Ernest Belfort Bax on the Feminist Obsession with Raising the Age of Consent

Posted on October 1, 2010 by theantifeminist

Ernest Belfort Bax, the first men’s rights activist, writing over 100 years ago, talks about the sexual trade union’s eternal obsession with the age of consent :

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.

Dutch Femi-Rapists to Increase Minimum Age for Prostitution to 21

Posted on September 2, 2010 by theantifeminist

And so it begins. The feminist campaign to raise the age of consent to 21 and beyond has started in earnest. I thank my loyal and well-informed reader ‘Highwayman’ for delivering me the depressing news that the Netherlands is set to increase the minimum age for sex work from 18 to 21.

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.

Human Stupidity Part 2 – Ultimate and Proximate Explanations

Posted on August 3, 2010 by theantifeminist

Ultimate/Proximate Explanations and a Happy, Sexually Free Society

Whilst reading Human-Stupidity‘s blog last week, I came across something that he’s expressed quite brilliantly, and something that I happen to have recently been reflecting upon a great deal myself. It’s something that really goes to the heart of the stupidity and irrationality of many of our current sexual mores :

In antiquity, When the Bible and the Koran were written, there were no birth control nor genetic paternity tests. Drakonian laws against adultery and pre-marital sex gave men sufficient trust that they were investing their life’s work and effort in their own offspring and not someone elses kid.
The Koran and the Bible were right, in their times: such laws could contribute to stability of family and society. Religious dogma and zealotism, unfortunately, prevent any rational modern re-analysis of these topics in the face of birth control and DNA testing.

Before reading HS’s post, I had made a similar point to a Christian feminist, who was trying to rationalise her sexual self-interest in having men locked away to be raped for having consensual sex with younger females. I’ll quote her directly, and it’s a simple argument that I’ve seen popping up quite often recently (for example, Welmer of the Spearhead makes it too) :

The thing is, historically older men were able to have sex with attractive 15-year-olds because they married those 15-year-olds.

But the thing is, historically, attractive 15 year olds would likely have fallen pregnant if they had sex with older men.

Whereas today :

15 year old girls (can) have access to the contraceptive pill.
Contraceptives for men (condoms) are far more reliable than they were in times past.
15 year old girls can have abortions if they do not wish to raise the child.
15 year old girls will receive the support of the welfare state if they do decide to raise the child.

To say ‘sex with teens has never been legal outside of marriage’ is meaningless. Almost as meaningless as saying that pre-marital sex has never been legal outside of marriage. Both are largely as true as the other (at least outside of the USA – the average age of consent in Europe is still under 15, fifty years after the birth of the free sexual market).

Of course, a 15 year old girl getting pregnant in a high-tech society, which demands even working-class girls remain in education until their late teens and beyond, is still a very unwelcome thing and something that should be strongly deterred. But what I am saying is that our instinctive abhorrence of men having casual sex with teenage girls is based largely upon presumed consequences that (should) no longer apply - that a teenage girl will likely be left pregnant and unsupported. What I believe, and what I’ve gone on record many times stating, is that we should largely replace ‘statutory rape laws’ with ‘impregnation of a minor’ laws. To say the following might not win me approval in the men’s rights community, but the fact is, there is one essential moral difference between a man having sex with a girl, and a woman having sex with a boy. The girl can fall pregnant. This is the consequence that gives the act of sex its great moral weight. And this, by and large, should be the only consequence that sexually aware teenagers should be legislatively protected against.

When the brave and great JayHammers recently questioned the feminist age of consent laws that lead to tens of thousands of men being beaten and raped in jail every day, he was denounced and ostracised by dozens of other MRAs. Yet these laws make NO rational sense in a liberal society in which even sexual trade union feminists proudly proclaim that a woman can enjoy sex without any moral or emotional consequences. There is no basis in evolutionary theory whatsoever to believe that a teenage girl will be harmed by casual sex (other than through being impregnated). There is, however, obvious evolutionary reasons why a 30 year old woman will claim that a 14 year old will be emotionally destroyed by having sex, whilst she herself goes clubbing every night hunting for young black cock.

