State of Play & Hopes for 2013
Now is a good time to see where we stand with this site, and what hopes we should have for the year ahead of us.
Loyal and esteemed readers will be aware that I’ve had my fair share of headaches here recently, particularly relating to comment moderation. On the plus side, we’re seeing more comments being left than ever, leading to much more stimulating and lively discussions over articles than before. Alan Vaughn has become a loyal and regular commentator, and we’ve benefited from the welcome addition of Eric as well.
On the downside, I’ve had a number of comments left, starting with American Father’s Rights activist Ray’s slandering of myself (and even Angry Harry), that have put my ability to run this site in jeopardy. This reached a low point when the rat JayHammers/JeremiahMRA turned into an immature little brother of MikeeUSA and began ejaculating his violent paedocritical psycho-sexual fantasies here. As he started using proxies to get around my ability to block him, I’ve been left with no choice but to put all comments on moderation hold, something which has obviously slowed down the pace of discussion, especially as I live in a different timezone from my most regular commentators (and I do need my sleep).
I regularly review whether this site has any point to it, and whether it is rational on my part to continue. Is it worth the time, effort, AND the headaches? Basically, my decision rests upon the question – ‘am I simply being a moral sucker in running this site?’
The reason I run this site is because a war is being waged upon male sexuality that appears to have no end point or limitation. Just when you think things can’t get any worse, they do, as we saw a couple of months ago with the onset of the Jimmy Savile hysteria. Whether or not I am closer to the frontline of this war than the average male, this will inevitably effect and put at risk every man at some point. If you believe otherwise, you are simply holding your head in the sand. At some point, we have to start fighting back. And this is a men’s rights issue if anything is.
Unfortunately, there are very few men in this world speaking out alongside myself, despite the fact that there is an emerging men’s rights movement that calls itself (with some plausibility) the fastest growing human rights movement in the world. And, despite the fact that throughout the previous entire history of that men’s rights movement starting from Ernest Belfort Bax, the first MRA, those claiming to speak for men were able to see that the feminist criminalization of male sexuality, including concerns surrounding the feminist age of consent, were clearly central and valid issues.
What makes me feel like a moral sucker? The thought that I’m putting all the time and effort into this site, as well as the not insignificant risks to myself, only for these efforts to be under-appreciated, unreciprocated, and even for this blog to merely serve as a platform for the agendas and interests of others.
You dislike the fact that I disapprove a comment you leave here which could get me arrested? Well get the f*** out of here right now. I’m not going to prison just to allow you to lower your blood pressure a little by providing a brief vent to your own rage and frustrations.
http://wordpress.com It takes 5 minutes for a person of average intelligence to set up their own blog, where you are free to say whatever you want, as well as shoulder the accompanying responsibilities for what you say.
Secondly, this is a men’s rights and anti-feminist site. Unlike feminists, I believe in the radical idea that women are people, or rather that women are adults and moral agents who can be held accountable for their moral actions. If millions of middle-aged women are voting in feminist or paedocrite politicians to make laws that protect themselves in an increasingly free sexual market, whilst possibly sending virtually any man to prison to be raped and beaten, then I prefer to hold those millions of women, and the feminist politicians and infinite number of lobby groups given power by them, to be accountable. If you just can’t get the smell of these lovely looking shelias middle-aged vaginas out of your nostrils, and feel compelled to constantly talk up less ‘misogynistic’ reasons for the war on male sexuality, then I again suggest you start up your own blog (or perhaps join those limp wristed pederasts at King of Hits).
Thirdly, never, never, play the ‘I’m less of a paedo than you’ game here, either to me, or to any of my readers or commentators. Let’s make it clear – none of us here are paedophiles (apart from MickeeUSA), but everyone here accepts that the feminist inflation and shameless exploitation of that term to cover the attraction to sexually aware teenage girls, up to 7 or 8 years post-pubescent, is an outrage and a brutal assault upon and rape of normal male sexuality. Don’t come here posting extended essays on why a feminist law is wrong but that you yourself would still find the criminalized behavour ‘creepy’ or ‘sick’ if it were made legal. This is the worst form of paedocrisy in my eyes.
