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 These laws were originally made to protect the economically valuable virginity of unmarried young women.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.

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).

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 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’.

First of all, the female Detective in charge of the investigation gave the following ridiculous justification to reporters :

But after the case Det Con Gemma Bradbury of Cheshire Police said: ‘Giles Cross is a predatory paedophile who maintained a façade of respectability, boasting to all who knew him of his lifestyle and successful business.

‘In reality, he manipulated his young vulnerable victim into engaging in sexual activity, using all means available to him.

‘He abused social networking sites, bombarded his victim with text messages and generally infiltrated her life to exploit her for his own sexual gratification.’

How many copy and paste bullshit empty feminist cliche’s can one express in such few words?  According to other reports, the girl had to be dragged screaming and crying to the police station to press charges against her older lover.  Seems to me that the only adults doing the manipulating for their own sexual interests is the feminist pig, and perhaps the mother too.  The guy is now in a prison cell, his life utterly destroyed, and has probably experienced his first prison rape.  It was adults such as that feminist pig, and the girl’s mother, who both clearly have a sexual advantage in seeing a man destroyed over such relationships, who not only manipulated, but FORCED that girl into actions against her will.  Actions, that no doubt, have truamatised her for life.  Furthermore, that man was not a paedophile.  Every man on earth who isn’t either a/gay b/a lier, or c/somebody who doesn’t like hair, would love to fuck a slim, attractive 15 year old girl.  Maybe he’s a cad.  Maybe, indeed, a ‘predator’. But a paedophile he certainly is not.  What kind of disgusting and wicked ’human being’ would belittle real child abuse, and real paedophilia, in order to give vent to their sexual jealousy regarding teenage girls?  Only a feminist pig.

But more happily, reading the comments underneath the article, it is clear that a lot of people in the UK, even readers of the Daily Mail, are getting mightily sick of this manipulation of language by feminists, performed solely for the selfish interests of their own aged, unwanted vaginas.  The following are the HIGHEST RATED comments that appeared below the piece :

“But after the case Det Con Gemma Bradbury of Cheshire Police said: ‘Giles Cross is a predatory paedophile” Erm he might be a dirty old man and a lot of other things but the definition of a paedophile is a person who has a sexual inclination towards pre-pubescent children. A 15 year old is not pre-pubescent so, what he did here is not an offence of paedophilia. I wish the police would stop using innacurate and deliberately inflamatory, emotive language to try to get their point across. 

- rj, CI, 14/1/2011 17:02 

Click to rate     Rating   462

I think the label of paedophile is a little harsh here . He was not a serial predator of very very young children which would be my definition of a paedophile he is simply a needy man who became obsessed with an almost legal age young lady. I think as other posters have already pointed out the women who do exactly the same thing are let off virtually scot free and are not branded paedophiles .Double standards yet again ! 

- Charlie, Chocolate factory, 14/1/2011 17:42 

Click to rate     Rating   392

Fair enough he should get 4 years for this. However how come someone who seriously harms someone else from an attack would get maybe half this. If she had been just one year older it would have been legal. It’s not like he raped her. She had the option whether to or not and at the age of 15 I can safely say I had my own mind. The criminal system in the UK at the moment is totally messed up and the REAL criminals are getting minor sentences and released way too early. 

- Jack Skeldon, Stockton On Tees, 14/1/2011 17:19 

Click to rate     Rating   277

I had an affair at 15 with a married school teacher in his late 30′s. He didn’t know my age. Was I abused? NO. Was I coerced? NO. Do I regret it? NO. Do I think he was a paedophile? NO. I also dated a guy at 16 who was almost 40. We went on our first date on my 16′th birthday. A day before it might have been illegal. Did I somehow change overnight? Of course not. Naturally her parents were unhappy, but to ruin this guys life over something their daughter happily agreed to is wrong! 

