposure.  Perhaps women should be as well, but only after a certain age.  After all, I guess the justification for such indecent exposure laws is that such clothing would be outrageous and repulsive to most members of the opposite sex.  But that's equally true for men when the woman is over 30 and clothed in such skimpy attire. 

Given that, as I revealed earlier, evolutionary psychology would predict that older women are more 'harmed' by casual sex than teenage girls would be, perhaps it's time to switch the focus from the supposed sexualisation of girls (actually the enforced de-sexualisation of teenage girls by their older rivals), to the sexualisation of older women, embodied in the 'Cougar' phenomenon?  Should we introduce a maximum age of consent for women?  Should we arrest any woman over 30 who wears semi-transparent leggings in the street or wears skimpy bikinis on the beach?  What age would mark the right cut off point?

At what age should the law stop women from dressing 'sexily', seeking casual sex etc?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

49 thoughts on “Sixties Supermodel Jean Shrimpton Not Such a Heartbreaker Now

  1. Jay Hammers

    Live and let live, while changing the culture to recognize older women as what they really are – not attractive. Women live by shame, and therefore will stop dressing like whores lest they shame themselves.

    Another note: it’s “masochistic”. Sometimes I wish I weren’t such a spelling queen.

  2. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Agreed Jay. I’m not actually being serious in this post, just having fun imagining what a mad world it would be if men started passing laws on a similar (but actually more rational) basis as women currently are.

  3. Michael Steane

    The tendency of older women to try to shut down the younger competition is well known in folk lore. For example “Sleeping Beauty” and “Snow White” both deal with the repression of young female sexuality by older women.
    Michael Steane
    Author of “Why You Cannot Do Mathematics and What to do About It” available on Amazon Kindle

  4. Pingback:

  5. Rollo Tomassi

    Anyone else think the young Jean Shrimpton is a dead ringer for porn star Faye Reagan?

  6. Age has nothing to do with how you should dress. How you look in the clothes has everything to do with it. I don’t know how many times I have seen teen girls dress in clothes that are so unflattering on them just because it is “in style.” Low rise jeans are a perfect example. NO girls your muffin top does not look sexy. Older women at least have the sense to know what looks good on them and what doesn’t. I rarely ever see anyone over 30 with their muffin top hanging out. If you look hot in the clothes, wear them. If you don’t, get something that makes you look good.

  7. linda

    why are you referrng to THIRTY year old woman as older?? its rediculous 30 is still young and hardly pensionable age!! Get a grip ffs!!

  8. theantifeminist

    Post author

    In terms of peak sexual attractiveness and reproductive value, it is. That’s unfortunate and cruel for women past that age, like you (and the great majority of women), but that’s why you have the sexual trade union that is raping men.

  9. lesley goodall

    during the time it has taken me to read this info i am a changed woman. i have always shied away from the attention i get from both men and women because i am a 56 year old who looks 30 something. i think now i should come out and enjoy myself before i become that ‘old hag’!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    thankyou ,thankyou, very much, lesley.

  10. Drolli

    I admire Jean for not submitting to the ridiculous plastic surgery that other so-called “younger looking women” have. She is a legend in her own right! There is no one who can ever match The Shrimp!!

  11. Susan Maria Gavaghan

    This is a particularly unflattering photo of Jean Shrimpton; I have seen other recent photos of her which show that she still looks good but older. She isn’t trying to pretend to be a young girl or dress younger, so I don’t know what the article was about really. She is not after a younger man as she is married and has been for years. If women are not allowed to dress how they please, then we may as well be living under the Taliban. Women get older, it is a fact of life. But we can still look good. There are other qualities besides looks, like intelligence and a compassionate nature. I notice there was no similar article about how old David Bailey now looks, so we still have a very sexist culture.