Now on a more positive note, let’s look at what this site can claim to have achieved in its 4 year history.
Firstly, and most obviously, it has maintained the idea (even as a minority view) within the men’s rights movement that the constant feminist criminalization of male sexuality is a men’s rights issue, including those laws relating to the ‘protection’ of ‘children’ (i.e. nubile, fertile teenage girls).
Has it achieved any real results in terms of activism? I think it has, although it’s difficult to be certain. Still, even to suspect real world results is something, given that I run this site all by myself, have limited time and resources to devote to it, and deal in highly controversial subjects.
- It has possibly prevented the first feminist attempts to draw up legislation regarding the banning or limiting of ‘sexbots’. My article detailing the plans by philosopher and mangina Ian Kerr, and his round-table of feminist students, to draft a proposal strictly regulating the sale of ‘objectifying’ sexbots, has gone viral numerous times, most recently when infamous PUA RooshV tweeted it last week, and has probably been read by up to half-a-million people. Professor Ian Kerr likely has received hundreds of e-mails in protest, and in fact removed the draft legislation proposals from his website within hours of my article first appearing.
- It has possibly prevented a proposed highly misandrist book from being published that was effectively going to call for the elimination of the male sex.
- In the only successful example of myself and Human-Stupdity co-operating and co-ordinating our efforts, we appear to have managed to Google Bomb Valeria Ajovalasit, and her women’s group plans to sue Silvio Berlusconi for ‘degrading Italian women’, into silence. Both our articles demanding that she be put on trial for exploiting child abuse and prostitution appear at the top of a Google search for her name. Since her calls made headlines a couple of years ago, she seems to have gone strangely quiet on the issue (or on any issue).
In terms of growth, the site continues to grow slowly but steadily, with return visitors (the most important metric) increasing the most :
I’ve also been moving up the Alexa rankings :
To put this into context, AVoiceforMen.com now ranks at 80,000 on Alexa, with the-spearhead.com close behind, but it does compare to or surpass most other single author men’s rights blogs. For example, Fidelbogen’s CounterFem site is ranked at the 2million mark, and human-stupidity at the 1 and a 1/2 million rank.
There seems to have been a marked increase in traffic towards men’s rights sites in general over the last few months and even weeks. This is probably due to the popularity of YouTubers such as GirlWritesWhat, the backfiring attempted hijacking of the atheism movement by radical sexual trade unionists such as ‘SekpChick’ Rebecca Watson, and a number of high profile events such as the feminist protest at the speech by Warren Farrell at the University of Toronto. This last cause is most interesting, given that the feminist students were protesting at Farrell’s alleged support for ‘incest’ and ‘date rape’. Now whether or not Farrell said these things as the femihounds interpreted them, it demonstrates that at this stage there is absolutely no publicity that could be bad publicity for the men’s rights cause (short of a violent act being associated with the movement which could lead to ‘hate speech’ laws being introduced to silence us). Certainly, any MRA who thinks that discussion of the jailing under feminist laws of men for looking at pictures of women with small breasts or of cartoons online could ‘kill the cause’ for the bad publicity it could bring is being entirely dishonest.
A realistic goal for the end of 2013 would be to continue growth in the site, hopefully to be at the end of the year where AVoiceforMen or TheSpearhead is now in terms of readership. What I’d most like is a couple of other men’s rights pro-male sexuality bloggers or vloggers to emerge to take some of the burdon off of myself (and Human-Stupidity, and Eivind Berge). The main activist goal of 2013 is to look at the ways in which feminists are breaking laws (such as rape laws) and constitutions (such as the EU charter of citizen’s fundamental rights) in their legislative attempts to further their own sexual interests.
Coincidentally, I found this story just before I saw your new post.