- AB, Norfolk, 14/1/2011 18:46 

Click to rate     Rating   264

That was a stupid and ignorant comment for the police to make. I’m not saying this relationship was OK, but he isn’t a paedophile, he’s possibly a hebephile but it’s not remotely the same thing. Painting him as someone who compulsively interferes with little kids is irresponsible and inaccurate, in my opinion. 

- Pony, Herefordshire, 14/1/2011 16:54 

Click to rate     Rating   224

4 years prison? And if the older person was a woman and the younger one a male? Now memory tells me of a recent case and the woman got a suspended sentence. One rule for men, a better one for women. I believe the government call it equality. 

- tommy, UK, 14/1/2011 16:15

Meanwhile, the manipulation of shaming language was further evident today as a Devon man was also jailed for four years of shower rape for having consensual sex with, and ‘grooming’, a girl who would be legal in most of Europe :

Johns used text messages and social networking sites to talk to three teenagers.

Judge Phillip Wassall said Johns had bought the 14-year-old girl a ring and cuddly toy – branding it a “classic case of grooming”.

Grooming is another shaming word feminists have invented that doesn’t really have any meaning, serving merely to make what is barely an illegal act (having sex with a girl not much under the age of consent), into something that is monstrous and beyond comparison with anything ‘normal’.  Grooming orginally meant 40 year olds posing as 12 year old boys online in order to meet and rape 12 year old girls.  As soon as the word achieved both noteriety and currency, feminists slowly began using it to describe any man who struck up an online relationship with a teenager, in particular if he bought her gifts as a sign of his affection.  Of course, buying and giving gifts to your prospective lover is written into the dna of the sexual mating game.  We don’t describe 30 year old men who buy gifts for their 25 year old girlfriends as ’groomers’.  But when it’s a ‘paedophile’, it becomes a unique and manipulative activity that deserves it’s own special name and classification of monstrosity.

The Feminist controlled European Union is shortly to pass yet another directive on ‘child sexual exploitation’.  One of the components is going to be the requirement that every country in Europe passes laws on ‘grooming’.  The media in every country will report this as their respective governments ‘cracking down on paedophiles posing online as children’.  In actual fact, the resulting laws will likely criminilize men who meet any girl under 18 online, even if they are over the age of consent.  It may also make it decidely risky to have sex with a girl under 18 if any element of the seduction has involved buying her a meal, or chatting to her online (even if you met her offline first), or even texting her.   Just another manipulative feminist rapist means of raising the age of consent across Europe through the back door.

It should be noted, before I finish, that another worrying aspect of the new directive is a possible attempt by the feminist whores to criminilize even the suggestion that their age of consent laws may be wrong, or too harsh in their punishments.  So, if you’re wondering why I have been devoting more time than usual to these issues it is because

these are clearly men’s rights issues, not many mras have either the balls or the volition to discuss them, and pretty soon, it might even be illegal throughout Europe to discuss them.

If the femirapists are successful, then I’ll have to decide whether to close this blog down, continue this blog in a castrated form, or whether I want to become the person who has these laws overturned by taking them to the European Court of Human Rights, for being the manifest breeches of fundamental citizen’s rights that they are.   As I have enough stresses going on in my life at the moment, I will likely take the middle road between suicide and undignified cowardice. i.e. this blog will be no more.

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/united-nation-manipulates-child-definition-to-persecute-men-17-year-old-children

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 : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/23/un-vote-undermines-gay-rights  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.

PAEDOPHILIC PLEASANTRY TO COST TAXPAYER £500K

Showing Britain’s Pakistani youth that paedophilia did not need to involve raping, torture, pimping and (as Labourite Jack Straw put it) ‘treating girls like meat, unmarried affluent graphic design businessman and polo player Giles Cross, then 43, fell for an unnameable-for-legal reasons anorexic fifteen- year-old girl whom he met at stables in Cheshire. Soon the pair were on most affectionate terms (he called her Belle, she called him Beau) and one thing led to another over 15 months in Cross’s ‘Ink’n’Paper’ office.