  12. theantifeminist

    Post author

    The point of the article is in the context of this website – the argument that older women are criminilising the male sexual preference for youth through jealousy and bitterness and a desire to maintain what little sexual power they have. It’s nothing personal against Jean Shrimpton. My article was basically just highlighting a Daily Mail article to my readers that carried the same photos, whose readers were clearly intended to be shocked by her aged appearance. I get about 1000 visitors to this site a day – the Daily Mail must get over a million. I hardly think Jean Shrimpton visits my blog, but she (or her friends and neighbours) might well read the Daily Mail.

  13. Susan Maria Gavaghan

    I don’t understand how older women can be accused of “criminalising” men for their so called sexual preference for younger women. How can this be “criminalised”? I am sure that there are lots of cases of the opposite, where men have found that mental compatability more important than physical appearance as in the case of John Lennon with Yoko Ono, 6 years his senior, and Prince Charles who chose Camilla, who was older and less physically attractive than Diana. In fact I once had a friend whose long term boyfriend left her for a woman who was much older. It is a fact of life that we all grow older, both men and women. But mental attraction will not diminish but grow. But it takes a mature person to see that.

  14. Susan Maria Gavaghan

    Furthermore, the image of the younger Jean Shrimpton was taken in a studio, where all kinds of tricks are used to enhance the appearance of the model. The photo of the older Jean Shrimpton was taken off the cuff. There have been really bad photos taken of much younger models like Kate Moss when they have been off their guard. We are all human and take a bad photo from time to time.

  15. Alan Vaughn

    They criminalize men by coercing governments to raise the minimum age at which a person can legally have (fully consensual) sex – the age of consent. If that age is raised from 15 to 18 for example as it was in the UK recently, anyone below 18 years old is a ‘child’ in the eyes of the draconian law. Therefore if a man has fully consenting sex with a girl who is 17 years and 10 months old, he has under the new law: molested or raped a ‘child’. He is then sent to prison for many years as society’s most despised sub-human: a paedophile.
    Whilst he is in prison often for more than 10 years (in the US it isn’t uncommon for such offenders to be imprisoned for many decades), he is sodomized and beaten to a pulp by other self-righteous dangerous and violent criminals almost on a daily basis. (And this behaviour is ignored and even condoned by the prison authorities and of course, by the paedo-hysterical British public).
    We don’t think that the punishment fits the ‘crime’ considering the sex was fully consensual and not so long ago (less than 30 years ago for sure), it wasn’t even regarded as a crime.
    Often in these ‘statutory rape’ cases the ‘child’ victim is also ruined for life, when she loses the man she dearly loved who is treated like that by a totally flawed system that claims to be protecting her.
    Just because the sexual trade union and tabloid newspaper influenced laws state that someboy below a certain age is not capable of making a decision about something as normal, natural and instinctive as having sex with someone they love, doesn’t mean it is right or fair.
    It is generally a victimless crime, but these ridiculous laws actually create victims (i.e. the ‘child’ below the legal age of consent), but once it becomes a matter for the legal system to deal with, many REAL victims result! In nearly all cases of such consenting sex, the imagined victim (the underage ‘child’) never complained, but her paedo-hysterical (brain-washed parents) do and once they do, it becomes the crimen exceptum and the tabloids just LOVE IT! This is how the paedo-hysteria (brain-washing) is spread throughout society and why the West is now obsessed with ‘sex crimes’.
    Not so long ago, people had a right to privacy. If a girl loved a man who was older than her, so be it. There was never a need for the police or the courts to become involved, except of course, if the man FORCED the girl – REAL rape, not this farcical ‘statutory rape’ they use today to destroy innocent lives.
    And it is most certainly not the type of offence that should be punished with sentences more harsh than those handed down to those found guilty of REAL crimes such as homicide, where there are real victims and people really are hurt!

  16. Susan Maria Gavaghan

    As far as I am aware the age of consent in this country is 16, as a person has the right to marry at this age. I do agree that it would be wrong to change the age of consent to 18. With regard to a genuine love affair between an older male and a younger female, I do feel that this is not always a straightforward issue. A sexual relationship between a 16 year old girl and a man in his 30′s would not be an equal one simply because of the inequality in the man’s life experience. There is always the danger of vulnerable young girls being exploited i.e. where older men get them hooked on drugs then force them into prostitution to feed their drug habit. Also there are many instances where men use their positions and power in order to seduce young girls.

