Bernard seems to be straining to respect his libertarian principles here, and only just admits that the state does not have the right to criminalise porn in order to help the dating/marriage market. It should also be noted that the same critics of porn who are seizing this study as proof of its damaging effects (drops men’s libidos and desire for real sex) are more usually attacking porn on the opposite grounds – it heightens men’s libidos and leads us to see all women as sex objects and want to rape them etc.

Personally, I couldn’t care less if watching porn leads me to not being able to get a boner at a real 40 year old woman. If I can’t get a hot, nubile 18 year old into bed, jerking off to 18 year olds in porn is the next best thing for me.

Here’s another good video from Bernard, on one of his favourite topics – cougars and the delusions of older women!

By the way, if you haven’t done so already, please read Naomi Wolf’s brutally honest 2003 article on ‘the porn myth’.  There, she openly admits that the feminist opposition on pornography is that it lessens men’s desire to seek sex with women (100% truthful, but the opposite of the lie that feminists usually give about porn leading to rape etc).  Surely a well funded pro-male sexuality men’s rights movement would have sufficient grounds to attempt some kind of legal action against Naomi Wolf, and feminists in general, for attempted rape, or at least sexual harrassment, on the basis of that article?

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/

But the effect is not making men into raving beasts. On the contrary: The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women, and leading men to see fewer and fewer women as “porn-worthy.” Far from having to fend off porn-crazed young men, young women are worrying that as mere flesh and blood, they can scarcely get, let alone hold, their attention…For most of human history, erotic images have been reflections of, or celebrations of, or substitutes for, real naked women. For the first time in human history, the images’ power and allure have supplanted that of real naked women. Today, real naked women are just bad porn…Well, I am 40, and mine is the last female generation to experience that sense of sexual confidence and security in what we had to offer. Our younger sisters had to compete with video porn in the eighties and nineties, when intercourse was not hot enough. Now you have to offer—or flirtatiously suggest—the lesbian scene, the ejaculate-in-the-face scene. Being naked is not enough; you have to be buff, be tan with no tan lines, have the surgically hoisted breasts and the Brazilian bikini wax—just like porn stars. (In my gym, the 40-year-old women have adult pubic hair; the twentysomethings have all been trimmed and styled.) Pornography is addictive; the baseline gets ratcheted up. By the new millennium, a vagina—which, by the way, used to have a pretty high “exchange value,” as Marxist economists would say—wasn’t enough; it barely registered on the thrill scale. All mainstream porn—and certainly the Internet—made routine use of all available female orifices.

Still think Sexual Trade Union Theory and the rape of the male is a myth, when leading feminists themselves are brazen enough to admit it?

Why Feminists Really Hate Pornography. Thanks to loyal reader EvilWhiteMale for pointing me to this:

TheAntiFeminist.com is growing again.

After having to re-install my site several months ago (and losing most of the archives in the process), traffic took a dive.  We seem to be on the rise again now, as you can see from the stats table above.  Thanks to all my loyal readers for sticking around!  This site is now also behind only Wikipedia in Google search results for both ‘anti-feminism’ and ‘anti-feminist’.  Thanks to all the websites that link here.  If you run a blog in anyway connected to anti-feminist issues and would like to exchange links then please e-mail me at schopenbecq (at) yahoo (dot) co (dot) uk

And here’s the great Bernard Chapin’s take on it :

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

Ministers have vowed to press ahead with plans to give anonymity to men accused of rape despite a cross-party campaign led by a new Tory MP.

Members from all sides of the House said the Coalition’s plans not to name men until they are charged would deter victims from coming forward to the police.

But junior justice minister Crispin Blunt yesterday confirmed he was pressing ahead with the controversial proposals, which were imposed on the Tories by the Lib Dems as part of the coalition agreement.

Louise Bagshawe, a successful chick-lit author who became a Tory MP at the last election, told the Commons that by ‘ singling out rape in this way ministers are sending a negative signal about women and those who accuse men of rape’.

SOURCE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293169/MP-Louise-Bagshawe-leads-rebellion-anonymity-rape-defendants.html#ixzz0tOkFq6Ni

The attempts by the Liberal Democrats to give men accused of rape anonymity are looking increasingly fragile.  The rebellion, led by a CONSERVATIVE female MP tells us a lot about female politics…as well as confirming Arthur Schopenhauer’s ‘misogynistic’ observation that ‘the fundamental defect of a woman is a lack of a sense of justice’.

Whether they are representatives of ‘the left’ or ‘the right’, female politicians invariably speak for the interests of women. On this issue, only one question is relevant for them. Will granting anonymity to men accused of rape increase female sexual power, or decrease it?  No brainer.  It will decrease it, and therefore every woman MP, no matter what supposed party political allegiance, will fight against it.  Men’s rights? Human rights?…pffffff.

And again, to the deluded majority of the men’s rights movement who assume that our cause is synonymous with conservatism – this bill (to grant men anonymity) is being re-introduced by the liberals.  When British women were granted anonymity in rape trials several decades ago, the accused men were given the same protection.  It was the CONSERVATIVE party who changed this in 1982, allowing hundreds of men’s lives to be ruined by false allegations in the years since.