The pair would talk until 5am on Skype while Cross took thousands of ‘screen shot’ pictures of his beloved in her bedroom. Said the girl [17 by the time of the seven-day 2011 trial in Chester] as Cross was jailed for a savage four years (after her parents discovered the liaison) (Daily Telegraph, 15 i, ‘The predatory paedophile at the polo club’; Daily Mail, 15 i):

“We were kissing, touching and hugging each other. Then he took my jeans off and I was just touching him and kissing. I was OK with that and I didn’t tell him to stop or anything. I trusted him, I thought I loved him. We kept it a secret from everyone.” Defending, lawyer Duncan Bold said that when the alleged victim was being taken to the police station for questioning she was screaming and shouting saying she didn’t want to go. Later on in proceedings the alleged victim’s mother confirmed this.

Another healthy-enough example of age-gapped relations emerged as Italian Duce Silvio Berlusconi, 74, found himself hauled into the limelight of the courts for having a pally and possibly paying relationship with gorgeous flaxen-haired, bee-stung-lipped and –bosomed Moroccan-born belly dancer Miss Karima El Mahroug, 17 – who claimed to have been given jewellery and £6K in cash at one of Silvio’s “‘bunga-bunga” orgies ooops parties.

To prosecute this ‘crime,’ Italian taxpayers would have to cough up at least £1M – and much more if Silvio had to be imprisoned, since his business empire and lawyers would run night-and-day appeals to what was left of Italy’s justice system after years of its being broken by the Mafia.

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’.

If there is one demand which is popular with the Feminists, it is for
raising the age of consent from sixteen to eighteen or twenty-one years,
at which latter age, presumably, the right to the Franchise, if conceded,
would come into operation. They are therefore evidently of opinion that the woman who has only just ceased to need the protection of the law in the control of her own body becomes immediately fully qualified to have a voice in the management of public affairs!

(Problems of Man, Mind and Morals)

Note that the effective age of consent throughout the EU is now 18, yet Austrian 16 year olds are judged capable of voting in national elections. Last year an Austrian man was jailed for viewing an American website which contained, it was accepted in court, only nude photographs of adults who were no less than 19 years of age. Nevertheless, he was jailed as a paedophile under feminist progressive ‘virtual child pornography’ laws. A law voted in by the same government which had determined that 16 year olds were rational and mature enough to decide matters of state.  Can there be anything more degrading to the female sex than the feminist idea that they have less judgement regarding what they do with their own bodies than they have over complex matters of government, economics, and international affairs?

The age of consent has always been central to feminism. In fact, it has been its primary driving force right from the beginning. The purpose of this website is not to campaign for a reduction in the age of consent from the present feminist age of 16. For one thing, there is little or no chance of that happening in this author’s lifetime. However, I have no shame whatsoever in stating my clear belief that the age of consent ought to be what it still technically is in the majority of major civilised nations – namely, 14. And I will never be morally shamed for this by creatures who compare killing defenceless children to shopping for couches at Ikea. Nor by the disgusting manginas who support such views as ‘progressive’ and ‘tolerant’ in order to get laid with those creatures.

Perhaps there is a slim chance that this website might have a role in building a resistance to the gradual feminist increasing of the age of consent to 18, to 21, or even beyond.  But I recognise that even this isn’t a realistic goal.  So in all honesty, the only reason I talk about the age of consent is because this site seeks to explain feminism.  And in a very real sense, the age of consent is what feminism largely is.  The defining goal of the brood mare trade union.

I would also make clear that the opinions expressed on these pages, regarding the age of consent and related issues, are not representative of ‘the men’s rights community’.  A community that I do not particularly identify with.  In particular, leading men’s rights activists such as Paul Elam and Angry Harry are in no way associated with theantifeminist.com and have both gone on record to declare their strong support for present age of consent laws.

By the way, to those MRAs fearful that any discussion of this topic may be suicidal to the cause, I suggest you just throw back at the child murderers the names of Germaine Greer and Natasha Walter.  These two delightful hypocrites will be the subject of a forthcoming post.

