Anti-Feminist Theory of Men's Rights, Male Sexuality, Feminism

Excellent article at InMalaFide on statutory rape laws by a ‘Giovanni Dannato’ that everyone here should read :

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 These laws were originally made to protect the economically valuable virginity of unmarried young women.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

Apologies if this story has already done the rounds in the Men’s Rights blogosphere, but I’ve only just spotted it, and it is of course highly relevant to what has been the theme of this site from the beginning.  So relevant and obvious in fact, that it hardly needs explaining, and I’ll reproduce the original article in its near entirety :

AUSTIN, Texas — While young women’s educational and career opportunities have skyrocketed over the past two decades, their opportunities for stable, long-term relationships have declined, according to new research from sociologists at The University of Texas at Austin.

In their new book “Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate and Think About Marrying,” (Oxford, 2011) researchers Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker detail the sexual attitudes, behaviors and experiences of Americans between the ages of 18 and 23.  The research goes beyond the clichés about salaciousness within the largely white Greek system to provide a nuanced view of the experiences of a much wider swath of young adults.

“Hooking up gets all the attention but most sex occurs in relationships,” says Regnerus.

In an era when marriage is often far from the minds of young Americans, the book provides a fuller understanding of why that is, how the place of sex in romantic relationships has shifted and what that means for young adults. The outlook for relationship security, he claims, is more grim than ever.

“There have been many changes in romantic and sexual behavior over the past 30 years,” says Regnerus. “One is that the ‘price of sex’ among unmarried Americans has dipped to an all-time low.”

Regnerus and Uecker describe the “price of sex” as the cost — to men — of romance, status, stability and commitment that men exchange for access to sex in a relationship. They argue that despite women’s successes, contemporary relationships are becoming more male-centered than ever, with men gaining access to sex earlier and more often, yet providing fewer and later commitments than a generation ago.

“It is, in part, one of the unintended consequences of women’s educational and professional success,” Regnerus says. “Women no longer need men. When that’s the case, how relationships develop will change. And they have.

“Men’s economic and educational successes have stalled, creating an environment in which fewer educated and financially-stable men are selecting mates from a larger pool of educated and financially-stable women,” he says. “It’s created an imbalance that tips relationship power in the direction of the men. Instead of men competing for women, today women feel like they must compete for men.

Feminism is an irrational, blind, self-perpetuating chain of destruction.  Modern feminism exploded as soon as the free sexual market came into full being with the introduction of the contraceptive pill.  Women were told they had been liberated and could now see sex as a leisure pursuit, free from the fear of pregnancy.  Men, too, no longer had reason or inclination to commit, and no doubt encouraged women in their sense of ‘liberation’.  But suddenly, these liberated women felt threatened.  They could no longer rely upon, nor in fact did they feel they ‘needed’, the security of a man.  Like lemmings jumping over the cliff, the rush into education and employment began, something that only increased the availbility of single and sexually available young women, as well as feeding a sexually promiscuous culture.  Women left university with their degrees and forged their careers, enhancing their economic value and status, but with a highly diminished sexual value that only decreased the more with every passing day they waited for a higher status male to walk into their lives – men who could now walk into their local disco or nightclub and get a blowjob from the first 16 year old they looked at, or failing that, jerk off to some classic color climax VHS porn.

The more that feminism ‘liberates’ women, the more that women need feminism.  This site has never argued that there is a solution.  Unlike most other anti-feminists, I don’t want to attempt the impossible and turn the clock back to the 1950′s or the 7th century.  Such a ‘solution’, would in actual fact be, at least if they were rational enough to see it, exactly what feminists would want, as well as being totally inconsistent with men’s rights, given that it would involve criminalizing and punishing men even more than feminism already does.  The only way forward I see is to encourage men to fight for their rights, to learn to shout as loud as feminists, to see what feminists (and other men) are doing to their own sexuality.  And ultimately, although it’s probably a vain hope, perhaps women will somehow learn to free themselves from the chains of their animal selves, and to finally achieve the capacity to distinguish between the physical and the spiritual.  To not only see, but to be able to experience, that in the 21st century, fucking is just fucking.

