Anti-Feminist Theory of Men's Rights, Male Sexuality, Feminism

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22459815

A prominent barrister specialising in reproductive rights has called for the age of consent to be lowered to 13.

Barbara Hewson said in an interview that the move was necessary in the wake of the Savile scandal to end the “persecution of old men”.

She also said that complainants should no longer receive anonymity.

The NSPCC called her views “outdated and simply ill-informed” and said to hear them “from a highly experienced barrister simply beggars belief”.

Her remarks come after a number of high-profile arrests from Operation Yewtree, the police investigation into historic sexual abuse following the Savile scandal.

The arrests have included Max Clifford, Stuart Hall and Gary Glitter among others.

Isn’t it shameful that a female barrister can make such a plea, and yet when myself and my readers – all men’s rights supporters – argue that issues surrounding the age of consent should at least be discussed in the context of men’s rights, in order to stop the barbaric persecution of old men, we are effectively kicked out of the movement?

The Men’s Human Rights Movement, however, would rather get into bed with the devils in the NSPCC – a collection of pure and utter evil radical feminists, interested only in enriching themselves whilst soothing their own psycho-sexual jealousies through the persecution of old men for decades old ‘crimes’, and the promotion of medieval hysteria that leaves millions of men demonised and in fear of ruin.

For the first time ‘women’ are to be allowed to fight in the hallowed Octagon of the UFC. While two absolute battle hardened warriors – Dan Henderson and Lyto Machida – are forced to fight on the undercard, Ronda Rousey and Liz Carmouche, with more testosterone running through their muscle bound bodies than you or I had when we were zit faced horny teenagers, will do battle in the main event. Just no hair pulling ‘girls’.

Despite being British, I’ve been a devoted fan of the UFC and MMA since the first events featuring Royce Gracie and Ken Shamrock nearly 20 years ago. The only way of watching the UFC in the UK in those days was through VHS video tapes. For years HMV only stocked the first 4 events, but did often sell some brutal Brazillian and Russian events, most often show casing the legendary No Holds Barred fighter Igor ‘Ice Cold’ Vovchanchyn. Igor was a squat steel fisted 5 ft 9″ Ukranian who would likely have steamrolled fighters such as Gracie and Shamrock if he had been let into the Octagon at the time, and was the first stand up fighter to regularly knock out wrestlers and jiu-jitsu experts, long before Chuck Liddell became a superstar for the same reason. Unfortunately, he never fought in the UFC, and by the time he competed in the popular Japanese version ‘Pride’, injuries were beginning to take their toll on his body and the sport quickly passed him by.

The UFC has hit a wall recently. Pay Per Views and ratings are down, legends such as Anderson Silva are nearing the end of their careers, and popular fighters such as Brock Lesnar and BJ Penn have been or are being knocked silly into retirement. Recently, they created new lightweight classes to allow midgets to fight, and now they are having ‘women’ headline events.

Women fighting in the UFC not only ruins a two decade long passion in the octagon for me, it represents in some symbolic way the nadir of civilisational decline in America and the UK. Watching steroid pumped female bodybuilders trying to concuss each other is now considered legitimate entertainment, yet if you even admitted to a desire to be able to watch beautiful semi-naked 17 year old girls kissing each other in erotic entertainment, you would be denounced as a perverted paedophile who needed psychiatric help.

Which brings me on to Joe Rogan, a commentator for the UFC for years, and also a succesful comedian and TV host – somebody I’ve always admired. Recently, on one of his popular pod casts he was asked whether ‘All Men Are Paedophiles?’ (in reference to the recent documentary – because feminists have defined the attraction to 16 year old girls as paedophilia, despite the fact that it is obvious to every man except American mRAs that most 16 year olds have completed puberty and are therefore ‘as good as it can get’). Rogan didn’t deny that ‘all men are paedophiles’ but did opine that 30 year old men who have sex with 16 year old girls are ‘sick’, but that banging 18 year olds was curiously ‘alright’.