Of course, this event has far wider implications than merely the age and the beauty of the prostitutes gazing out from the windows of the Amsterdam red light district.  Once again, look behind the visage, and feminist laws such as this reveal the entire strategy and truely ugly selfish motivation of the sexual trade union.  Feminists in the Netherlands could just as easily make an outright ban on prostitution as raise the minimum age to 21.  But the attraction of a move like this lies not only in making paying for sex with prostitutes less tempting to men (because young and nubile sex workers are forbidden) -  the greater motive is in setting the bar ever higher in what is acceptable for older women to control the sexuality of younger females, and to rule those younger women out of  bounds as sexual objects for men.

As often detailed on this site, little more than a century ago the age of consent in most countries was 12 or 13.  Contrary to what some conservative anti-feminists have written recently, pre-marital sex with ‘minors’ was not generally forbidden as such, although out of wedlock pregnancy was.  In fact, at this time there were estimated to be over 100,000 prostitutes in London alone, with probably the majority of them being under 18.  Feminism originated in (successful) campaigns against child prostitution.  Laws were passed that were lobbied for almost entirely by feminists (and fought against by anti-feminists, who at that time still had balls) decades before those same feminists had won the right to vote, or even in some cases, even called for the right to the vote.

Nobody could argue against laws preventing 12 year old girls hanging around street corners offering themselves for sex.  But 100 years ago, the deceitful modus operandi of the trade union was the same as it is today.  Those early feminists and suffragettes, such as Emmeline Pankhurst, could have lobbied for simple laws prohibiting under 16s from engaging in prostitution.  Instead, they successfully lobbied for a rise in the age of consent itself.  Again, despite the erroneous historical readings of 19th century social history by certain members of the men’s rights community, there was little support for the idea at the time (outside of feminist self-rationalisations) that 14 or 15 year old girls could not consent to sex.  The justification used by feminists was that an age of consent set at 16 would prevent child prostitution. 

Whether or not it was foreseen at the time (in the UK and USA) that such laws would later prosecute millions of men for having consensual sex with teenage girls, the magical age of 16 as the age of full sexual responsibility for girls was achieved, even in European countries such as Germany and Italy in which the age of consent itself remained lower (but in which feminists likewise had set certain sexual limits relating to the age of 16).

Fast foward to the last decades of the 20th century and the feminist sexual trade union successfully defined 18 as the limit for both prostitution and pornography, enshrined in international treaties that included the United Nations charter of ‘children’s rights’.   They achieved this with the assistance of America’s unique conception of a ‘minor’ (what a disgusting and revealing term) being somebody under 18 (Highwayman made an interesting comment about California’s high age of consent perhaps being specifically responsible for the propagation of this meme, for example through the medium of Hollywood).

Thus, even though the age of consent is still only 18 in a small number of American states and an even smaller handful of backward Islamic nations, the idea has spread around the entire world that there is something ‘questionable’ about having sex with a 16 or 17 year old, even in countries such as Spain and Argentina, free until very recently from the scourge of feminism, and where the age of consent is still 13.  In fact, given the merging of the virtual with the real worlds, there now is a very real danger everywhere in having a sexual relationship with a girl over the age of consent but under 18.  Every country in the world apart from Somalia and the USA has signed the UN charter on children’s rights which defines child pornography as any sexual representation of a ‘minor’ (the USA lobbied for the anti-sex elements of the children’s rights charter, but then refused to sign up to it because it would have also forced them to stop putting 16 year old black kids on to death row).  Therefore it is now still legal to have sex with a 13 year old girl in Spain (if you can avoid being lynched), but if you happened to text her 17 year old sister in any way describing the act, you could be prosecuted for creating child porn. 

The ‘virtual child pornography’ elements of the UN children’s rights charter were an attempt to fuzzy the border between the age of 18 and beyond, ‘childhood’ and adulthood.  But here at least was the idea that the pornographic model had to look under 18.  With this new prostitution law in the Netherlands, the common perception will quickly gain ground that even those aged 18 -21 are now unable fully to consent to sex, and even non-paid for sex with 20 year old women will soon become tainted with connotations of ‘paedophilia’ and ‘child abuse’.

