Some feminists do appear to mellow with age, and learn to accept their departure from the free sexual market : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15692592

But it’s also the case that, since those bad old days, television and other mass media have committed crimes far worse than even the “un-reformed” Miss World ceremony did. This year’s competition included a couple of 17-year-olds, the Anna Karenina fan from Bosnia Herzegovina, and Miss El Salvador. Otherwise, just like they’ve been in all 60 years of the competition, they were a collection of young adults, up to (in the case of Miss People’s Republic of China) the age of 25.

This isn’t, in other words, the licensed child abuse (or that’s what it looks like to me, at any rate) that we watch on Britain’s Got Talent, where there is no age limit at all – you could enter your toddler if you wanted to – and where to see a prematurely-sexualised 11-year-old reduced to tears, or a vulnerable middle-aged lady driven to despair, seems to have become part of the pleasure of the show. A hundred, apparently robust, grown-ups in bikinis don’t seem quite as offensive as that.

It does appear that, at a street level, the demographic of sexual trade union politics is becoming younger, although still as hideous.  Of course, street protests are nearly always the preserve of the young, but I wonder if it could also be because the unattractive young female, these days, is starting to feel the displacements caused by the free sexual market even more strongly than their older sisters?

Young women have now been brought up to feel they have a right to have a hundred male partners by the age of 21.  When it doesn’t happen for these ugly ‘feministas’ then they are even more likely to want to lash out than their aging, and even uglier, older feminist brethren. Perhaps Kat Banyard is a symptom of this?

Here’s the youngest contestant in this years Miss World – the delightful 16 year old Miss Bosnia.  And no, I’m not showing you a picture of Kat Banyard.  Too early in the morning.

Designer Marc Jacobs’ latest Oh Lola! ad’ campaign starring Dakota Fanning has been banned.

The UK Advertising Standards Agency have deemed the pictures ‘too suggestive’ and have ordered it be pulled forthwith.

In the advert, 17-year-old actress Dakota is wearing a short, pale dress and resting an over-sized bottle of the Oh Lola! Scent between her legs.

According to the regulatory body the “length of her dress, her leg and the position of the perfume bottle drew attention to her sexuality. Because of that, along with her appearance, we considered the ad could be seen to sexualise a child.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2011/11/10/banned-dakota-fanning-perfume-ad-for-marc-jacobs-is-axed-115875-23552130/

According to other reports, a total of FOUR people had complained about the advert.

Somebody explain to me how it is possible to ‘sexualise’ a 17 year old ‘child’ when the average onset of puberty for girls in the Western world is now around 11 or 12?

Just to send the psychotically jealous old femi-hags even more insane, here’s a behind the scenes look at the making of the advert :

And also because the second video contains the following immortal line, which all opponents of the sexual trade union should memorise by heart :

“You’re just a bitter old bitch who hates the world ’cause everytime you bend over your cooter farts dust!” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lhp5o2WCXI&t=4m0s

Taking a look at the femiwhore’s website : http://www.ukfeminista.org.uk/ , you have to admit that they are a well-organized bunch of jealous psychos, with numerous regional and university groups carefully co-ordinated with each other.

The truth is that the men’s rights movement is still a long way from being big enough to achieve anything similar in terms of organisation and public protest.

Maybe in another 5 years time, we will be able to organize a counter protest at events such as this.  All of us wearing green eyed monster masks whilst screaming that envy is the deadliest of sins and that men’s bodies and eyes are not for controlling.

Playboy's Kendra Wilkinson

Jean Shrimpton today

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1386512/Sixties-star-Jean-Shrimpton-snapped-Cornwall.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 Of course, this is a little cruel, especially for Jean Shrimpton, but in the Daily Mail’s case it is simply sado-masachistic cruelty as entertainment.  The reason why I have the right to stress how ugly older women generally are is because older women are raping men through their legislation and hysterias that have little basis or justification other than sexual jealousy and bitterness at what nature has done to them, and where the free sexual market has left them.  All the while, resting upon the pretence that men who prefer ripe fertile youth to old hags are subhuman perverted monsters.  The only interesting question is why the male response has thus far been confined to a handful of ‘offensive’ blogs such as this one.