  17. theantifeminist

    Post author

    So we have to criminalize all older men/teenage girl relationships because a tiny fraction of them ‘might’ be abusive?

    If ‘inequality’ in a relationship made such relationships inherently abusive, then we ought to criminalize interracial relationships (if you believe that white people have more power than blacks – I don’t suppose you’d be happy to send white women to jail for having sex with black men).

    What about differences in IQ between partners? Social class? Income?

    What about shy and lonely 30 year old male virgins having sex with a street wise sexually experienced 16 year old girl? Should we send the 16 year old girl to prison to be raped as a sex offender?

    As for your argument that 30 year old men could get 16 year old’s hooked on drugs – do you really not think that a 16 year old boy could equally do that? In fact, why not encourage 16 year old council house broken homed 16 year old girls to hook up with nice, shy, educated 30 year old men, instead of a spotty 16 year old glue sniffer, drug addict? Oh, because she would be being abused by the 30 year old’s ‘life experiences’.

  18. Alan Vaughn

    As far as I am aware the age of consent in this country is 16, as a person has the right to marry at this age. I do agree that it would be wrong to change the age of consent to 18…

    My apologies Susan, you are correct of course. I was confusing UK with the US, where now in many (if not most) the age of consent was raised to and remains at 18 years old. I’m from Australia, where they have different ages for different staes too. (In 2 states it is now 17 yrs and there is strong lobbying by certain ‘conservative activists’ to raise this much higher, i.e. to 21).
    However, one UK MP (Mr John Mann) recently introduced a bill into the British Parliament to raise the age of consent for laws relating to prostitution and ‘paying for sex’, to 21 years; which is really a covert method of raising the age of consent to 21 for just about anything…
    Read here:
    I.e. if a man buys a 20 year old girlfriend dinner and drinks, then on the same evening they go home and have consensual sex, some lawyers or judges could reasonably argue that this is a situation where ‘paying for sex’ was involved, therefore the (under 21 year old) girlfriend was below the legal age of consent.
    If the bill is passed (and there’s a very good chance it will be) it will open up a huge can of worms, where it could and no doubt, would be used to criminalize just about any kind of consensual relationship where one or the partners becomes an 18, 19 or 20 year old ‘child victim’…

  19. Susan Maria Gavaghan

    I had initially made a comment on this article to defend what I regarded as nasty comments about Jean Shrimpton because she is no longer young and took a particularly unflattering photo. So what all this is really about is men having the right to pay for sex with young women under the age of 21 (this also applies to young men under the age of 21). I was unaware of Mr Mann’s bill, so I have just looked it up and the following is an excerpt from the website:

    Mr Mann told MPs he was not seeking to make “moral judgement” about those who pay for sexual services.
    His bill would “solely and simply” amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to raise the threshold from the current age of consent of 16.
    The Bassetlaw MP claimed that the majority of those involved in prostitution under the age of 21 have suffered abuse or have addiction problems.
    His bill would give vulnerable people between the age of 16 and 20 “the space to turn around their lives”, Mr Mann said.

    I have nothing whatsoever against consensual sex between two people. But as Mr Mann said so many young people are coerced into prostitution, come from disturbed homes, are vulnerable and on drugs. I personally agree with moves to help such youngsters from lives of exploitation. How many of them truly want lives of prostitution? It is merely a means to an end for them. This is not an attempt to change the age of consent as a whole. And a man paying for a meal and drinks with his girlfriend then sleeping with her is not the same thing as a young drug addict girl standing on a street corner then getting into the car of a total stranger in order to have sex which she is then paid for.

    This legislation is designed to protect the vulnerable in society and has nothing to do with older women being jealous of younger women. The legislation is being brought in by men.

  20. theantifeminist

    Post author

    The legislation is being brought in by men.

