Younger Girls are Easier?

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

http://www.authenticpua.com/blog/younger-girls-17-20-are-easier-than-20-girls/

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.

Steve Moxon – ‘Utterly crazy sex law exposed by Adam Johnson’s sentence – indeed, his conviction, and that he was ever charged’

Bit late with this re-blog but reader Alan wanted an article on Adam Johnson (an England international footballer jailed for 6 years for kissing and fingering a 15 year old girl), and Steve Moxon’s is better than any I could write.

http://stevemoxon.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/utterly-crazy-sex-law-exposed-by-adam.html

Adam Johnson has done absolutely NOTHING wrong. He was vigorously pursued by a female who was several years beyond the age of puberty, who knew perfectly well what she was doing, and was well equipped (as evolution has equipped all girls) to deal with it. In most other countries she would have been over any ‘age of consent’. She facilitated and very willingly engaged in not sex but merely a mild sexual fumbling. The girl chalked this up as a sexual feather in her cap that she used to get her a lot of brownie points within her peer group. Enter the police, CPS and judiciary, and suddenly the girl was put in the position of inadvertent anatagonist to a famous footballer. As is so often the case, the queen bee and wannabes of her peer group seem to have decided she needed to be brought down a peg or two, and turned on her to invert her female prestige to ‘slut’ status, and consequently, with the collusion of the police and the CPS, she backtracked to try to make out that a little sexual fumbling with a A* male she found supremely attractive, somehow was ‘damaging’ to her and even non-consensual. It was, in no respect whatsoever, either. She suffered zero damage of any kind from Adam Johnson. Any damage — and clearly there was damage to her — was from the peer group she’d been so keen to impress and, most particularly, by the police, the CPS and the judiciary.

It is a 100% travesty that there was any charge against this man, let alone a trial, never mind a conviction and criminal injuries compensation paid to not the party who was the victim here. The victim was Adam Johnson. Everyone else involved were the perpetrators in this case.

With the average age of female puberty having fallen since Victorian times from 17 to ten, yet the legal ‘age of consent’ has remained at 16, then the law is an abomination and will have to be changed. It is scientifically illiterate to claim that a 15-year-old is a child. Not only have her bodily changes complete, but mental changes ensue actually before physical ones, so the claim of sexual immaturity is completely false. And why is the ‘age of consent’ 16 when the age of criminal responsibility is just ten? The answer: age ten is rationally deemed to be the end of childhood per se, whereas the additional six years beyond age ten represents deep-seated anti-male prejudice and sexual prudery.

We live in not neo-Victorian so much as uber-Victorian lunatic times where all men are considered far game to punish severely simply for having male sexuality. It is an atrocious disgrace, and the extreme hate-mongering ideology behind it is not long for this world

See also :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3480476/KATIE-HOPKINS-away-rope-Adam-Johnson-broke-law-girl-knew-EXACTLY-doing-s-not-paedophile-doesn-t-deserve-prison-Twitter-lynching.html

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.

double-standard

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’.

14-forever

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).

Frank Furedi : The Moral Lynching of Barbara Hewson

Missed this one while I was away in more civilised lands :

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13612/

Intolerance comes in many shapes and forms. Last week, following the publication of an article on spiked by Barbara Hewson, there was a surge in intolerance, reminding us that far too many people and institutions aim to silence voices that raise uncomfortable questions. In particular, the Hewson storm confirms that the prevailing consensus around the Jimmy Savile scandal and the numerous police investigations it has spawned is now beyond debate. Questions about what kind of behaviour constitutes child abuse; about how to respond to claims of abuse that allegedly occurred 50 or 60 years ago; about what the age of consent should be… apparently there can be no debate on these, and only the dominant official narrative may be voiced.
When Hewson called into question the legal and moral foundations of the police’s post-Savile Operation Yewtree, and the way in which it confuses a zealous crusade with due process, she immediately became the target of a witch-hunt. The bigotry and visceral hatred directed towards her expose the raw fears, insecurities and passions that underpin so-called child protection policies in modern Britain – ‘so-called’ because, as I explain in my book Moral Crusades In An Age of Mistrust: The Jimmy Savile Scandal, what really motors ‘child protection’ today is not a desire to take effective steps to secure children’s safety, but rather an explosion of moral confusion and disorientation among adult society….

 

Age of Consent Should Be 13 Says Prominent Barrister

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.

Women in the UFC & Joe Rogan on All Men are Paedophiles

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?