Note how this total low-life scum-whore not only accuses a dead man (who like the late Jimmy Savile: can’t confirm or DENY her accusation), but even her own dead father has to be publicly scapegoated under the same feminist paedohysterical hatred…
Alan Vaughn
10 Jan 13 at 12:58 pm
Alan:
This stuff is straight out of the Middle Ages. How long is it going to be before entire cemetaries get excavated on some unfounded allegation?
The whole Anglosphere is going back to the 12th Century!
Eric
11 Jan 13 at 12:20 am
Antifeminist:
I think it also reflects a change in the Manosphere demographic, because of transitions. Some MRM blogs are taking a radically different direction which is alienating some men—hence they drift into some of the blogs they hadn’t visited before. I think there will probably be some new blogs this year and others will gain in strength. Right now, there is a HUGE vaccuum in North America with Game/PUA on one side and the Fathers Rights mRAs on the other. Even now, I’m reading more British & foreign blogs than US ones. Outside of Fidelbogen and Keonigalt, not many US bloggers are dealing with issues dealt with here.
Also, too, both Angry Harry and Rookh Kshatriya seem to have come back after long periods without blogging—no doubt they’ll attract a large audience again too.
Eric
11 Jan 13 at 12:29 am
About general issues in the manosphere:
I feel some positive change is coming, and , at least, some feminist policies are being successfully challenged or modified.
About the stuff covered on this blog?
It’s going to get worse before it gets better. There’s still a good five to ten years of increasing legal tightening of the screws all over the Americas and Europe before the crap economy or the much-more-mature mens activism community will force a rollback.
Clarence
11 Jan 13 at 1:26 am
Eric many of those game\pua types are hipocrites who preach a return to christian type monogamy while engaging in as many one night stands and conquests as they can…a number of them shit on men who patron sex care workers too (RooshV comes to mind)…so im not sure that there is necessarily that much opposition between the two camps you mentioned (game/pua and fathers rights groups) the main difference between them is how they deal with the current situation: one group engages in direct activism the other wants to party non-stop until they believe that society will eventually reorganize along traditionalist lines.
Another notable group in north america is the MGTOW many of whom eschew activism altogether and argue instead that men should fight the system by “starving the beast” by either expatting, leading lives of celibacy and contributing as little as possible to society until reforms along lines agreeable to MGTOWers. Unfortunately the said social reforms that are agreeably to many mgtowers is…you guessed it traditional monogamy. So there are you have it…the three main camps of the north american MRM (PUA, MGTOW and Fathers Rights) despite thier superficial differences are actually not that different from each other IMHO.
Just to be fair though i will point out that there IS a small anti-traditionalist element whithin the MGTOW movement in the form of many commentators at the Happy Bachelors website:
http://happybachelorsforum.com/
The HAppy Bachelors comments section does unfortunately contain a large retard population though some commentators such as SpocksDisciple and OutcastSuperstar are decent.
The Highwayman
11 Jan 13 at 2:31 am
QUOTE (Eric): “Also, too, both Angry Harry and Rookh Kshatriya seem to have come back after long periods without blogging—no doubt they’ll attract a large audience again too”
Dr. Kshatriya is a good read i have read avery single one of his posts he is one of the few relatively sex positive MRAs out there. I do have a number of disagreements with him of course his article on Jimmy Saville and “soft rape” and his argument that women never evolved to have strong sexual preferences wrt to men have already been discussed here so I wont bring that up…but his article on aztec culture simply does not square with anything that i have read about aztec culture in fact i have read that the aztecs EXECUTED adulturers of both genders and advocated that girls remained virgins until marriage…that does not sound like a sex-positive society to me (though the aztecs did allow a limited form of prostitution but…so did the Catholic Church at one point with bothels being operated by nuns and nobody is going to call that institution sex-positive) nor were the aztecs the hyper-patriachal society that he claims. I WISH the aztecs were a hyper-patriachal and sex-positive society but the evidence does not support this.