    Chasing the votes of women.

    And women can vote at 18 but can’t consent to be paid for sex????

    BTW, your e-mail address strongly indicates that you are a teenager (or pretending to be a teenager). In which case, isn’t there a contradiction here? You’re wise enough to judge deep and complex questions of morality relating to sex and abuse, yet you yourself are too clueless to make certain decisions about your sex life?

    Furthermore, I see that you’ve been leaving radical feminist statements elsewhere online. For example, relating to glamour models Lucy Pinder and Michelle Marsh :

    They have a sad existence. What they do and make lots of money from causes women to be treated as objects, to be raped, sexually assaulted and generally demeaned. My friend was raped and almost killed by a man whose walls were covered by such images as theirs. What they do is like selling your soul to the devil – there is no way back

    What on Earth gives you the right to say that such beautiful glamour models lead ‘sad existence’s, earning more in a week posing in front of the camera than they otherwise in a lifetime doing menial jobs or getting pregnant and on welfare?

    Not jealous my arse. Sounds like you need help. Accept the way you look and don’t take out your bitterness and jealousy on other people.

  21. Alan Vaughn

    The feminist troll calling herself Susan Maria Gavaghan (above) also stated:

    But as Mr Mann said so many young people are coerced into prostitution, come from disturbed homes, are vulnerable and on drugs. I personally agree with moves to help such youngsters from lives of exploitation. How many of them truly want lives of prostitution?

    You forgot to point out to her how the sexual trade union’s own research actually shoots that claim to smithereens.

  22. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Dealing with one loony feminist ‘argument’ is enough for me on a Saturday night Alan!

  23. Alan Vaughn

    And what’s more if this comment was true:

    My friend was raped and almost killed by a man whose walls were covered by such images as theirs.

    It’s more likely that such a man would leave the dwelling with walls decorated with such imgary – the images are not there to give him inspiration to rape some unfortunate woman , but are there as masterbation fodder! In other words he would prefer to look at pictures and dream about the girls depicted…
    This has of course been proven as fact, that pornography actually helps by and large to PREVENT rape and sexual assualt.

  24. Alan Vaughn

    “It’s more likely that such a man would leave the dwelling with walls decorated with such imagery”…

    I meant to say:
    “It’s more likely that such a man would rarely leave the dwelling with walls decorated with such imagery”…

  25. Susan Maria Gavaghan

    So you are now focussing on me, my age and my appearance and issuing personal insults because I support Mr Mann’s bill to higher the age of consent to protect vulnerable young people. What kind of twisted logic is that? I am entitled to my opinion whatever age I am. As for my appearance, for your information, and without wishing to sound arrogant, I have always been considered beautiful and could not be happier with the way I look. You have also brought in another issue which is not the issue I was discussing. It is strange that you wish to fight this bill to raise the age of consent for prostitution – do you yourself pay for sex with girls under this age and wish to continue doing so? Do you have wives, sisters and daughters ? You must all have mothers. Would you be happy for them to sell their bodies?

  26. theantifeminist

    Post author

    So you are now focussing on me, my age and my appearance and issuing personal insults because I support Mr Mann’s bill

    Awww…poor thing. You can not only define thousands of men as exploitative, abusive etc, but also seek to criminalize them, on the basis of how you interpret their actions, but I can’t be a teeny weeny bit cross with your actions that indisputably lead to harm (restrictions of freedoms and the destruction of the lives of men who are arrested under these laws) and call you a few names. Life can be so hard as a princess!

    As for my appearance, for your information, and without wishing to sound arrogant, I have always been considered beautiful and could not be happier with the way I look.

    Yea, right, sure, a beautiful feminist who spends hours trolling glamour girl sites calling the pretty models sad victims with no lives, and the men who like them certain rapists.

    I am entitled to my opinion whatever age I am.

    You’re entitled to your opinion, but as a teenage girl, it’s not as valid or important as mine, as a mature person in his 41st year. At least according to your own logic. I have the wisdom to know my own mind, you base what little argument you have upon the fact that teenagers, including yourself, don’t know your own minds.

