Younger Girls are Easier?

Interesting post from London PUA Steve Jabba (mate of our old friend Krauser PUA) :

I had actually been thinking of writing a post on this subject for a while, and as I don’t post anymore, it’s nice that a ‘master PUA’ has written it for me. I’ll just add a couple of brief points. As Jabba explains, teenage girls don’t really know their sexual market value yet. And this is what the age of consent amounts to as far as teenagers are concerned. Or rather, this is the only possible justification for a high age of consent, at least in terms of the hazy notion of ‘informed consent’. And don’t worry, I’m not endorsing the feminist aoc here, because it’s a nonsense Sexual Trade Union rationale, and only holds true if all women are prostitutes and all sex acts are economic transactions in which the female is considered to be raped (sexually robbed) if she has not obtained maximum reward for opening her legs. And even here I doubt very much that the feminists would be worried about the individual teenage girl ‘underselling’ herself, but rather their only concern would be with the broader effect on the price of sex if young girls are giving it away too cheaply. In other words ‘informed consent’ means being informed enough to be a responsible member of the pussy cartel – a whore who knows her price and who wont undercut other women.

And as far as PUA is concerned, in my own aspie way I’ve found it very much true that 16 year old girls are easier than 26 year olds. That comes with a huge caveat of course. Young girls are brainwashed by feminism to see older guys as disgusting, to only seek friendships let alone relationships or hookups with their peers, and to see a 30+ year old guy who approaches them as ‘creepy’ at best. So the rejection rate is higher, and the blowouts more brutal. But astonishingly enough, it does appear that it is easier to get that rare beautiful ‘yes girl’ from the younger age bracket.

Why the ‘Sexual Abuse’ of Boys is Much More Serious than that of Girls

MHRAs are right when they say that society downplays the sexual abuse of boys as compared to girls. In fact MHRAs don’t go far enough. According to the underlying feminist logic behind sexual abuse and its devastating impact upon the victim, the sexual abuse of boys is MUCH more serious than that of girls.

Social Purity MovementFor most of history, society regarded the ‘sexual abuse’ of young teenage girls as serious because it entailed the ruining of her ‘honour’ – her reputation as virginal and chaste, and hence her value as a future wife. Of course, this historical justification for protecting young girls from sex never made any sense with regard to boys, of whom virility not virginity was prized, and hence the ‘double standard’ that MHRAs vent their fury against so much today became very much rooted in society.

Now in today’s feminist society, we pretend that virginity is no longer something to be valued in a female, and hence we can no longer argue that girls need to be protected from the male ‘predator’ in order to preserve their ‘honour’. Instead, we now claim that it is their minds or psyches that are ‘ruined’ by sex with older men. This is the feminist ‘trauma model’ of sexual abuse, and is nothing more than an attempt at a ‘scientific’ re-formulation of the desire to preserve virginity in girls, even though we have ostensibly abandoned that value. Feminsts want a high age of consent in order to remove sexual competition to themselves and their followers, and they use the ‘trauma model’ of abuse as a thinly disguised way to exploit the hardwired male inclination to protect and White Knight the virginity and chastity of young girls.

The Trauma Model is a near entirely empty concept with zero scientific credibility. It is, in fact, the Trauma Myth, or equally, the Trauma Tautology. Why does underage teen sex lead to trauma? Because underage teen sex is bad! Why is underage teen sex bad? Because underage teen sex leads to trauma!

In fact, a moment’s reflection would lead any sane and rational person to understand that if post-pubescent teenage sex was inherently traumatic, the human race would likely have become extinct within a few generations of arising. Certainly, many thousands of years and generations before the word ‘teen’ became far and away the most searched for porn term online.

But lets pretend that teenage sex is bad, not because it ‘ruins’ the ‘honour’ of the teen ‘victim’, but because it ruins his or her mind, esepcially their psycho-sexual functioning. As we know, in this, MHRAs agree entirely with feminists. All they want is for society to accept that underage sex affects boys in as devastating a fashion as it does girls. But they should go further than this. Because if this is the reason that teenage sex is bad, then teenage sex will affect boys much more adversely than it does girls. This is because it is the male that is expected to take the lead in sexual relationships, from start to finish. Men pursue women and women choose. Men have to display confidence, assertiveness (feminists have made this a legal minefield, of course), humour, risk taking for fear of rejection etc, as well as status which comes from a good career and achieving a high social rank. Women simply choose, and the wealth of their choices is determined largely by their looks.

Even in regards to navigating life and social relationships in general , some of what we might expect to be the marks of a somewhat damaged personality – shyness, introvertedness, nervousness etc – are much more easily forgiven, and even admired or found cute in a female, than they are in a male.

If teenage sex is bad because if devastates a young person’s ability to function sexually with the opposite sex, their confidence with regards to both sex and to social relationships and life in general, then we should expect it to have a far more serious impact upon boys than girls.

Perhaps MHRAs should not campaign to simply abolish the double standard, but to reverse it? Perhaps indeed we should raise the age of consent with regard to boys and lower it with regard to girls? This is the logical outcome of the trauma model of sexual abuse, or rather the ‘Trauma Tautology’.

An alternative would be to see the Truama Tautology for what it is, to campaign for the abolishment of the feminist high age of consent (or at least not to promote the Trauma Tautology and feminist child abuse industry), and to recognise that the disposibility of and contempt for the male is found in the double standard as regards alleged ‘predators’ rather than the ‘victims’ who have had that status forced upon them by feminists. It is the victim label that ‘ruins’ teenage ‘victims’ of willing sex, and it does so even more seriously for boys than for girls, and it is the ‘predator’ label which is leading thousands of men, and even increasingly boys, to face lives of imprisonment, fear, and ostracisation as ‘sex offenders’, the feminist version of the Nazi pink triangle, and perhaps soon, the feminist version of the holocaust.


Are All Feminists Rapists? A Thought Experiment

I believe that our primary goal as a men’s rights movement that defends male sexuality should be to seek the prosecution of leading feminists for attempted rape.

Last night I was threatened with death by several women via Twitter, for pointing out that 15 year old Russian Yulia Lipnitskaya is one of the most beautiful and graceful females on Earth – something undeniably demonstrated by the global media adultation she has been subjected to during the Sochi Olympics.  Those same women, who would like me murdered for admitting this obvious fact, recently tweeted their desire to ‘permanently look like a 14 year old Brooke Shields’.