As you would expect, the False Rape Society is doing an excellent job in covering developments in what might turn out to be a defining moment for the future of men’s rights.

If you live in the UK, please write to (e-mail) your MP stating the case for anonymity for accused men : Write to Them

Steve Moxon’s The Woman Racket – looking forward to reading this

I’ve read a few anti-feminist books, and I think I’m aware of the existance of most of the few that I haven’t yet got round to, but this one has somehow slipped under my radar.  Until, that is, a loyal reader by the name of ‘Highwayman’ informed me of it in a comment left here a few days ago.  I can only think that the reasons it doesn’t get mentioned a lot in the MRM community are similar to the relative neglect of Neil Lyndon’s classic ‘No More Sex War’ :

1. It’s by a British author.
2. It’s pro sex (or at least against the feminist rape of male sexuality).
3. The author has probably never had a wet dream involving Sarah Palin.

Anyway, here’s the Highlander’s excellent comments on the book – comments that prompted me to order it from Amazon the same night and have left me drooling in anticipation at reading one of those rare books that might affect my entire intellectual landscape.  Hopefully it lives up to my expectations and I’ll try to put up a review here very soon.

I highly recommend reading the chapter on prostitution in Steve Moxon’s book The Woman Racket. He really tears into the arguments that feminists and others try to use to suppress prostitution and to punish the men who patron sex care workers.

His theory as to what motivates people to oppose men patroning prostitutes is interesting. He belives it is caused by the “cheater detection mechanism” whereby people become outraged by what they PERCEIVE is a lower status male having access to females that his position in the dominance hierachy would not allow him to if he were not to patron prostitutes. This could explain why some men are also opposed to men seeing sex care workers because they might fear that if lower status males can “cheat the system” then perhaps the entire dominance heirarchy could be undermined. Of course it could also be that some men oppose the patronage of sex care workers because they believe that a deity commands them to or because they are trying to suck it up to women too.

BTW according to research men who patron sex care workers come from all varieties of socio-economic backgrounds and even if some unattractive or “lower status” men are able to find some sexual fulfillment through patroning sex care workers…good for them I say!

Bernard Chapin, author of one of the classic anti-feminist works himself, has compiled this excellent Men’s Rights Book List

Also check out this classic old skool Chapin’s Inferno :

 Brock Lesnar and Kurt Angle Fight Over Emma Watson

You see old femiwhores – you could introduce the death penalty for glancing in the street at a girl under 21 and castrated bitch MRAs might be the first to applaud you. But you know what? Ultra alpha males like Brock and Kurt would still fight over who caught the pretty jailbait’s eye. 

Of course, violence is being committed upon men worldwide through the injustices of feminism on a massive and horrendous scale. Despite this, I would agree almost entirely with Bernard’s sentiments in this video. It’s important to remember that the mens’ rights movement is still in a very nascent and fragile form. If just a single anti-feminist or MRA was convicted of politically motivated violence then it would possibly derail and bring about the abortion of our movement before it had even really begun it’s long and (hopefully) productive life…and you know how feminists love to do things like that.

We still retain the ability to fight the emotional violence of feminists with the cool, rational arms of plain words and argument. Of course, that might not continue indefinitely – in fact it surely won’t. Feminist politicians in the UK and Europe have already begun drafting the broadening of hate speech laws to include any criticism of women and of feminism. What happens when saying blindingly obvious truth’s such as ‘men will always prefer younger women to older women because older women can’t reproduce’ gets you 6 months of prison rape time as a ‘sex offender’?

I’m probably too mild mannered and, perhaps, cowardly to ever even consider using violence as a political means, even if I were to condone the use of violence (which here and presently I am not doing). As I have argued, any ‘resistance’ to feminism is probably futile in that feminism is being driven by blind and brutal forces of nature that the human animal can never really have any control over. As far as the situation in Europe is concerned, any violent resistance is doubly pointless because sooner or later, in a sense, Islamic radical groups will do our work for us. And to any idiot who thinks I am here condoning what might or might not happen down the road in our continent, I am not. No more than any of the thousands or millions of clear sighted people were ‘condoning’ anything when they observed that the invasion of Iraq would increase the likelihood of Islamic terrorism occuring in the UK. And when I say ‘do our work for us’, I mean equally ‘do the work of women for them’. Regular readers of this blog will be aware I believe that feminism is akin to being the twin sister of Islam. Rather than being polar opposites, as many unthinkingly assume, Islam and feminism have a great deal in common. Maybe in 20 years time Muslim radicals will be targeting feminists in Europe just as they do in Afghanistan or parts of Iraq and Nigeria. But the Islamic radical state that these people aspire too will never represent the defeat of feminism, but rather the removal of the need for feminism. The only objective that Islamic terrorism against feminism could possibly achieve is simply the bringing forward of the day that the European femi-nazi state inevitably merges and melts into an Islamic theocratic state.

For my part, I write this blog as a means of self-expression, to keep sane, and to have the personal satisfaction of stating (and spreading) the truth about feminism while it remains possible to do so.