    It is strange that you wish to fight this bill to raise the age of consent for prostitution – do you yourself pay for sex with girls under this age and wish to continue doing so?

    Odd that you assume that I must have a selfish vested interest in fighting this bill. You don’t seem to understand that it’s possible to take a strong ethical line on something (the criminalizing of thousands of men and the taking away the livelihoods of thousands of women) without personally being affected by it. You’ve therefore admitted that you do have a vested interest in placing further restrictions on prostitution and the sexual choices of attractive young women (your sexual competitors).

    As it happens, yes I have paid for sex with women between the age of 18 and 21, and would like to have the choice to do so again in the future.

    The relevant difference between us is that I actually present an argument, whereas you don’t. We may both have vested interests in the issue, but when one side is completely lacking an argument (you just make unsubstantiated claims and personal value judgements – such as ‘they are being exploited’) then it’s fair to bring up your obvious personal motivations.

    Do you have wives, sisters and daughters ?

    Do feminists like yourself have fathers, husbands, and sons?

  27. Jack

    If you have no problem with either your age or the way you look, why do you want to disenfranchise younger women by depriving them of a wonderful livelihood (making thousands out of the pockets of merchant bankers and executives). What right do you have to ruin it for those women who can earn real money in a safe and fun way? Why do you want to deprive those young and beautiful women of the right to capitalize on their looks and on their youth? I can see only one reason: envy. You were not born one of them and you can’t stand it. But more and more people are seeing through people like you. Be prepared to be exposed.

  28. Alan Vaughn

    It beats me why these people: feminists, manginas and others sharing that evil mindset, impose on our forums and blogs the way they do. Do they really think they might be able to convince us that their ideologies (that essentially have only one purpose: to destroy us completely) are good and decent; or that they even have a slim chance at recruiting us as mangina puppets or something? So we can join their misandrist ranks and help them identify our fellows for the purpose of persecuting and ultimately destroying them??
    If they can read even with say a primary school child’s reading ability, they should be capable of gleaning from our comments, that we do not and never will agree with any of their hateful agendas and associated rhetoric, so why do they insist on leaving their nonsense arguments here and on other forums like this one?
    It would be clear to any child that might ever read our posts, that feminists and anyone that supports their ideologies would not be welcomed here.
    Therefore it appears from this latest discussion that one of two of them are not only jealous, brainwashed ‘sheeple’, they are also not very intelligent.

  29. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Exactly right Jack.

    The appeal to motive in order to discredit an argument is indeed a logical fallacy when there is an argument to discredit. But feminists do not base their laws or their positions upon arguments – just personal value judgements plucked out of their arseholes, or else on downright lies and distortions of facts and statistics.

    In the absence of serious argument, it’s perfectly fair to question the motives of feminists who claim to know that a model or a prostitute is being abused and exploited despite the testimony of the supposed ‘victims’ themselves and all the other circumstantial evidence that points to their lifestyles being both voluntary and happy.

    BTW, human-stupidity’s latest post is rather interesting :

  30. Susan Maria Gavaghan

    Right, well I think we have now entered the 5th dimension now, whereby it is not possible to be a beautiful woman and also agree with increasing the age of consent for prostitution to protect vulnerable young girls who get hooked on drugs and turn to prostitution to feed their habit. I suppose there must also be something wrong with MP Tom Mann for trying to pass this bill – or he has been terrorized into doing so by the women in his constituency. He cannot possibly be doing this through a genuine desire to help vulnerable young people in society. The definition of feminism is as follows:

    Tthe doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

    I think that most reasonable people would agree with this idea.

    Because I gave my opinion on glamour modelling (which incidentally has nothing to do with this subject) I must be some twisted, unnatractive, unfulfilled, jealous old hag who wishes she could be a glamour model as well.

    I suppose being hooked on drugs and being forced to sell your body to feed your drug habit is every young girls dream job.