How much more obvious does it have to be that feminist sex hysteria, and the constant criminalization and shaming of male sexuality, is the attempt to further the sexual opportunities of women?  Feminists would like to look like 15 year old girls, but if they can’t do that (which they can’t) the next best thing is to shame and even murder any man who dares to admit that finding 15 year old girls attractive is normal.

Attempting to co-erce another human being into sex is attempted rape under UK Law and under most sensible definitions, both legal and linguistic. This is what feminists are doing, and this is why they are rapists – or would be rapists.

However, one of my readers, the legendary tactical genius and stalwart of the men’s rights movement – Human Stupidity – has voiced his concern that he and most people do not, and cannot, ‘get’ the idea that feminists are rapists.  So I thought I’d try to illustrate my case through an analogy.  I’m sure there are better analogies out there, and perhaps my readers can suggest others, but this will do for now, that came off the top of my head as I read Mr Stupidity’s comment.  Here is my analogy and thought experiment – please take the time to read through it once or twice :

Imagine a barman who spikes every alcoholic drink at the nightclub he is working in with a drug that makes most women who consume it develop a paranoid delusion that sex with anyone but a barman is utterly perverted.  Further, the drug makes the women believe that sex with anyone but a barman will likely be punished with being brutally beaten and anally raped in prison as a subhuman pervert.  Part of the paranoid delusion is the belief that even woman who do not have sex, barmen or no barmen, are treated by society as probable perverts. Women who have not slept with barmen have been accused of being perverts by mobs, and burnt alive by them – or at least the women are made to believe this by the drug. Having sex with barmen, however, is ‘normal’.

As a result, despite the fact that there are far more attractive men in the nightclub, women are thus very keen indeed to have sex with barmen, and unsurprisingly, the barman gets regular sex with female clubbers.

Now imagine that for this drug to work most effectively, it has to be taken by many different women, many times, as its incredible effects are achieved partly by mass hysteria – other women whose drinks have been spiked developing similar delusions which then re-inforce those of other women. Therefore, the barmen are operating something like a ‘sexual trade union’, or as some others might describe it, a ‘cock cartel’. They are all in on this, all over the country – even globally – because they intuitively know that they must all act collectively and regularly spike the drinks of the women they serve with the drug for it to work on each individual woman and for each barman to improve his sexual opportunities.

The drug has a powerful effect on most women, but still the barmen are to some extent playing a numbers game. It’s not a case of spiking one individual woman’s drink and then knowing that she will have sex with him as a result. They have to spike the drinks of thousands of women, and further, to rely upon other barmen around the world spiking the drinks of thousands and millions of other women. And it is important to note that even then they don’t know which woman will ultimately have sex with them. In fact, any woman who does have sex with any individual barman might have had their drink spiked by a different barman. It might even be the case that the woman would have had sex with the barman even if her drink hadn’t been spiked. It is virtually impossible to prove in each instance of sex. We can only say that the barmen deliberately spiked the drinks of thousands of women in order to collectively improve their opportunities for sex by instilling a fear of not having sex with barmen into the minds of women, as well as a false sense of ‘normal’ and ‘perverted’ sexual attraction.

Now are the barmen rapists? I would say obviously they are, and they would be treated as such under most legal rape definitions in most countries, regardless of feminist ‘re-definitions’.

And you can be sure that every feminist on Earth would not hesitate to call them rapists and demand their imprisonment.

Especially if their lives depended upon it.

Definately not a 14 year old Brooke Shields.
Definately not a 14 year old Brooke Shields.
Brain bleach - 14 year old Brooke Shields
Brain bleach – 14 year old Brooke Shields


Ten Points/Memes On The Age of Consent

Here are 10 key points/memes to memorize and spread as far and widely as possible regarding the age of consent, and in particular, the validity of discussion of the age of consent, both within and outside the men’s rights movement :

1 / If the discussion of sex laws had always been taboo/forbidden, then homosexuality would still be illegal. Homosexuality is illegal in many countries, and being criminalized in several others. If we disallow discussion of (changing) sex laws in the West, we will be in a poor position to prevent similar attempts to surpress even discussion of the rights of homosexuals in countries where homosexuality is illegal. We criticise Russia for making it illegal to ‘promote’ homosexuality to children, yet those same ‘liberal’ progressives want to make it illegal to ‘promote’ (i.e discuss rationally) lowering the age of consent or to criticise any laws ostensibly protecting children. If discussing ‘child protection’ laws had always been off limits, Alan Turing would still be considered a child abusing pervert (he had illegal sex with a boy under the age of majority at the time).

2(and relating to 1)/ The age of consent in the UK was set at 16 (raised from 12/13) in a backward Victorian criminal amendment act (1885) that also criminalized homosexuality, punishable by death. The same law that Alan Turing was prosecuted under. Ironically, it is now effectively taboo to criticise one half of that backward 1885 bill (the age of consent of 16) and yet taboo, and even illegal, to support the other half of that same backward Victorian bill (the criminalization of homosexuality).

3/ The age of consent was set at 16 by puritanical feminists (suffragettes) in the UK, and that same bill (and age of 16) was a model for similar rises in the age of consent in the USA and elsewhere (also lobbied for by feminists/suffragettes). This is an important point to stress within the context of men’s rights.

4/ The social situation in the UK when the age of consent was raised to 16 was very different to today, and in fact, the ostensible justifications for raising the age of consent from 12/13 to 16 at the time do not even remotely apply in today’s world. For example, girls began puberty at around 16/17 in the Victorian era, whereas the average today is between 9 and 10. In the Victorian era, pre-marital sex was still heavily frowned upon, and the average age of marriage was significantly lower than today, so the the age of consent of 16 was effectively an attempt by puritanical feminists to criminalize pre-marital sex. Teenagers today are better educated (arguably) and far more sexually knowledgable. In 1885, only a small percentage of the population had the vote, whereas today the trend is to give 16 year old boys and girls the vote. There was little or no effective contraception, abortion was illegal and dangerous, there was no welfare state or safety net for girls who got pregnant and abandoned, no mandatory child support payments from absent fathers. Furthermore, the age of consent was raised in the midst of a hysterical moral panic involving ‘white slavery’ – the supposed epidemic of children being bought and sold as sex slaves in London. This moral panic has largely been debunked as merely an effort to sell Victorian tabloid newspapers.