Seems that TRT and choking people out on the mat every day might turn you into a man, but not enough to be able to question feminist definitions of male sexuality and their never ending laws to control it. I’ve read that Joe Rogan, who despite this is known for being a bit of an anti-feminist, wants to interview GirlWritesWhat on his podcast. Perhaps TyphonBlue might be a more suitable guest?

Barbarossaaa on the evil of strict liability in cases of underage minors deceiving adult men into believing they are of legal age for sex.  Of course, as I have argued here before, the reason that the Sexual Trade Union have insisted upon strict liability is that it deters men from even approaching women who are (and say they are) ABOVE legal age.

‘age of consent is misandry’….’age of consent law…how it furthers misandry’…hmmmm. I guess it’s all in the semantics. Brave video anyway. And father’s rights activists will be pleased to learn that reddit r/mensrights still believes that discussing the merits of husbands beating their wives is more of a valid men’s rights issue than feminist statutory rape laws that increasingly sends good and even unwitting men to be raped and beaten in jail as sex offenders :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2141965/FEMAIL-Experts-discuss-raise-legal-age-sex-18.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Does a 16-year-old boy or girl have the right to have sex or not?

Based on the recent Union cabinet move to raise the ‘legal’ age of sex from 16 to 18, the answer is no. The move to criminalise sexual activity in youngsters below 18 has forced everyone to sit up and confront their dilemma over the issue of teenage sexuality and how to tackle it.

Many say the step to increase the legal age of sex is regressive, and represents a denial of the changing sexual climate. ‘Is the idea to create safety for teenagers or is it to police and control?’ says counsellor Komal Mathur.

 

If the age is raised, India will join the handful of countries in the world where the age of consent is 18.

*EDIT : It would be interesting to know what the very large and established men’s rights movement in India think of this, if anything. I presume that the Indian MRM has even more of a conservative background than our own.

Meanwhile, another British man has been caged for several years for raping a woman ‘too drunk to resist’ : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-18152160

Excellent article at InMalaFide on statutory rape laws by a ‘Giovanni Dannato’ that everyone here should read :

Statutory Rape Laws are a Subsidy on Female Sexual Market Value

Statutory rape laws as we know them are a product of the Victorian period. These laws were originally made to protect the economically valuable virginity of unmarried young women. It was also a reaction of working class men to the force of hypergamy — the female instinct to select men of higher status. It was a way to prevent wealthier, more powerful men from monopolizing young working class women in rapidly growing urban areas.

As the 20th century progressed, virginity was no longer a prerequisite for marriage. The original justifications for expanded statutory rape laws became obsolete and forgotten… but they remained for a reason.

Female power in society was growing rapidly as the industrial world matured. The old laws very much benefited women of reproductive age. Females 18-35 found themselves miraculously protected from the depredations of their fiercest competitors — the up and coming ones. The temporal conveyor belt that ruthlessly cycled women out of the market was effectively slowed down by 3-4 years.

One unfortunate thing to note is that the article was posted at Reddit Men’s Rights and recieved more downvotes than up (I’m not even going to read the reddit comments – it’s Christmas).  Still a lot of work to do there, unfortunately, but it’s another sign that the ideas argued for here are becoming accepted in the REAL men’s rights sphere.

Government considering ‘Clare’s Law’ that would allow women to check on male partner’s police files for evidence of ‘history of violence’ :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8643014/Government-considers-Clares-Law.html

Under ‘Sarah’s Law’, British women already have the right to go to their local cop shop and ask if their partners have had any convictions or accusations of paedophilia on their police record. This was a law campaigned for by a newspaper that at the same time was hacking into the phones of the relatives of the murdered girl – Sarah – who it was named after.  Now it looks like women will soon have the authority to further invade their boyfriend’s privacy on the pretext of ending domestic violence (against womyn).

Footballers who had sex with 12 year olds thinking that they were both 16 are freed from prison on appeal : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014278/Jailed-footballers-freed-judges-rape-appeal-say-girls-12-wanted-sex.html

Yesterday, in a ruling which freed the men, Lord Justice Moses said: ‘If you have casual sex with someone you don’t know, you run the risk of having sex with someone who is under age.’