    I think you should all find a time machine and travel back to the 1970′s as you don’t really belong in this era.

  31. Jack

    I suppose being hooked on drugs and being forced to sell your body to feed your drug habit is every young girls dream job..

    Convenient, bringing in drugs, isn’t it? Even if the all the girls were, as you say, “hooked on drugs” (which they’re not) this would be their choice as from the age at which they become “legal”. And the way they would want to feed their habit would also be their choice. Same thing if doing lines of coke while divesting CEO’s of their ill-gotten gains is their idea of a dream job. Their choice: not yours. For them to decide: not for you.

    P.S. Why don’t you go out to procure some good drug and relax? Pop an E and have some gorgeous sex. It’s never too late to get a life!

  32. Alan Vaughn

    @Susan Maria Gavaghan

    Tthe doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

    I think that most reasonable people would agree with this idea.

    One of our friends has some more ideas about that ‘definition’, If you can skip Oprah just for one day (you’ve had your head filled with her man-hating propaganda and lies for long enough anyway), read this to see feminism and it’s misandrist ideologies and dogmas for what it REALLY is…

  33. theantifeminist

    Post author

    There’s still no argument at all in your waffle, therefore we are entitled to draw the conclusion that you are speaking from personal motives – jealousy and envy.

    increasing the age of consent for prostitution to protect vulnerable young girls who get hooked on drugs and turn to prostitution to feed their habit

    16 -20 year olds are not young girls. They are young, fully developed (at least physically) women. If 20 year old ‘girls’ are so vulnerable and weak minded, then perhaps they shouldn’t have the vote?

    You could equally claim that prostitution gives young women a chance to earn enough money to escape the poverty and life they would otherwise be condemned to, and in which they would be far more prey to drug addictions and other social ills.

    John Mann is chasing the female vote. He has also (to give him some credit that he may or may not deserve) perhaps swallowed feminist lies and propaganda regarding prostitution and is acting from white knight concern for women. As an ugly fuck lumbered with (likely) an exceptionally ugly wife, he could also be simply restricting other male’s sexual choices through personal bitterness.

    Your ‘argument’ contains an implicit assumption that young women only become prostitutes in order to feed drug addicts. Like most sexual trade unionists, you seem to be convinced, contrary to all the evidence, that young women cannot freely choose to recieve money for sex, for example, simply because it pays far more than any other occupation, and they really don’t mind opening their legs several times a day to have a lifestyle that most women their age don’t have.

    Combine this with your ridiculous claim that glamour models are ‘sad’ and have ‘no lives’. Glamour models are living out every young girl’s dream, partying with famous footballers and pop stars, enjoying being fantasised about by millions of men, and earning far more money than they likely otherwise could ever hope to – either in some shitty souless factory or a lifetime on welfare in a council estate.

    The glamour models do not think they are being exploited or are sad or have ‘no life’, so on what basis other than your own personal jealousy are you basing your claim that they are?

    I think you need to fuck off and buy the first ticket to Saudi Arabia. You’d be a lot happier not having to walk by beautiful young women and girls and be reminided of your own ugliness every time you step outside your house.

    (*Apologies to regular readers – I’ve been trying to block this bitter feminist troll but she appears to be using various ip addresses).

  34. Alan Vaughn

    If she’s using various ip’s it could be unintentionally: if she’s using a mobile device (say the 3G or 4G type of mobile phone network – don’t know what the equivalent of that is in the UK). They usually have a different ip assigned for each connection, even if the device is in the same area. If the user (and the mobile device) moves to a different area (covered by a different mobile phone tower), a whole new range of ip’s are then assigned…
    Can’t you just block her username? It has so far been ‘a constant’.
    If she tries to work-around that by posting with a new name or e-mail, doesn’t it then have to ‘await moderation’? So then the moderator (you) won’t allow it to be displayed…
    I hope I don’t appear to be teaching grandma how to suck eggs :(

  35. The average model make more money than men their own age, thanks to the fact that women star modeling as young age as 13, they are able to get a lot of money, gifts, fame and of course sexual power over men, when they reach 18 they have enough money to pay for their won bills, the average young man at that age is still graduating from high school living from his parents money, young men are having hard time getting jobs when many are getting a descent job at 25, that is why daughters are moving out and living alone before their brothers now days, men don’t have the privilege to get jobs at 13 like women do and a job which give them fame and many advantage in life.