If you still maintain, as an MRA, that having sex with teenage girls is rape, then at least be consistent and equally side with the feminists who believe that pick up artists are rapists.

Mummy’s Baby, Daddy’s Maybe

‘Sluts’ aren’t very popular in the anti-feminist community, to say the least. I read one article only yesterday, and the tone of it, as well as the comments underneath, led me to think I had slipped back to Biblical times, or modern Iran, watching a stoning in progress. If this is men’s rights, then we may as well just convert to Islam, the largest ‘men’s rights movement’ in the world (and one that definately is growing).

I can understand the evolutionary rationale for men disliking sluts. And I myself can be appalled at the ignorance of feminists when talking about ‘double standards’. I can also share in the disgust at the arrogance of a 30 year old woman boasting that she has slept with over a thousand men and yet appearing to have no inkling as to why a man would not want to share the rest of his life with her, now that she wants to settle down and ‘find love’. It’s a valid distaste at the deluded arrogance of the modern woman that the great Bernard Chapin often captures in his brilliant Inferno’s.

And yet, we now live in an age of paternity testing. Why should ‘mummy’s baby, daddy’s maybe’ continue to have such a hold over us? Surely, in today’s world, we ought to re-define a whore as a woman who sees her very essence and worth as consisting of her sexual asking price (i.e. a feminist) rather than a woman who simply gives pleasure to men cheaply.

Once more, it seems that our moral interpretations of sexual behaviour are largely proximate cultural explanations for ultimate evolutionary explanations that should no longer have any relevance in our present society.

And rationally uncovering the possibly irrational (now) evolutionary basis of our thinking should surely be the proper way we address moral questions relating to sex. A society which increasingly becomes more distant and irrelevant to that in which our moral instincts evolved and which were later codified into religious law. Especially, in a society in which nearly a million men are sex offenders in America alone, and feminist judges have now won the right to lock them away indefinately.

This article kind of ties up the common thread of the last few posts I’ve made. I make no apologies whatsoever, as an anti-feminist, for talking about issues regarding the age of consent and teenage sexuality. The more I read of the history of feminism (and at the moment I’m reading up heavily on the first wave), the less absurd becomes my claim that the driving force of feminism has always been the attempt of older unattractive women to restrict the increasing availability to men of young attractive females. In this sense, if you believe that current feminist age of consent laws, together with contemporary feminist driven ‘paedohysteria’, are just and proper, then YOU TOO are a feminist.

I would, however, like to make the same disclaimer I have made before. Any man who breaks an age of consent law has committed a great wrong, because (apart from moral issues of breaking any law) he has involved a younger, more vulnerable person in an act of criminality, and has exposed a teenage girl to inevitable damage at the hands of the feminist child abuse industry.

Finally, another reason I have focused upon this subject recently, is because others have. Not only the excellent Human Stupidity, but also in the following brilliant pieces from Roissy and FB at Inmalafide :

Roissy on Statutory Rape

InMalaFide : Sweet Sanity On Statutory

Human Stupidity part 1 – Social Manipulation

Posted on July 27, 2010 by theantifeminist

Just how have we, as men, arrived at the grim situation I described in yesterday’s post? A world in which young white boys, filled by feelings of sexual inadequacy, kill themselves because they have the wrong colour penis. Boys who are crucified by feminists for making teenage girls feel inadequate through ‘idealizing’ the diminishing number of the female sex who aren’t grotesquely and dangerously obese. Those same boys who grow up into a world in which by the time they are 18 or 19 will begin to fear being socially and legally lynched as the worst subhuman perverts imaginable if they continue to pursue, or even look at, females of peak sexual attractiveness, i.e. young girls. A perverted gynocracy in which men are so castrated, that to even admit that girls 5 0r 6 years post-pubescent are attractive is to risk the ultimate in shaming language – and not just from women, but from fellow men…even ‘men’s rights activists’. LOL! Meanwhile, boys as young as 12 consume steroids and join violent gangs in order to live up to the grotesque conception of masculinity demanded by the young urban white female. And whilst men increasingly go to jail if they pay for sex, or even click on a mouse to view a forbidden cartoon image, tens of thousands of wealthy European women flock to the Carribean each summer to spend their grotesquely inflated divorce payouts in ‘hunting the big bamboos’ of illiterate, drug addled, poverty stricken rastafarians with average IQs of 75 (the same mental age as the average middle-class European 12 year old girl).