Or to put it more precisely, experience the hell of being sent to prison for ‘raping’ entirely willing 12 year old girls who you genuinely believed to be over 16 and legal. And that, of course, is the point of feminists campaigning for ever more draconian punishments for underage sex – to deter men from seeking casual sex with any female who looks remotely ‘young’.

American Apparel advert featuring 23 year old model banned because the woman appeared to be under 16 and ‘semi-nude’ :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/advertising/seminude-model-appeared-to-be-under-16-1780394.html

Pervert jailed indefinitely for drawings found on his computer :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14169406

Steven Freeman, who led the Paedophile Information Exchange (Pie), became the first person to be convicted for making drawings of children being raped.

The 56-year-old admitted charges relating to 3,000 drawings at his home in Bellingham, south London, last May.

He was given an indeterminate term for public protection at the Old Bailey.

I’m never going to defend somebody who fantasises about raping boys (as I make clear here), but it surely is an insane and injust society in which women officially shouldn’t be sent to prison, no matter what crime they commit, and yet in which men can be locked away indefinitely for possessing fuc**** drawings, however vile.  Bear in mind also, that due to the feminist abuse of language that has now become enshrined in law, any sexual contact with a child under a certain age (13 in the UK) is deemed child rape, no matter how willing the girl or boy involved was (as the footballers above found to their cost).

I’m sitting on the beach in San Sebastian, Spain.  In this part of the country, the Summer weather alternates between baking hot sunshine, and the Atlantic trying furiously to empty its entire contents above your head….often several times in the same hour.  But today it’s sunny and hot, and looks set fair, so I’m lying on the beautiful sands of ‘La Concha’, together with it seems the entire population of the Basque country, reading contentedly as the sun’s rays wreak havoc upon the DNA inside the cells of my Celtic skin.

As I look up from my Kindle, I see a completely naked sun bronzed man, around 50, walking towards a group of young Basque girls, maybe 13 or 14, one of whom is topless.  He sits down directly in front of them, a grin fixed to his face.  The girls immediately start giggling and teasing each other.  The topless girl pulls down the bikini top, and then the bottom, of her cute friend, who has a pigtail on either side of her hair.  The pretty pig-tailed girl, who looks like a character straight out of a Japanese anime comic book, barely resists, and is even giggling uncontrollably whilst this happens, as are her friends.  The man, meanwhile, just sits there grinning fixedly.

I begin to think about the flashbacks that the girls will suffer from in adult life.  The trauma, and the inability to form relationships, when they come to realise that they were abused, objectified, and sexualised by the naked man’s presence that day on La Concha beach.  One day, I think to myself, that man will be unlucky enough to sit next to the teen-aged children of British ex-pats, who no doubt will get their boyfriends to carve the sick  paedo up in an instant.  I turn my head away in disgust, and resume my Kindle reading.

The Case Against Adolescence (Robert Epstein)

One of the arguments I’ve often repeated on this site is that adolesence has been conflated by feminists with childhood, largely because it is in their sexual interests to conflate paedophilia (the sexual attraction to pre-pubescents) with normal male sexuality (which clearly finds teenage girls attractive, probably even the most attractive).  I’ve stated many times that this artificial conflation, which results in the sexual, moral, and intellectual infantalisation of teenagers, will likely have serious consequences for young people in their ability to become adults, and for the retardation of society as a whole.  In ‘The Case Against Adolescence’ Robert Epstein goes further than this, and claims that there is no such thing as adolescence at all - teenagers ARE adults, full stop.

According to Epstein, adolescence is a relatively recent social construction that American culture has imposed upon the youth of the world, fuelled by numerous self-interested groups, including Hollywood and the multi-billion dollar toys and games industry.  Although adolescence is artificial, unnatural, and unnecessary, it is very real in its devastating effects upon young people.  Kurzban makes a convincing and exhaustively argued case that all of the problems we associate with the teenage years, and see as an inevitable process of ‘growing up’, such as mood swings, aggression, reckless behaviour, are in fact caused by the lack of responsibility we give young people, and the way in which we isolate them from adults to the extent of trapping them inside an artificial bubble of  ’youth culture’, with young people mixing with and learning almost exclusively from their equally infantalized peers.