Other countries will no doubt be quick to adopt this law – to bring their ‘child protection’ guidelines up to date with the Netherlands (in fact, it is amazing to consider, and a testament to the power of 3rd wave feminists and their sex abuse industry, that less than a decade ago, the age of consent itself in Holland was only 12).

Feminist shaming language will ensure that other countries will be quick to follow.  An example of this is playing out right now in Switzerland, one of the few places left in which 16 year olds can work as prostitutes.  16 year olds who are perhaps less than 13 months away from being able to serve as cannon fodder, and who in neighbouring Austria are deemed to be intelligent and experienced enough to be able to vote in general elections.

A chain of catch-up is established.  Soon most countries in the EU will have prostitution limits set at 21.  This will then be extended to pornography, and to ’relationships in which authority is involved’ i.e. teacher/student relationships at which the cut off point is presently 18.  Then, finally, the age of consent itself will be revised upwards to 21.  Countries slow to adopt the new consensus will be shamed as ‘kiddy abuse capitals’, and hysteria regarding fears of ‘paedophile sex tourism’ will be whipped up to rouse the mob into forcing their governments to sign up.

And then…well, you can see it coming now can’t you?  A ‘progressive nation’ will revise the minimum age for prostitution and/or pornography upwards to 25..the age of consent and extension of the definition of paedophilia will eventually follow..and the feminists and the ‘men’s rights supporters’ who secretly (or not) wish to have pre-marital sex criminilized will finally have gotten their wish.

Let’s just hope there will still be anti-feminists who can hear the screams of the millions of men being raped and beaten in prison as a result of these laws…men with no other voice to shout against the feminist sexual trade union.

Is Reddit Men’s Rights Getting Better? 

I’ve been a harsh critic of reddit.com/r/mensrights in the past, but lately there does seem to be more genuine men’s rights supporters standing their ground in the comments section over there.  I’ve just returned from my summer hols (apologies for lack of updates and slow comment moderation), but whilst I had a quick scan of Reddit, I came across possibly the best comment I have ever read there.  It was in reply to a redditor’s post asking what percentage of sex offenders were genuine perverts, and what percentage where there for urinating against the wall of a nightclub  :

also a lot of the sex offender terminology is an attempt to demonize the sexuality of men. terms like “predator” should really be applied to gold diggers, but they are reserved specifically for male sexuality by and large. since men are the biological pursuers of women, we can always be demonized as “predators” and “perverts” when in reality, it’s just a natural response to seeing a half naked girl. yet this feminist society shames male sexuality by telling us we are perverted for looking at huge half-covered, surgically enhanced tits. those tits obviously aren’t made bigger for breast feeding. they are made so that males WILL look.

women are really trying to have their cake and eat it too at the expense of men. on every facet women want to be equal to men while ignoring all the responsibility that men have to bear… even in sex offender cases where the woman is a female, the story is portrayed as something entirely innocent and benign, unlike the exact same situation where the genders are reversed. yes, even where sex is concerned, men must bear all the shame and all the responsibility. no longer are we allowed to call women sluts. no longer are we allowed to blame scantily clad women when they get raped. everything is the fault of men. men are bad. women are good. water is wet. case closed.

men need to start learning to say FUCK YOU to feminism. they need to start getting their balls back and learning to say NO to the entitlement mindset of today’s women raised under feminism’s permissive and abusive system. otherwise, men will forever fight a losing battle of trying to justify their natural sexual urges to women.

(rollinon

I’ve changed my mind about Reddit Men’s Rights.  I think that rather than ignoring it or trying to weaken it, the best policy of the (genuine) men’s rights movement would be to submit as many relevant articles and posts as possible, at the same time as engaging in upvoting genuine articles and downvoting those submitted by feminists or closet mangina idiot MRAs.