5 (and relating to 4)/ The historical and evolutionary reasons for protecting the virginity of young girls no longer apply. Not only is virginity no longer prized while ‘sluthood’ is officially championed, the reasons stated above (contraception, abortion etc) have both loosened sex from reproduction and reduced the potential harm to the girl resulting from the likelihood of pregnancy.

6/ As the age of consent will always be arbitary, unless defined by a biological marker (such as most obviously the onset of puberty), it is imperative that rational discussion on where the line is set should be allowed. If it is so obvious that a 15 year old, one year below the line, cannot possibly consent to sex, to make even discussion of the question immoral or illegal, then the age of consent should be significantly higher than 15. But then one must agree that questioning of the higher end of the new age of consent must be valid, otherwise one would have to hold that the age of consent should be raised again…ad absurdum. In other words, one cannot hold that the current age of consent is manifestly and unquestionably right without slipping into absurdity.

7/ The age of consent is not some neutral ‘speed limit’. The labelling of young people (or anyone) as ‘victims’ is itself harmful and damaging to them. Only rational discussion can determine whether the harm caused is justified by preventing or correcting even greater harm. Those who wish to make discussion of the age of consent/child abuse laws illegal, are thus themselves child abusers damaging children with no rational justification.

8/ To suggest that those who argue for a lower age of consent are ‘self-rationalizing paedophiles’ is not only an ad hominen argument, it is also an absurdity. Surely it is the people who want rational discussion of a law forbidden who are ‘self-rationalizing’, and suffering from ‘cognitive distortions’, rather than those who want open, fair, and rational discussion based upon logic, science, and evidence? It also pre-supposes falsely that only one side in the debate (those arguing in favour of a lower age of consent) have ‘an interest’ in achieving their aim, and ignores the obvious fact that those arguing for a higher age of consent (invariably hags and paedocrites) certainly have a selfish interest in doing so. Furthermore, not only does it rely on the feminist lie that males attracted to teenage girls are ‘paedophiles’, it would also follow that homosexuals could not objectively think or reason about the ethics of homosexuality, including in countries in which homosexuals are persecuted.

9/ To remain silent on these issues is far more suspicious than to speak out on them, especially in relation to men’s rights activism. The persecution of elderly celebrities currently taking place in the UK, for example, is so obviously a men’s rights issue if anything is, that it would be suspicious to remain silent on it rather than speak out against it. These are feminist laws that result in the persecution of thousands of men, and more pertinantly, this persecution and witch hunting is becoming worse and more hysterical with every passing year. History may judge those of us who fail to speak out.

10/ Feminist age of consent and ‘paedophile’ laws, forever widening in their scope and definition, are an attack on normal male sexuality. It is the desire to eliminate sexual competition, or at least provide an outlet for the jealousy and sexual bitterness of older women, as well as persecute and demonize ordinary male sexuality and to shame the natural male preference for younger fertile females. Men are hard wired to find adolescent girls sexually attractive, and not only does this demonstrate the evilness of the feminist inflation and exploitation of the term ‘paedophile’, it also highlights the manifest absurdity of believing that any intrinsic harm could result from consensual sex with an adolescent (if it did, none of us would be here today).

Gannon : ‘The Truth Behind Age of Consent Laws’

This is an interesting age of consent article recommended to me by loyal and esteemed reader (and sometime commentator) Highwayman. ‘Gannon’ is a self-identified ‘ephebophile’, and like most of such individuals, as well as most anti-sex hysteria writers, he completely ignores any possibility that feminism, let alone female sexual jealousy, could have any part in paedohysteria and its extension to include men who have sex with teenagers (completely ignoring the established historical facts, at the very least). Highwayman wondered why Gannon had never made his way to my site. Probably because he would still see my anti-feminist site as ‘misogynistic’, even if he was being raped in a prison cell whilst the femihags whose laws imprisoned him watched and laughed.

Anyway, apart from the glaring ommission, a well-written and interesting article :

The Truth Behind the Age of Consent Laws

This essay is a response to many questions I have been asked by people in the Minor Attracted Adult [MAA] community, as well as those outside who support us (and yes, such people do exist!), in regards to the age of consent [AoC] laws.

Since much scientific evidence has emerged to make it clear that younger people do not receive severe emotional damage following sexual contact with a significantly older adult if mutual consent was a factor, and no fully objective, scientifically validated evidence to the contrary has ever been gathered by any of the mainstream naysayers out there, what is the real reasons that contemporary society supports the continued existence of the AoC laws? Why does society generally feel equally dedicated to enforcing AoC laws in regards to adolescents in addition to children when it’s empirically obvious that the former are actually young adults? What is the reason for all the negative stereotypes and assumptions directed at both adults who engage in relationships with much younger people as well as the young people who may reciprocate the interest? This essay will seek to answer those questions by explicating my thoughts and observations on this subject based upon my many years as a hebephile activist on the pro-choice side of the coin, and my many more years as a youth liberationist (the latter going back to my own early adolescence).

Please note that this particular essay will not describe the specific circumstances that led to the creation of the AoC laws as we know them today back during the 1880s in England. That will perhaps be the subject of a future essay, and the circumstances in question are well documented in a scholarly manner in Judith Walkowitz’s excellent tome about sexual dangers and hysterias running rampant in late Victorian London, The City of Dreadful Delight. Instead, this essay will focus upon the modern rationale behind the continued enforcement of these laws and the societal attitudes that back up these laws in the minds of the great majority of the general public in the present era, while still keeping the historical perspectives in mind.

The first reason for the widespread modern societal support for these laws and accompanying attitudes is a very simple one: intergenerational sexual activity is currently offensive to the emotional sensibilities of many people raised under the present day cultural milieu, much as homosexual acts are considered aesthetically repulsive to many of a certain ideological stripe (e.g., fundamentalist Christians and other homophobes). The advantage that mainstream gay activists had over the youth community of today, however, is that the heart of the movement was composed of legal adults who had their full civil rights, whereas people under 18–during the heyday of the modern civil rights movement as well as now–do not. Those whom the government legally designate as “minors” today are essentially the glorified property of their parents and helpless to resist the “protection racket” mentality of the State.