He also advocates expatting for anglospheric men…again I have always argues that this is aband aid solution and to make matters worse it appears that Asian women are losing interest in western men see here:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/KD18Ad01.html
These critiques aside he is a great MRA writer and he has done a fantastic job in linking traditional anglo puritanism with modern feminism and in pointing out that going back to how things were X number of years ago WONT WORK. I like his name for conservative MRAs too “The 1958 Brigade”…sounds catchy
The Highwayman
11 Jan 13 at 2:58 am
If Angry Harry allowed comments, or had a forum on his site, I think it’s probable that his would still be the number 1 men’s rights site, traffic wise (still is the no.1 in my eyes).
Also, because his is the oldest site, he created it himself before platforms like wordpress were available (which nearly all blogs today run on). This has advantages and disadvantages, but the main thing is that it’s hard to incorporate his site into a feed, which is why I appear on men’s rights feeds that he doesn’t.
Regarding the PUA thing. I hope we can get some of the PUA traffic – i.e. young men who enjoy getting laid. Of course I agree with Highwayman about the hypocritical nature of most of them, or at least the leading advocates like Roosh. If only 20% of the PUA community became unhypocritical ‘sex positive’ MRAs, then we’d have quite a different movement. PUA itself could become illegal this year throughout Europe under these new ‘sexual harrassment’ laws, but I haven’t heard it mentioned in a PUA forum or blog. Most PUAs are just parasites and opportunists really. They think that by the time they reach 35 or 40 they won’t have the urge (or ability) to pick up women anymore, so it doesn’t matter if feminists are putting PUAs in prison as ‘rapists’ or sexual harrassers at that point – just when they’re ready to settle down with a nice loyal femiservative and raise a family.
theantifeminist
11 Jan 13 at 8:43 am
I agree Clarence, and really as far as this site is concerned it’s really about ensuring that these issues remain part of the men’s rights movement until the time comes when it is strong (and mature) enough to take on the Sexual Trade Union.
BTW, thanks for becoming a regular commentator here.
theantifeminist
11 Jan 13 at 8:45 am
Thanks for your comments Highwayman, always good to see you here – I was hoping the Dissident essay would coax you into contributing again.
I will correct the error regarding the names.
I was rather alienated by the Rookh article on Savile, but if both yourself and Eric highly recommend him I will try to read him more regularly. I still have no idea why he links to just about every men’s rights site apart from mine. I can only assume he doesn’t agree with many of the thoughts expressed here.
I hope you will contribute in the comments section of my age of consent arguments series.
theantifeminist
11 Jan 13 at 8:49 am
http://krauserpua.com/2013/01/10/dont-judge-women-for-their-beauty/
LOL!
theantifeminist
11 Jan 13 at 10:52 pm
theantifeminist:
I don’t know if you’ll end up liking me here. Maybe. I tend not to fit in to very many places – if you want to know where I’ve hung out the most over the years , it’s Feminist Critics, Genderratic, or before either of them, the Stand Your Ground forum. I was also an early member of NiceGuy’s forums back from 2002 or 2003 or thereabouts, but the comments section actually drove me away from more than an occasional read, as most of the commenters moved from MGTOW to downright misogyny. Or at least so it seemed to me. Of course I’ve been many other places, but not really as a “regular commenter”. Human Stupidity is one of my favorite blogs, and I’ve also been reading Angry Harry since 2002 or 2003.
Anyway, I’m probably 75 to 80 percent in your corner, but I’m not against all age of consent laws , merely how they are enforced and some of the ridiculous ages that are proposed. I think things such as criminalizing anime drawings and naked pics of mid teens and above are stupid, and I find pedo-hysteria everywhere, leading to great amounts of injustice. And while I don’t think your “sexual trade union” idea (actually it might not be original to you, but I know you are the one that pushes it most these days)explains everything (power lust by politicians, greed, parental insecurity, the need of societal “scapegoats” etc are also factors), its definitely a factor.
Clarence
11 Jan 13 at 10:59 pm
I don’t think anyone here is against all age of consent laws.