    Not all women who want to be model become one, in fact just a tiny part lets say less than 100 are super model around the world but is the same in others fields like sports, music, movies, welcome to the real world.

    Women like you will never stop portraying women like defenseless “CHILDREN” even when they are enjoying such PRIVILEGE.

  36. Susan Maria Gavaghan

    Hi you from Lads Mag land – its me again. What do you think of your mighty leader, Martin Daubney, who has now spoken against porn and female exploitation in lads mags? His views are now pretty much similar to mine. Are you going to go gunning for that rotter?

  37. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I think what we object to Susan is your claim that the highly paid women who appear in these magazines are being exploited. O.k, you can perhaps rationalise your own bitter sexual jealousy and loss of sexual value by claiming that they exploit women in general, but saying that the models themselves are exploited, who likely would be in shitty office jobs or working in soul destroying factories, and instead are living dream lives dating footballers etc, is patently ridiculous. It’s bad enough when femi-hags like you impose victimhood upon adolescent girls (i.e. mind rape them), but when it’s adult women, even by your own inflated definitions of childhood, then it’s really sick and proposterous.

    I have no idea why martin Daubney has flipped now he’s made his millions from publishing lad’s magazines – perhaps he wants a career in politics (i.e. needs to chase the vagina vote?).

  38. Eric

    Lest we forget: the picture of the Jean Shrimpton of today is the picture of the future for the nasty young feminists. If they want to grow up into kindly, beloved grandmothers instead of bitter old hags, they’d better drop their hatred of men, lose a few pounds, stop throwing themselves at thugs, and find a decent, responsible husband.

  39. Alan Vaughn

    What do you think of your mighty leader, Martin Daubney, who has now spoken against porn and female exploitation in lads mags? His views are now pretty much similar to mine. Are you going to go gunning for that rotter?

    Mr Daubney has never been regarded by anyone with a vested interest in this blog as their Mighty Leader, so God knows what makes you think we would regard him as anyone who would ever have supported our views, especially now that he has proved he’s nothing more than a weak, hypocritical mangina anyway…

    In typical feminist style, you think that because ONE individual who says he agrees with your ridiculous ideologies is something like major milestone or at least proof that you MUST be right.
    You’re pathetic: we don’t give a tuppenny damn what this scheming little rat does, or what his views on pornography, feminism, or for that matter: the MRM might happen to be. He’s perfectly entitled to change his views on various issues, regardless of whether they fit with ours or not…

    Now go back to Jezebel, or some other man-haters forum (where you belong and where your ideas might be appreciated) and join in the celebrations for this ‘significant history changing event’!

  40. Susan Maria Gavaghan

    Just one last thing – the fact that you are spewing all this hatred at me for simply having a different opinion to you indicates that you are seriously disturbed people. I hope I never run into people like you in the flesh, it is a frightening thought.

  41. theantifeminist

    Post author

    The reason why we may feel anger Susan, is because you want to restrict people’s liberties upon such patently ridiculous grounds. It’s not just a difference of opinion.

  42. Eric

    Oh please. I’ve seen the kinds of males that women chose for relationships on a regular basis. Trust me, things like ‘spewing hatred’ and being ‘seriously disturbed’ never stops guys who actually do those things from having harems of adoring female groupies and babymommas.

    The only thing that frightens ‘liberated’ women is encountering real men.

  43. Alan Vaughn

    Also, what makes Susan’s comments ironic is that she is representing the most HATE motivated ideology in the world today and has done nothing but express scorn and contempt for us, because we dare to object to those ideologies or merely question their reasoning or validity…

    Talk about the ‘pot calling the kettle black’.

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>