Underage people in contemporary society also represent a strongly ingrained paradigm that people, influenced by the many lingering remnants of the Victorian mindset, consider to be sacred to them. This is the idea that enforced ignorance about the world (our culture uses the word “innocence” as a feel-good euphemism to sugarcoat this form of ignorance) is somehow blissful and beautiful, and that the supposedly carefree nature of childhood and early adolescence that comes along with this blissful and beautiful ignorance implies a degree of inner purity that adults are believed to lose once they learn about the world and all of the “horrible” and emotionally “complicated” things that exist within it outside of the confined safety of a child’s world. As such, our culture perceives such ignorance as immensely precious, regardless of how all of the younger people who are currently forced to conform to that paradigm may or may not feel about it.

Due to prevailing negative attitudes about sex, sexuality is therefore considered “dirty” and the introduction of it to minors is perceived as somehow tainting that blissful ignorance. Our culture therefore considers this perceived besmirching of “innocence” to be a heinous act (e.g., “stealing someone’s childhood” or “violating their innocence”). Thus, the introduction of sexuality into a minor’s life is viewed by most in our society to cause these kids to “grow up too fast,” thus undermining that perceived wondrous state of bliss and purity of spirit that our culture believes childhood to personify in a material sense. Of course, in actuality, the presence of sexual knowledge and the full freedom to practice it in a mutually consensual manner is correctly recognized as a liberating experience for adults that is important to their emotional health, which one may think to cause many open-minded people to feel bemused over why we feel the exact opposite is true when it comes to sexual knowledge and experience being given to someone who has yet to reach the vaunted Magic Age. But the recognized liberating effects of sexual knowledge and experience is the very crux of the matter here, because the vast majority of people in our contemporary culture do not want kids to be liberated; they want them to remain legally, economically, and socially dependent on legal adults, and to stay within the parameters of the wonderful state of socially constructed “childhood”–and thus firmly under adult control–for as long as possible. Society rationalizes the artificial extension of childhood for teens under 18 as being beneficial to their spirit because of the ideological glorification of our present day paradigm of childhood. After all, the defenders of our society will say, childhood is so wonderful, blissful, and carefree, why wouldn’t someone want to be a child for as long as possible, and enjoy the beauty of this existence until society legally forces them to suddenly “grow up” once they reach their 18th birthday?

If an adult has consensual sex with someone who is underage (i.e., legally a child regardless of their individual level of biological or emotional development), he may not be harming a person in a demonstrable or objective sense but he is nevertheless harming a very sacrosanct idea in the eyes of modern Western culture, and thus demeaning what our society believes to be a idyllic and beautiful state of being that children (i.e., anyone who is legally a child, of course) represents to our ideological mindset. As such, people raised in this society take huge offense to such an act, with many actually finding this act to be literally worse than murdering a child.

Also thrown into the mix to rationalize such attitudes are the beliefs that young people under 18 are inherently incompetent and prone to bad decision-making. In other words, they are stereotyped, and their supposed lack of competency to make such “emotionally complex” decisions are assumed on the arbitrary basis of chronological age rather than judged according to individual merit. The justification to have this same attitude towards teens as towards actual children is bolstered by common societal myths that teens have inherent neurological malfunctions that render them very prone to making “bone-headed” decisions. An earlier biological myth described how teens were supposedly subject to hormonal swings that caused their behavior and decision-making abilities to be erratic, but more recently we have seen the development of the belief that the teen brain is inherently “defective,” which therefore allegedly causes them to have a great propensity for making incompetent decisions. These all-too common discriminatory beliefs have been challenged quite well over the past decade in scientific studies conducted by clinical psychologist Dr. Robert Epstein in several of his articles, beginning with “The Myth of the Teen Brain” [available online] and in his excellent book, The Case Against Adolescence from 2007 and its 2010 update, Teen 2.0. As a result of this thinking, teens–like children–are seen to be in a perpetual state of “not knowing any better”…until they reach their 18th birthday, of course, where they officially become legal adults and are then assumed to be competent to make their own decisions regardless of individual merits. Legal adults have their full civil rights, so they must be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to take emotional risks regardless of their perceived or actual individual merits, and this is the way it’s supposed to be in a democracy. But people under 18 do not have these civil rights because they are not recognized as “adults” (according to current legal definitions), and thus the very important democratic right to take risks and grow as a person at their own pace–and to judge the rapidity of that pace for themselves–is not recognized.

Also add this to the mix: people in general are often reluctant to give up any power that they have over others. Why should either the majority of parents or the State willingly give up control over an entire class of people? Both see the civil liberation of individuals under 18 as a threat to their ability to mold young people to fit whatever paradigm our culture wants them to fit during their formative years, and many belonging to either of these two institutions therefore consider it to be very important to leave younger people in no legal or political position to resist such molding. That tactic is the basis for the famous maxim, “Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man.” Now imagine how much truer that saying is if you give both parents and the State near-full control over the child for the first 18 years of their lives. This is why youth liberationists continually stress that it’s vitally important to grant people their full civil liberties during their formative years, and why it’s ridiculous for opponents of youth liberation to claim that kids cannot be considered a true oppressed minority group simply because they will be automatically awarded their full citizenship once they reach their 18th birthday (well, almost; they still retain a few limits on their full rights until they reach their 21st birthday). The various powers-that-be in our society seem to feel that 18 years of pre-citizenship is a long enough time for the “molding” or indoctrination effect to have a maximum chance of “sticking” (and most often, it does).

The reason many mainstream liberals (or, as some of my activist friends may prefer, “libruls”) believe that it’s okay for teens to have mutually consensual sex with each other but not with adults is because some people take a stab at being “open-minded” and “sex positive” in their own eyes by grudgingly accepting the fact that teens, including young teens, are sexual beings and that attempting to deny this completely is not only futile, but also counterproductive to their well-being (which is true, of course).