The mindnumbingly obvious idea that feminists are running a pussy cartel certainly isn’t unique, even in the present men’s rights movement, but as far as I know I’m the only one who has tried to explain the entire history of feminism, from its origins, and then first, second, and third waves, in terms of sexual trade union activity in response to a constant opening of the free sexual market.
And of course I’ve never said that EVERYTHING about paedohysteria derives from sexual trade unionism, but I do believe it is (now) the fundamental driving force that is fed and facilitated by the other factors. Paedohysteria is explained by a number of weird historical trends and forces, but thankfully most of them will become increasingly irrelevant as time goes on.
We’ve already had this discussion recently, but the reason I stress feminists role almost to the exclusion of the others is because
1/ just about nobody else is doing so
2/ because this is a men’s rights anti-feminist site (the title rather gives it away)
3/ because stressing the feminist role (which I do belive is the greatest) is the only way to convince the men’s rights movement that this is a men’s issue.
And actually, my theory is rather bigger than paedohysteria itself. As I said above, I see the entire history of feminism, i.e. including the battle for votes and the sexual revolution, to be explained by sexual market economics and trade unionism.
theantifeminist
11 Jan 13 at 11:34 pm
BTW, I’ve never claimed to be an intellectual or pretended to be claiming something startlingly original – it’s bleeding obvious to me it seems, and even feminist historians openly admit that early feminism was about controlling male sexuality.
theantifeminist
11 Jan 13 at 11:56 pm
For sure, but in recent years this controlling of male sexuality has transited from the sublime to the ridiculous, to the bizarre!
@Clarence
We don’t have a problem with the current age of consent (and I think I speak for most commentators here), at least in Britain, Australia, non-US countries; per-se: only the way they: feminists (and their manipulated state’s law-enforcement and media) use it to scapegoat people (MEN) and effectively ruin their lives.
The penalties for breaching any AoC laws are OUTRAGEOUS – especially considering how criminals who have actually killed another human being (even a CHILD) often receive less severe penalties than men who simply looked at erotic images of ‘children’ below the age of consent, or in some jurisdictions, such as Australia: images of women (even cartoon drawings) that simply LOOK LIKE they could be under the age of consent.
I don’t really know how old you are Clarence but if that photo in your avatar is of yourself, you look a LOT younger than me and many of the other readers of this blog.
I.e. we are old enough to remember when young women that are now classified as ‘children’ by Draconian and manipulated feminist law, were legally depicted in a very sexually provocative poses on page 3 of typical run-of-the-mill, sleazy tabloid newspapers and if such girls (now ‘children’) were over 16: they were legally depicted in the same pages of the same tabloids: topless.
Or, when any adult could enter an adult book store and LEGALLY purchase what was then known as ‘Teen Porn’ – magazines or 8 mm movies depicting teenagers between 12 and 17 years old, having sex – these were ‘hardcore’ porn mags and movies too and were totally legal for an adult (R18+) to buy.
Now, the possession of such a publication would surely result in many years in prison as a despised paedophile.
There always was a legal age of consent for sex and where I live it was always set at 16 years old – at least for as long as I can remember. The difference between when I was a youngster (under 25) was that AoC issues rarely, if ever, became a matter for the state – the police, like they do now.
It was still technically illegal to have sex with someone below that age, but it rarely, if ever, became a matter for the police to become involved with. (Only REAL or actual rape ever involved them).
The point is: sexual relationships that are NOT rape are naturally, fully consensual relationships, therefore what do these relationships really have to do with anyone else, let alone bitter, jealous femihags, or the Police?