Meanwhile, the same paper reveals with indignation that most British women think that females over 35 are too old to wear mini-skirts.

I’ve noted here before that girls and women aged from 13 – 45 are going about everywhere these days in lycra leggings so thin and figure hugging that they may as well just be painting their bottoms and legs black.  Men similarly garbed would be arrested for indecent exposure.  Perhaps women should be as well, but only after a certain age.  After all, I guess the justification for such indecent exposure laws is that such clothing would be outrageous and repulsive to most members of the opposite sex.  But that’s equally true for men when the woman is over 30 and clothed in such skimpy attire. 

Given that, as I revealed earlier, evolutionary psychology would predict that older women are more ‘harmed’ by casual sex than teenage girls would be, perhaps it’s time to switch the focus from the supposed sexualisation of girls (actually the enforced de-sexualisation of teenage girls by their older rivals), to the sexualisation of older women, embodied in the ‘Cougar’ phenomenon?  Should we introduce a maximum age of consent for women?  Should we arrest any woman over 30 who wears semi-transparent leggings in the street or wears skimpy bikinis on the beach?  What age would mark the right cut off point?

Recently on his blog, Harry named and shamed the feminist appointed as one of the NSPCC’s most senior advisors – professor of ‘child sexual exploitation’ no less. The same woman recently published some extremely ropey feminist ‘research’ proclaiming that women are three times more likely to be arrested for domestic violence than men.

This week the NSPCC leant its weight to a huge public outcry over ZaNuLabor’s plans to force all adults having regular contact with other people’s children to PROVE that they are NOT a paedophile. Failure to do so could have resulted in a 5 year prison sentance. Respected authors such as Philip Pullman and even JK Rowling had already spoken out against the proposals, Pullman calling it ‘toxic to healthy social interaction’.

Clearly, the NSPCC is doing nothing more than jumping on the bandwagon, distancing itself from a massively unpopular law through fear that any association might harm the public donations upon which the lifestyles of its staff depend. In reality, no anti-paedo legislation is made in this country without the guidance of the NSPCC and other children’s charities. The NSPCC would have been advising the government at all stages of the planning of this law – why choose to speak out now?

And while we are on the subject of feminist generated paedo-hysteria – an Italian father was arrested and jailed for kissing his 8 year old daughter on a Brazillian beach. Sadly, it is clear that no country is now free of this corrosive and destructive hysteria. Over the last decade or two, feminist sexual pressure groups (such as the NSPCC) have succeeded in marshalling their resources and lobbied every government on Earth, forced the passing of countless laws and treaties, and in doing so, created new moral norms and rules of inter-generational interaction across all ethnic and cultural boundaries – a quite staggering feat comparable only to the most stunningly efficient military campaign imaginable.

Feminists – that is politically active women, are capable of anything…when their basic sexual and reproductive needs are threatened. And once again, to make perfectly clear, the hysteria generated by feminists over paedophilia and abuse has nothing to do with protecting 8 year old children from being molested by 40 year old men. It is about inflating the definition of paedophilia way beyond its historical usage of representing the perverted sexual attraction for pre-pubescent children. It is about ever increasingly stiffining the penalties for ‘paedophilia’ and child abuse to the point that it becomes an attack on the very idea of man’s inate sexual preference for youth and fertility. It is about broadening the definition of rape and abuse so ridiculously that any woman has the power to ‘punish’ a cheating partner with an accusation.