However, having been raised in the same culture as the rest of us, they will only allow their open-mindedness to go forward to a limited extent, i.e., to a level that is considered politically “safe” to hold among “reasonable” people on the Left of the political spectrum, who fear being called names by their opponents on the Right if they do otherwise. Hence, though they do not believe that consensual sexual activity between two teens of the same general age group is automatically going to have emotionally negative effects on the participants, they are still repulsed from an aesthetic standpoint by the idea of an adult engaging in sexual activity with someone that young regardless of the issue of consent. Simply put, such age disparate pairings are “icky” to them. So they justify this attitude by the stated belief that adults automatically have “too much worldly experience” for teens under the Magic Age, and this is believed to enable the adult in question to easily control the teen and manipulate them into doing something that these “libruls” do not want to believe any teen would willingly do unless they were manipulated into doing it, and therefore may have only thought they wanted to do it, or that they found it a positive and enjoyable experience.

Of course, this was the exact same rationale used by Southern white bigots in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to lynch black men who had sex with white women. Such men of color were always accused of “rape” regardless of whether or not the woman consented because the white men of this era and locale were so offended by the idea of interracial sex–bolstered by then still prevailing beliefs that women were easily led astray by “selfish” and logically superior men (an attitude that has since been aimed at people according to age rather than gender)–that they rationalized their lynchings with a firm belief that no self-respecting white woman could possibly have desired to have “icky” sex with a black man of her own volition. Because of their disdain for sex between black men and white women, these white bigots concluded that if the women weren’t forced into sex with these black men then they must have been manipulated into it by the suave nature that reputedly gave all men an advantage over and above the inherent naivety and easily led astray female psyche. This enabled them to justify such harsh and unnecessary acts of retribution that were in actuality done solely out of hatred for blacks and revulsion over interracial relations between black men and white women, the latter of whom white men felt they were supposed to be “protective” of in the sense that these white women belonged to them alone (sound familiar?).

This exact same dynamic is played out today, though not in regards to race but rather in regards to age. Blacks have since earned enough civil rights that it’s no longer possible for the legal system–or for too many even mildly open-minded white people–to justify miscegenation laws. And women have earned much more respect in regards to their perceived level of competence during that same time as a result of their own movement for emancipation, so they are no longer automatically assumed to have been manipulated when they have a consensual relationship with a black man (they are simply said to have “jungle fever,” and left at that). But the important thing to consider about teens under 18 is that, like children, and like blacks and women in the past, they currently lack the civil rights and legally recognized autonomy to escape from these stereotypes, and thus lack any substantial opportunities to prove their competence. They are also forcibly kept from obtaining certain “age inappropriate” information that would enhance their knowledge and ability to make competent decisions, which causes them to appear to “naturally” fit the stereotype of “ignorant” young people that is actually culturally imposed upon them–which is obviously a major case of political dirty pool played upon them by a combination of parents and the State. Those minors who obviously do not fit the stereotypes and rise above their legally and culturally imposed disadvantages are dismissed as “exceptions to the rule” or sometimes as prodigies, and not enough reasonable opportunities exist for sizable numbers of young people to prove their individual levels of competence at the present time. But people in our culture are indoctrinated into believing that this is the “natural” state of being for young people, while encouraged to ignore all of the historical and anthropological evidence that strongly suggests otherwise [recommended reading: Centuries of Childhood by Phillipe Aries, which traces the very gradual socio-cultural construction of the “child” as we know it today].

Another thing to consider is that teens, like children, are expected to conform to a certain cultural hierarchy. In our gerontocentric culture, older individuals are believed to be due respect by underage people simply by reaching the Magic Age and becoming a legal adult. This is seen to automatically confer legal adults with a level of authority over those who have not achieved the automatic esteem our culture feels one is due simply for reaching their 18th birthday. Thus, all adults are arbitrarily considered to be authority figures over people under 18, regardless of whether or not the adult in question has any real degree of power over the life of any given young person, such as that possessed by a parent, teacher, coach, etc. This authority is seen as inherent in the role one is expected to take on as an “adult,” and as such, our society instantly perceives anyone who is granted full citizenship that comes with the legally recognized age of adulthood to have a power advantage over people under 18.

As a result of what I described above, intergenerational relationships are perceived as having an inherent power imbalance in favor of the legal adult regardless of any of the many other factors that could be present to effect that aspect of the relationship, and assuming how likely it is for any two people of any age group to form a relationship that is entirely equitable in every conceivable manner. As a result, according to our cultural mindset, if people see an intergenerational relationship–no matter how nice and egalitarian-minded the adult in the relationship may be–they nevertheless believe that they can never be “quite sure” that the girl doesn’t actually want the relationship, but is merely acceding to her older lover’s “authority” and doing everything he wants her to do simply because he commands it rather than because she wants to do it–so the law must intervene “just in case.” No evidence needed or required, because the basis of the AoC laws are very arbitrary and are based on overriding assumptions that do not need to be backed up by evidence, a situation is supposed to the be the very antitheses of American law. The AoC laws are among the very few laws under American jurisprudence where assumptions without evidence are accepted in court, because it’s believed that if there is even a remote chance that the adult in question is guilty of manipulating the girl into a relationship in which she doesn’t consciously realize that she actually doesn’t want to participate in, then no “good” and “responsible” court can possibly take the chance of granting him and the relationship clemency no matter how much the evidence may support doing so–and regardless of what the individual merits of the girl in question happen to be. This is because she is not yet a legal adult, and therefore not a full citizen whose right to take emotional risks, and whose competency is given the benefit of the doubt sans any compelling evidence to suggest otherwise, have to be taken into consideration.

While many people in our culture may still consider a relationship between a 45-year-old man and a 19-year-old woman to be “icky” and morally and ideologically objectionable due to all of the stereotypes and assumptions I mentioned above, a 19-year-old woman is nevertheless a full citizen legally, so her right to take such risks is grudgingly recognized despite all the stereotypical assumptions thrown at the two of them by polite society (e.g., he must be a control freak who is looking for a partner that is “easy” to manipulate, and she must see him as a surrogate “father figure” rather than as an actual relationship partner and has “issues” that she needs to work out, etc., et al.).