I.e if a 20 something y/o bloke had a 14 year old girlfriend, the worst that normally happened would be a few stern words of objection and a ‘warning’ uttered by the girl’s parents and occasionally, even a bit of a beating from her father (if he was big and strong enough) and even that didn’t normally work for very long! If two people are in love: nothing and NOBODY will break them apart, (but most Fathers just can’t accept that)…
Anyway, it almost never involved the police and the judicial system and there was certainly no public scapegoating in trashy newspapers such as the Daily
MisandristMail and all other paedo-sleaze dependent and feminist manipulated media, as well as all the other totally life-destroying measures they’ve lobbied for (from their manginas in government) such as lengthy prison terms and life-long registration on publicly accessible sex-offender registries.Having a (fully consensual) sexual relationship with a minor (under the AoC) is now a heinous crime!
The penalties for these laws are truly DRACONIAN and MEDIEVAL and (no) thanks to these laws, we now live in a sex-obsessed, paedohysterical society with many less informed and easily influenced (hysterical) people conducting witch-hunts that are not at all dissimilar to the witch-hunts conducted by our pitch-fork wielding, ignorant, illiterate, superstitious and inbred ancestors during the 15th century Catholic Inquisition.
The only difference now is instead of hunting witches or heretics, they are now lynching so-called ‘paedophiles’, ‘creeps’, ‘perverts’, ‘sexual deviants’ or ‘predators’. Modern day ‘witches’ as defined by feminist hatred, pc manipulated language and propaganda. By Feminist LIES.
We now have ordinary men scapegoating each other and accusing each other of being perverts or paedophiles, simply because they want to prove to the rest of their brainwashed and paedohysterical society that they are observing the feminist dominant narrative.
These men are in fact text-book paedocrites because they are using the feminist FALSE definition of ‘paedophile’ to make that judgement on others (and themselves).
Paedophilia is a medical term describing a sexual preference for PRE-PUBESCENT children.
Feminist defined ‘paedophilia’ describes a sexual preference for a person (young woman) below the legal age of consent, which means NORMAL men (with NORMATIVE sexual behaviour) for POST-pubescent young, nubile and fertile women are ‘paedophiles’: which of course includes girls between 12 and 17 (where the AoC is 18, as it is in many US jurisdictions).
These (normal) men with normal sexuality are now considered by our feminist indoctrinated society to be sick perverts and are literally being imprisoned as sub-human ‘paedophiles’.
Many readers of this blog also have grandparents who were legally married and parenting (their) parents when they were 14 and 15 year olds!
Interestingly too: their grandparents who married when they were too young and immature to make informed decisions about things such as sex (according to today’s femihags and femiservatives), STAYED married until ‘death do us part’ as well.
So what’s changed?
FEMINISM is the only thing that has changed and is the sole reason families are being destroyed today at the alarming rate they are…
To Summarize:
We are not at all opposed to the age of consent itself, but we do have a problem with the way these bitter, jealous femihags are simply misusing it as a way to demonize and criminalize NORMAL male sexuality and consequently use it to irreversibly destroy, possibly millions of men; as well as the very subtle and ingenious social engineering practices they’ve used to indoctrinate society with their totally false, dominant narratives relating to NORMAL male sexuality.
However, most of the mRM don’t even consider this to be a men’s rights issue!
For a good insight on the witch-hunt on male sexuality, be sure to read Inquistion 21 but make sure you allow yourself plenty of time, it is very detailed…
Alan Vaughn
12 Jan 13 at 2:02 am
Highwayman:
I don’t see anything especially wrong with traditional marriage—but most of these groups don’t mean marriage in the traditional sense, either. Traditional marriage to me means what the feminists describe as ‘patriarchy.’ That system’s not coming back any time soon and most of those marriage advocates, (probably excepting Keonigalt BTW ‘Outcast Superstar’ comments at his blog too), would be in the forefront of opposing it. Returning to REAL traditional marriage would include allowing polygamy, marriage to so-called ‘underage’ women, ending no-fault divorce, and allowing a subculture of professional sex workers. And they won’t stand for any of that.