The only immediate and obvious answers, it seems to me, lie in evolutionary psychology. I don’t need to invoke ’cultural marxism’ for an explanation as to why 99% of the ways feminists screw men over happen to perfectly coincide with the reproductive needs of a heavy parental investment female simian in a free sexual ‘jungle’. I turn to evolutionary psychology.

And this is exactly what the excellent Human-Stupidity.com has done with his analysis of how feminists have used their evolutionary sharpened verbal, gossip, and social manipulation skills to simply annihilate men and our sexuality in the 21st century sex war. A war in which only one side has thus far turned up to fight.

In evolution, everything is result of an evolutionary arms race. (cheetah and gazelle’s running skills, bacteria vs. our bodily defense system, …) Skills and capacities get honed over time, to solve evolutionary tasks. Women, in evolutionary time, had the hard task to convince a much stronger man to assume his paternal role and take care of her offspring (which might be his, or even just his cuckold offspring). In any argument, men had clear superiority with 2 powerful weapons

economical superiority: men were the hunters, they had the meat, they also could defend and own territory

physical superiority: men could always win an argument by brute force, by simple violence.

So to achieve some kind of evolutionary long term equilibrium, women must have developed some weapeons to counter men’s economical & physical power. What weapons could they have?

Social manipulation: gossiping among women, ganging up together against the common enemy, making intrigues, badmouthing a man, destroying his reputation, manipulating the opinion of other men (and women).

Women would actually need the skills to win over other men to defend the female agenda. In order to counter men’s physical superiority, women needed to be better then men at these social manipulation skills. They could not confront men clearly straight on, or else men could resort to the big stick argument. They would have to “con” men into doing what is in women’s interest, without men noticing.

Women would have to manipulate especially skillfully, when it has to do with reproductive success, with getting men to provide for them and their kids, with men staying away from other women.

So the historical stone age balance of power is:

men have economical and physical superiority,

women have verbal manipulation, cunningness, intrigue, social manipulation.

Nowadays, men surrendered their physical and economical power. Women maintained and expanded their verbal manipulative social power…

Read the complete article at Human-Stupidity.com

Although I have near completely given up on the men’s rights movement over the last few months, and any belief that it might become anything more than a tiny irritation upon the wrinkled skin of feminism, I still cling to the hope that the ever accelerating rate of technological change might eventually render the sex war meaningless. I don’t think feminists can ever be defeated. When you understand what feminism is, to believe that it can be is as silly as believing you can ‘defeat’ life itself. The hope must be to somehow render feminism irrelevant for women, and in a way that is positive and fair to all men.

It’s a hope, but I don’t think a very great one. Perhaps in 30 years time even feminists will be so happy, waking up each morning and being fucked by their king kong sex robots with their 20″ power drill black penises, that they won’t care if millions of men are doing similar with their perfect nubile 16 year old Anna Kournikova silicone replicants. Unfortunately, women aren’t psychologically satisfied by the satiation of their physical sexual needs in the way that men can be. They will still feel ‘threatened’ and insecure by the ready availability to men of female beauty and youth. They will still want to take a legal hammer to those Anna sex bots, no matter how many electric black cocks they themselves are being happily serviced by.

Will feminists (or 'men's rights activists') allow men to wake up to 16 year old Anna Kournikova sex bots?