Then there is this other important factor to consider, based on what I explained in the last paragraph. Because adults are supposed to be authority figures to anyone under the legal designation of “minor,” a romantic relationship between two people on the opposite ends of the Magic Age divide is seen (correctly) as necessitating that the adult treat their younger lover more or less as an equal. This is viewed as “inappropriate” by our society because it undermines the nature of the hierarchy of authority that our cultural attitudes believe to be so important in order to maintain social cohesion and the present day order of things. If large numbers of adults are treating teens and children as equals, then the latter will end up having a voice in society by proxy that many parents and government officials do not want them to have. This is similar to the political reasons why the Roman Catholic Church long ago insisted that priests do not marry and have no romantic relationships at all. While the official ideological justification was that having a sex life and a romantic connection tainted the purity of their soul due to the inherent “ickiness” factor of sex, and that being in love with a woman would detract from the love the priests were supposed to hold for the Lord alone, what much of the upper echelons of the clergy truly feared was that priests who were married may be influenced in their clerical decisions by their wives. This, the holy big wigs feared, would result in many women acquiring a voice in the church by proxy, and at that time it was strongly believed that women shouldn’t have a say in how society was run because they would be prone to making “bad” decisions for the church and society in general (such as pro-woman decisions, of course).

The same attitude persists today, albeit now directed towards people according to age rather than gender. If too many adults treated people under 18 as equals, it may grant a potentially high degree of empowerment to these underagers, and our culture believes that young people should be kept in “their proper place.” And if these youngsters were given too many opportunities to prove they are capable of much more than the common contemporary attitudes claim they are, this may gradually erode the justification for the law enforcing their disadvantaged status as “pre-citizens.” In other words, mutually consensual intergenerational relationships pose an inherent threat not to young people, but to the existing power structure in society. The government considers itself to be a protector of the prevailing status quo first and foremost, and people are raised and indoctrinated with a belief that the present status quo is basically good for everyone, and that it’s the job of every decent citizen to work to preserve it, thus further explaining the uncritical, widespread acceptance of so many draconian laws and negative cultural attitudes used to suppress such relationships, and youth rights in general.

All of the above factors combine to explain why people are so willing to swallow the many obvious contradictions related to the AoC laws, and support all of the silly rationalizations and stereotypes that we are indoctrinated into accepting as reasonable justification for them. They also explain why the government enforces and promotes these attitudes and beliefs while outright condemning any valid scientific study or empirical observations that disprove any of the rationales—a prime example of this occurred when the entire U.S. Congress voted unanimously to condemn the Rind Report after it was published in 1998 despite the fact that it was fully peer-reviewed and used perfectly credible methodology to exact its results (and proved fully replicable by another group of researchers in 2005). This made it quite clear that truth is far less important to the government than preserving custom and the belief systems that rationalize the defense and retention of the present status quo. The fact that this status quo, and the laws and cultural mores designed to preserve it, may be based on a series of lies isn’t important as long as these fallacies best enable the powers-that-be to maintain the present gerontocentric cultural hierarchy, civil rights be damned.

Human-Stupidity on UN Declaration of the Inflation of the ‘Child’

Human-Stupidity has written another classic piece describing the way in which feminists have selfishly manipulated language in order to define our moral and legal ‘reality’..

A few brief points as to why this particular example of the United Nations matters :

  • The age at which society decides childhood ends and adulthood starts has been one of the most essential and critical features of any and every civilisation that we know of.  Every society has had it’s own particular and elaborate ‘coming of age’ festivals and rites of passage ceremonies. Throughout history, the age of adulthood has generally begun around the age of puberty, the only non-arbitary marker of the end of childhood.  Feminists, via the United Nations, have effectively extended the period of childhood by 4 or 6 years, despite the fact that a 14 year old today is significantly more physically and sexually developed than in any previous centuries – as well as, in general, much better educated (and sexually knowledgeable).  Feminists have done this for entirely selfish, brood mare reasons – to increase their own sexual market value and to limit younger sexual competition.  To think that this artificial and selfish extension of childhood won’t have serious, and likely negative, consequences for both society and the development of young people into mature adults, seems incredibly naieve (see the case against adolescence).
  • The feminist extension of childhood into early adulthood, accompanied by similarly feminist generated paedohysteria, has led to a society which could be described as the complete inverse of the greatest civilisation the world has ever known – Ancient Greece.  Whereas in that society (and to a scarcely less extent Ancient Rome), relationships between the old and the young, including physical relationships, were thought crucial to the stability of civilisation, and the development of young people in their transition into adulthood, in the Western world we now have a society in which the old and the young despise each other, where adults (particularly men, of course) are too afraid to go near anybody under 18, leading to a chronic shortage of male teachers and youth workers, and a generation of young people who are taught by feminists and ‘conservatives’ alike, that the only moral value that everybody should agree upon is to see every man over 20 as a probable sub-human – the older, helpless, and more wise white that man being, the more reason and justification to hate him. 
  • The ability of feminists to define 18 as the age childhood ends, and to persuade with ease virtually every nation in the world except America and Somalia to agree to it (and those nations only disagreed because they wanted to continue using boys as cannon fodder, or to execute 16 year old criminals as adults), demonstrates their power, as well as their primary drives.  At the time of the declaration on the rights of the child (1989), only a handful of American states and one or two other nations had an age of consent of 18.  The Netherlands showed hardcore porn featuring 16 year old girls on late night tv.  Newspapers in  Scandinavia and Germany showed topless pictures of 14 year old girls for fathers to drool at over the family breakfast.  Even in the puritanical UK, nobody thought anything of tabloids counting down the day until their 15 year old models could legally strip off their bikinis. Very few people outside of radical feminists and extremist religous freaks objected to such things at the time. Now those same newspapers call for men caught looking at pictures of pigtailed 20 year old women to be executed or tortured as psycho-sexual deviant paedophiles.  And even men’s rights activists who criticise feminists making these laws that criminalize 90% of the male population, or which clearly target men, are denounced as perverts and ostracised.  This could hardly have happened without the United Nations inflation of what constitutes a child.
  • Has the number of genuine paedophiles and perverts increased since the United Nations inflation of what constitutes a child and what defines a paedophile?  Empirically, on an anecdotal level, it seems to me that there are far more cases of babies and toddlers being raped in the UK and the US than I ever hear about in, for example, Spain, where you can still look at a pretty 15 year old bikini clad girl on the beach without being called a pervert.  On an explanatory level, it seems to me to make intuitive sense that if you live in a society which tells you that you are a paedophile for looking at post-pubescent females, who are at or close to the age which evolutionary theory would predict men to find most attractive, and which sees the biological distinction between child and adolescent as unimportant in the defining of perversion, then that you are more likely to define yourself as a paedophile and to go on to develop an unhealthy interest in pre-pubescent children. 
  • We now live under a feminist world government.  Admittedly, the UN still can’t stop war, famine, or disease, the very reasons why it was ostensibly created to put an end to.  But it can reach into your bedroom, and effectively your mind, whether you live in Alberta or Afghanistan, in order to control and castrate male sexuality.  This has only been possible because of the frighteningly effective power of feminists to organise themselves in such a manner to successfully lobby governments.  That is, when their primitive brood mare interests were threatened in an increasingly free sexual market.
  • The current actions of the UN reveal that what we are witnessing, on an international scale, is the merging of the feminist sexual trade union with Islam.  As I predicted a few posts ago, feminists will betray their ‘gay rights’ allies the moment that the pressures of Islam make it convenient for them to do so.  This is already happening at the United Nations :  Feminists will abandon gay men to their fate, so long as other men will go to jail for so much as looking at a pretty 10 years post-pubescent female.