najat m'jid in kinky leather

And to highlight just how such charities have achieved this remarkable feat, here is my Elizabeth Bathory award for October – the delightful Najat M’jid, Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography for the UN. This week she announced that 750,000 paedos (i.e. men) are online at any given moment hoping to prey evil on YOUR DAUGHTER! Not only that, but there are apparently 4 MILLION websites featuring the sexual exploitation of children, a ‘network’ that makes billons of dollars a year (strange, I read only a few days ago that the police were now going to focus their child porn efforts on p2p networks, as all commercial child porn websites had been successfully shut down). I wonder why the hideous Maala, a Morroccon paedatrician, isn’t spending more effort getting the United Nations to influence the Islamic practices of child brides, female circumcision, 8 year old sucide bombers in the Gazza strip, stoning to death of 16 year old girls for adultory in Iran etc? But no, this modern Elizabeth Bathory would rather victimise 17 year old Lativian beauties posing in panties and bras on webcam. Feminist creatures like this, who trivialise and exploit genuine paedophilia and child sexual abuse out of clear motivations of sexual jealousy and insecurity are wicked beyond belief. They are damaging society, criminilizing ordinary men,and poisning relationships between the sexes and between adults, teenagers and children. They belong in psychiatric wards rather than be free to crusade on behalf of some supposedly higher global morality that in fact emanates from their dried up, unwanted vaginas. They need to be stopped, and the duty to stop them is part of the men’s rights cause.

The other evening, I walked in on my 15-year-old daughter as she lay soaking in the bath. Somehow, I held onto the gasp I wanted to emit at the sight of her: that beautiful young body, with its impossibly pert breasts and taut midriff, surely belonged to a woman and not my little girl. “Darling, I’m so sorry,” I said quickly, making to hurry out of the bathroom. “I’ll leave you in peace.” For the first time since she was born, seeing my child naked had left me feeling embarrassed, awkward and, oh dear, rather jealous.

With her incredible figure, long and naturally golden hair, and sculptured features, it was plain to see that my eldest daughter’s beauty eclipsed my own. I always knew that three pregnancies, and the simple passing of time, had had an impact on my own looks and shape. Now, as I compared myself to my woman-child, it struck me just how much. “It’s fine, Mum,” my daughter laughed, oblivious to the depressing epiphany she’d just provoked. “Stay and chat.”

Only I couldn’t. I needed to go away and process how I felt; to shake the green-eyed monster hanging off my back, before my darling girl picked up on how I was feeling. I’d have been mortified if I’d inadvertently ended up making her feel bad, too, so I made my excuses and left — and promptly told my husband that it was about time we fixed a lock on the bathroom door.

Yet increasingly, any man who even takes a second glance at a 17 year old girl let alone that beautiful 15 year old who inspires such jealousy in her own mother, is the worst pervert imaginable, a nonce, a sub-human paedophile, to be locked away to be beaten, spat upon, and raped for the rest of his life. And some of you think this isn’t men’s rights. And some of you think the only thing that matters is proving that as many female monsters as men break statutory rape laws that were created by ugly, sexually jealous, middle-aged feminists in order to protect their own selfish sexual interests (if you don’t believe me, just read the above one more time, eh, and consider that women like this have criminalized millions of men as ‘perverts’ for clicking on a fucking cartoon picture of a female who MIGHT look as though depicting a girl of 17!!!!).

Meanwhile, the Daily Express, seeking to win away the crucial female 35+ year old readership from the equally odious, deluded, and paedohysteric Daily Mail told it’s target audience exactly what it wanted to hear :

50 and Fantastic : Rise of the Quintastics

The major change taking place is in our attitude to ageing. “In our generation all the messages about women’s validity after 50 have completely changed,” points out Quilliam. “We are now free to do what and say what we want when we want; 50 is no longer the downturn that marks the end of a useful life. Now women work, the benchmark for the end of youthfulness is retirement. These days you can make love when you want to, go out when you like, learn a new skill or enjoy yourself how you please.”

To which I’m reminded of a brilliant photo signature I spotted beneath the posts of a forum member at menarebetterthanwomen.com (the girls are the two beautiful 16 y.o. singers Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato).

"To All Women - This is who we are looking at on the beach"