Eric
12 Jan 13 at 11:15 pm
QUOTE: “I don’t see anything especially wrong with traditional marriage”
Im not at all opposed to traditional marriage…whatever floats your boat….the problem I have with many “Family Values” activists is that they often want to close the sexual free market and restrict peoples choices to engage in any other type of sexual relationship besides “traditional marriage”. I support free choice for men and women to form whatever type of consensual relationship they want and my focus as an MRA is to ensure that men get treated farirly in all types of relationships whether “alternative” or “traditional”. I know that many MRAs complain (and rightly so to an extent) that too many women use thier freedom of choice to make irresponsible choices BUT I have written several lenghtly comments here that the standard 1958 Brigade mantra (women are prone to making irresponsible choices by nature therefore we must return to traditionalism to restrict those choices) does not stand up to scrutiny and that the epidemic of irresponsibility amongst many contemporary women is an artificial creation caused by feminist insipired legal codes and cultural memes. I have also written lengthly comments too as to why the conservative MRA claim that men are better of in a more closed sexual market is based on seriously flawed argumentation. My criticism of ‘traditionalist MRAs” and 2 faced PUAs is there advocacy of a more closed sexual market…I do however support legal and cultural fairness for men who make the choice to enter a traditional marriage.
The Highwayman
13 Jan 13 at 1:28 am
Antifeminist:
“It has possibly prevented proposed legislation banning sexbots.”
Can you believe that paedocrite Fraudtrelle today went off about this? He quotemined some fringe mRA blogger who didn’t know the proposal had been recinded and is laughing off Kerr’s proposal as hoax.
I shouldn’t be surprised by anything Fat-troll does but he always seems to reach new low on a regular basis.
Eric
15 Jan 13 at 12:56 am
@eric
What a fat insane idiot that paedocrite is. I was always aware that it was just a bunch of feminist students drafting a proposal for legislation on sexbots as a ‘class exercise’. The fact is, Ian Kerr does contribute to government consultations on robot ethics in Canada, and this is likely how a real legislative draft will look. The important point is that feminists have been made aware that hell on Earth will be unleashed if and when they do try to pass legislation against sex bots. The fact that this was just a ‘class exercise’ only underlines that point.
theantifeminist
15 Jan 13 at 5:21 am
Antifeminist:
Hopefully you’re enjoying the sunshine. Meanwhile, the ‘shady’ Fat-troll is already on his THIRD post about the ‘Sexbot Ban Hoax’! LOL
I wonder if he’s trying to cozy up to Ian Kerr for some purpose? Or maybe just angling for more Manboobz meetups in Canada…LOL
Eric
18 Jan 13 at 2:51 am
@Eric Probably fuming because I claimed credit for forcing Ian Kerr to abandon any notion of sexbot legislation, as well as removing all trace of that ‘student exercise’ from the web.
Yes, I’m enjoying the sunshine but I’ve had a run in with some slutwalkers and then this afternoon some Ameriskank in Starbucks was staring at me soI smiled at her out of politeness and she shouted ‘what are you looking at?’. Arrogant bitch was the wrong side of 25 with crows feet already around her eyes. I told her ‘maybe if you were 5 years younger love’. Then I told the staff to keep watch on the aggressive bitch. The look on her mortified Ameriskank face was priceless.
theantifeminist
20 Jan 13 at 7:21 pm
Antifeminist:
Ugh…see what we put with over here?
‘…with crows feet already around her eyes.’
This might be an interesting topic at some point. Earlier when we were discussing the youth and beauty of Edwardian actresses, I did some research and was amazed at how many of them—even into their late 30s and 40s—STILL looked younger than many 20-somethings of today.
Even a lot of old family I’ve seen show middle-aged women in a lot better condition than today’s women, this even after having several kids. In fact, the very point that some of these women were still getting pregnant and having babies well into their 40s seems to imply that they were still ‘nubile’ in a lot of ways. Also, it wasn’t uncommon for widows at that age to be remarried fairly easily.
I’m wondering if earlier marriage and sexuality actually had an impact on female health back then—causing them to age more slowly and remain fertile long after today’s women reach menopause? It’s food for thought…
Eric
21 Jan 13 at 11:52 pm