British Government to ‘expunge’ gay sex offenders criminal records

Now, given that in the liberal and tolerant United Kingdom of the early 21st century you can be sentenced to 7 years in prison for merely discussing the ethics of homosexuality, I have to tread extremely carefully here.

I have nothing whatsoever against homosexuals, or homosexuality.  In fact, I sometimes wish I was gay.  When the liberal’s hate figure Silvio Burlusconi recently stated ‘it is better to like a pretty girl than to be gay’, he was wrong.  At least in today’s world.  And it’s news stories like the following that reveal him to be so clearly wrong.

Men with historic gay sex convictions to have crimes expunged

Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat equalities minister, will announce firm proposals for new legislation within days, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.

The move will benefit thousands of men who were prosecuted for gay sex with someone over 16 during decades when the practice was against the law.

Currently, they must disclose the information as part of the programme of Criminal Records Bureau checks if they apply to work or volunteer for charities and other organisations.

Again, I wish to make clear, and not just because I want to avoid being imprisoned for thought crime, but because I genuinely believe this, that the historical persecution and discrimination of homosexuals throughout much of history has been an abomination.

But it does seem to me that there are some absurd elements here that only the crazed and convoluted mind of a ‘liberal rationalist’ could likely make sense of..

If sex offenders registers have any justification, it is surely because they are based upon the assumption that a willingness to break sex laws once makes it more likely that you are going to break them in future (that is, more than those who have never broken any sex law).

And yet a man, who once took a 16 year old boy up the ass when he was in his thirties, knowing that the age of consent for homosexuals was 21, now has his criminal record removed, and is deemed no threat to children.  A man, in other words, who was willing to have sex with a child 5 years under the legal age of consent – to, according to the law and the social norm at the time, sexually molest that child.  A man, who is apparently far less of a threat to children than is a hetrosexual man caught sleeping with a girl just shy of her 16th birthday.

In fact, it seems Theresa May, the woman who orginally drafted this new law, doesn’t think that 16 year old males are boys at all :

It is not fair that a man can be branded a criminal because 30 years ago he had consensual sex with another man

Despite all the evidence from psychology and neurology that teenage boys mature later than teenage girls, in the eyes of liberal progressives, 16 year old males are men, despite the growing persistant media (and feminist) reference to females in their late teens and even early twenties as being ‘girls’ (Angry Harry has been noting this recently with reference to the ‘girl’ student rioters aged over 18 – the same aged male rioters are never referred to as ‘boys’).  Obviously, preventing discrimination against homosexuals is more important than protecting children from sexual abuse.  Or at least it is if the age of consent is supposed to be about preventing immature teens being traumatised from having sex with older men – which is the feminist justification for such laws, after all.

But whether or not such unequal ages of consent were fair or unfair to homosexuals, the fact is that they were in law to (ostensibly) protect children, supposedly the highest value in today’s progressive world.  As readers of this site are well aware, I believe that the present age of consent in the UK (16) is manifestly absurd in a society which has free contraception, legal access to abortion, a welfare state (in case of unplanned and unsupported pregnancy), and a set of values that permits and even promotes casual sex as something good, or at least morally neutral.  However, I’m hesitant to suggest that any man up in court for sleeping with a 15 year old, uses as his defence his belief that in another 20 years, in a more enlightened and rational time, the age of consent will be lower than it is today, and therefore the crime of which he is being tried for likely to have come to be seen as a historical barbarism and any resulting conviction quashed.  Let’s just say it’s unlikely to wash with the jury or the judge.

Perhaps you might maintain that the point here is simply that homosexuals were being discriminated against.  Men who had sex with underage teenage boys 30 years ago weren’t really nasty paedophiles all too willing to break child sex laws – they somehow knew that morally what they were doing was o.k, because they could predict the future and see that in the UK of 2010, discrimination against homosexuals would be considered a great evil, even greater than breaking historical child sex laws.

Well then what about a teacher who goes to prison as a paedophile scum for having consensual sex with a 17 year old girl, 1 year over the age of consent in the UK?  Surely such laws discriminate against teachers?  Why should your profession determine who can and can’t consent to sex with you, and whether you should go to prison for who you put your dick inside, anymore than your sexuality does?

In Spain, the age of consent is still 13.  And it wasn’t just a ‘nominal age of consent’.  Up until very recently, you did see men in their 30’s and 40’s quite regularly walking hand in hand with young teenage girls, girls who obviously weren’t their daughters.  Yet, as a British citizen, if I slept with a 15 year old Spanish girl in Spain, I would face extradition to the UK for child sex abuse.  Doesn’t that discriminate against me according to my nationality?  Isn’t it, in fact, a little bit racist, that I can be arrested for doing something in Spain that is perfectly legal for a Spanish man to do, just because of the accident of my race and nationality?  Note that the same government that originated this law of forgiveness for homosexual child sex offenders (Nu Labour) wanted to criminilize hetereosexual men for sleeping with even 16 and 17 year old girls abroad, even when the age of consent in the UK is still 16 (presumably, they had to settle for 16 for ‘sex crimes’ abroad because they were told that any higher would be quite manifestly breaking EU fundamental citizen rights).

