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

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?