The book details numerous studies which find that intelligence and reasoning skills all peak in the early to mid teens.  It also makes practical suggestions as to how we can give back responsibility to teens, central to which is the replacement of arbitary age defined laws, such as the voting age, or the age of consent, with a universal test of relevant ‘competancies’.

I will write a longer review of the book for InMalaFide, but two brief points regarding it might be of interest to readers of this blog.  Firstly, a disappointing, but hardly surprising aspect is the book’s complete lack of recognition for the part played by the sexual trade union in extending the definition of childhood.  This is a little curious, given that Kurzban very convincingly posits that the child-labor laws of the 19th century were the biggest single cause of the extension of childhood, and that the chief motivating factor behind these laws was the desire of labor unions to keep younger and cheaper competition out of the job market (under the pretence of ‘protecting children’).  Given that Epstein, I’m sure, would have read greatly on the efforts of the Social Purity Movement in the same period, it is difficult to see how he could not extend the same argument and motivations to the early feminists and their decisive campaigns to raise the age of consent.  I did e-mail Robert Epstein recently to ask why he had omitted this element from the book.  He replied back promptly (and politely) that although he thought these things were all ‘intertwined’, other factors were more prominent.

On the other side of the coin, as mentioned above, the book is clear and brave in calling for a reform in the age of consent laws, as well all the other arbitrary laws based upon the infantilization of young adults.

On the whole, a superb and important book that I recommend to everybody.

Tomorrow’s hot beach read (in Biarritz) : Why Everybody (Else) is a Hypocrite (Robert Kurzban).

Six footballers jailed over gang rape of 12 year old girls

Six footballers who had a midnight sex orgy in a park with two 12-year-old girls, have been jailed.

Courtney Amos,19, Ashley Charles, 20, Dennis De Sousa, 18, Jahson Downes, 20, Jahvon Edwards, 19, and Luke Farrugia, 21, have all admitted rape of a girl under the age of 13.

Well, there’s no defending that is there?  The gang rape of two innocent little 12 year old girls by a pack of wild animals.  Surely the antifeminist isn’t going to sink to new depths by defending this savagery?  No, I’m not, but wait a minute.  First of all, these girls lied about their age, told the footballers that they were 16 (i.e. legal in the UK), and were completely willing.  One of the girls texted the footballers saying that each girl would ‘take three of them’.  And why would the footballers disbelieve them?  Who would believe, even in broken Britain, that tarted up girls walking the streets at 2 am in the morning, begging to be fucked by random black meat, could only be 12 years old?

Note also that the most eager girl of the two, who called each man out in turn to perform sexual acts on their black manhoods, was under investigation for making a false rape claim, and had a Facebook profile in which she lied about her age.

Note, furthermore, that in the UK, the NSPCC (scroll down the page to read about that vile feminist fake child protection charity) recently successfully lobbied the European parliament (i.e. sent them a single letter) to force all member states to define sex with a willing girl below a certain age as rape (not just statutory rape, but rape).  In fact, the NSPCC wanted this to be defined as any willing sex below the age of consent, and specifically asked for a minimum sentance of 14 years jail throughout Europe for any man who slept with a girl under 16.  The EU replied back to the NSPCC apologetically (I have read the original but unfortunately do not have the link) that they didn’t have the power to do that, but ‘compromised’ by bringing in the directive telling member states to define sex under a certain age as rape.  This has had certain curious results.  For example, in Germany the age of consent is still 14, but if you have sex with a willing 13 year old, you will be charged with chld rape.  However, in the UK, where the age of consent is 16, only if you have sex with a girl under 13 will you be charged with rape.

So, no, I am not defending these black men having a 2 am orgy with a pair of 12 year old girls, I am saying that it is obscene that they should be branded and caged as child rapists when the only ones who should be being punished are the girls and their parents.  Once again, the message proudly trumpted by the Daily Mail and the courts is ‘don’t have casual sex with any female who looks under 25, or else this might be your fate’.