And again, in the mysterious mind of a liberal rationalist, a 15 year old girl can happily consent to drop her panties at a party in order to ‘explore’ her sexuality by going to bed with an equally ‘clueless’ 15 year old boy.  Yet such tolerant liberal defenders of teenage sex will, at the same time, happily call for men who sleep with the same 15 year old girl to be locked up for child abuse, even tortured and executed.  

In the UK we have laws that prevent discrimination based upon age, just as we have for discrimation against ‘sexual orientation’. Yet liberals feel it unnecessary to articulate just why it is right, in the case of having sex with teens, that the law should discriminate upon age but not sexuality.  Usually, they simply appeal to some kind of mysterious mystical insight – ‘it’s totally different if you’re not the same age’.   Well, I could come up with a 200 page essay as to why the age of consent should be different for heterosexuals than it is for homosexuals.  I won’t, and not only because I could possibly face 7 years in prison, getting to know homosexuality on a more intimate and unwanted basis.  The point is, I could construct a plausible and coherent devils advocate argument for ‘discrimination’.  However, these liberal rationalists don’t seem able to even put into words any concrete justification for the manifest discrimination based wholly on age that allows a 15 year old boy to boast to his mates that he has finally gotten Ashley to give up her virginity, but imprisons a 30 year old man as a ‘dirty old’ paedophile for doing exactly the same thing, or even, more likely, for having a considerate and genuinely loving relationship with that 15 year old girl.

Yesterday, I came across a highly disturbing claim, posted in a Thailand ex-pat forum, that the government there was planning to raise the age of consent to 20.  Thankfully, hopefully, there is no basis to this story, as the original poster refuses to provide any link that would confirm it.  But what is disturbing is the attitude of many of the other (British) forum members.  An attitude of, ‘so what? If you can’t keep it in your pants, you should get it cut off.’ However, when it comes to homosexuals, if the law is unjust, and they can’t keep it in their pants, they deserve official apologies and sainthood rather than castration. I posted this forum link on the new men’s rights reddit.  Somebody by the handle of ‘commentbot‘ left the following underneath :

Sounds like it would only be a problem for those sad old perverts you see around the (Thai) islands who wouldn’t get laid other than via prostitution. You know the ones who try to claim ‘I didn’t know she was only fourteen’. Yeah that’s them – child raping paedophile scum.

Just another troll you might think.  But looking through this redditer’s previous comment history, it appears that he is a typical liberal progressive rationalist atheist.  In fact, he had this to say about Alan Turing, the homosexual genius castrated by the British government for getting dirty with a 19 year old boy after winning them the war :

What piffle! It was homophobia plain and simple. He was well accepted amongst his class, in fact it was an open secret – absolutely nothing wrong with being a ‘nancy-boy’ – many of his contemporaries were also. People in the Service are top-class, very intelligent, and quite unlike politicians and judges who are more capable socially. He had his moods but none who knew about such things thought him a real security risk. He knew Cairncross and Blunt but they all did. It is a complete misunderstanding of his contribution to think that he was some sort of cryptographic key-man. edit: Hormone treatment wasn’t offered to Turing alone.

It got out of hand, when it got out to the oiks.

The ignorant, ingrate mob he helped to save from the Nazis killed him because he was a homosexual.

When it comes to heterosexual men having sex with 19 year old women, errr, I mean ‘girls’, then cut their paedophile dicks off.  Homosexual men having sex with 19 year old boys, ahem, I mean ‘men’, then they deserve a place in heaven and a state apology on behalf of the ignorant, sex hating, God fearing mob.

I was recently asked by a men’s rights supporter if we could learn anything from the gay rights movement.  And it’s a question that is certainly worth pondering.  How is it that only 100 years ago, homosexuality was (disgracefully) a crime considered so ghastly that it could hardly even be discussed, and yet today, in the midst of medieval paedohysteria, even homosexual ‘child sex’ offenders are given state pardons?  The answer, it seems to me, is simply that homosexuals have been useful to feminists

Gay men didn’t win their rights. Feminists decided it was in their interests to give gay men their rights.  Promoting gay rights, as well as rights for transgendered people, serves the agenda of the sexual trade union.  When that ceases to be the case (and it will likely soon when feminists begin to see conservatives and even Islam as more useful or necessary allies), homosexuals will once again be persecuted by society, probably in a far worse manner than anything they have previously suffered in European history.  But at present, championing gay marriage, and the right of gays to serve in the military, allows the sexual trade union to appear ‘sexually progressive’ and ‘tolerant’, whilst at the same time conducting a savagely repressive war against ordinary heterosexuality – the sexuality of the vast majority of men. 

America can be held up as a beacon of liberal progress and toleration, and feminism can seek further false credit as a champion of Enlightenment values.  Gays can now serve in the military, and even get married.  Meanwhile, nearly 1 million American men are officially regarded as subhuman, described by the lesbian Supreme Court Judge Elena Kagan as ‘bacteria, a plague’ of whom the state should have ‘unlimited power to contain’.  Even after serving their sentence, and after having taken their prison beatings and rapes, sex offenders in America can now be told that they are not free men, and can be held in prison until the day they die – for as little as the original crime of clicking a mouse upon an image of 17 year old girl in a thong.

And the ultimate irony is, homosexual men in progressive and tolerant America, and the UK, are already probably just as criminalized as they have ever been.  In the double-think world of the politically correct, we are supposed to believe that the hebophile Alan Turing, a man who picked up and had casual sex with a 19 year old boy despite knowing the legal consequences (how many others did he fuck, and how old?), if alive today would never, in all the thousands of hours he would no doubt spend on the computers that he invented, ever so much as once click upon an image of a young looking 19 year old boy in a pair of underpants – and thus criminalize himself, and potentially be jailed for life, for breaking feminist ‘virtual child pornography’ laws.  Laws made and approved by those very same progressive and rationalist arseholes who gave him a state pardon for sodomizing a 19 year old ‘man’.