A ‘man of 21 with learning disabilities has been granted taxpayers’ money to fly to Amsterdam and have sex with a prostitute.

His social worker says sex is a ‘human right’ for the unnamed individual – described as a frustrated virgin.

His trip to a brothel in the Dutch capital’s red light district next month is being funded through a £520million scheme introduced by the last government to empower those with disabilities. 

They are given a personal budget and can choose what services this is spent on.

Source : Councils pay for disabled to have sex with prostitutes

Good!  This is the most heartwarming story I’ve read in  a long time, save for the predictable outrage from the sexual trade union’s conservative mouth piece – the Daily Mail.

I spoke in my last post about the effects of the free sexual market in producing grotesquely varied outcomes in terms of ‘winners and losers’.  Feminism, and the overturning of ‘patriarchy’, has been the response of the mass of unattractive female losers.  The ‘Mystery Method’ and Game has been the response of male ‘losers’ (high IQ white betas).

In his novels, the French writer Michel Houellebecq discusses various solutions to the unfair outcomes produced by the free sexual market.  In Platform, an economic solution is proposed, consisting of a heretical defence of western sexual tourism to Asia.  Why shouldn’t wealthy, but obese or old westerners, trade their own sought after goods with the poor, yet sexually attractive members of Asian societies?  In the earlier and more popular Atomised, a more radical, femi-nazi type solution is presented – the abolition of sexual desire altogether, brought about through genetic intervention.  Even more inflammatory, he playfully suggests at times that teenage girls should ‘justify their spoilt existance’ by being encouraged to trade their sexual beauty for the gifts of the older men whose taxes already support their extended adolescent lifestyles.

Now, I wish to make clear I am speaking as an ‘anti-feminist’ and all round agent provocateur, rather than as a ‘men’s rights supporter’. But I agree wholeheartedly that the state should have no more or less right to redress the imbalances of a free sexual market than it does presently to correct those of the economic free market.

Why shouldn’t those with beauty and youth be encouraged to enter into mutually advantageous relationships with the less attractive, but wealthier (an example of this is ‘compensation dating’ in Japan)?  After a year of working 40 hour weeks, I’m now earning close to $2,000 a week.  Why should my hard earned work go towards supporting the family of 5 on welfare down the road through the taxes that I pay, and yet if I offered to take the 17 year old daughter out to an expensive dinner, with an understanding that my sexual needs would be catered for afterwards, I would face prosecution as a sex offender (payment for sex with a minor – even though above the age of consent)?

Of course, as I have always argued, the law that would prosecute me is itself a state attempt at redressing the imbalances produced by the free sexual market. But it is one that ONLY addresses the sexual disadvantages of older, unattractive women.  Because I cannot use my modest wealth to ‘buy’ sexual favours from the young and attractive, I am more likely to end up in a relationship with an older, unattractive woman who will herself profit from my income.

The actions of those English councils might appear to indicate the birth of a more enlightened and caring sexual age.  But the disabled young men with learning difficulties are actually being put at risk of being prosecuted for ‘paying for sex’ if it turns out that those Amsterdam prostitutes were trafficked (or more likely if they claim to have been trafficked to avoid deportation as illegal immigrants). 

This world, created by the feminists and their allies, both conservative and cultural marxist, is full of Orwellian contradictions.  We hold the highest value to be the reduction of human misery and inequality.  Few object to disabled people having financial compensation, privilages, and other support from the state, even the right to ‘compete’ at Olympic Games.  Yet the idea that sex is a human right, rather than something that must be arduously won in the free sexual jungle, is something that strikes most as absurd.  Even the feminists have to pretend that their sexual trade union laws are attempts to save ‘victims’ rather than honestly admitting that they are nothing more than attempts to preserve the sexual ‘rights’ of older, unattractive women in that cruel and ruthless sexual market.

Michel Houellebecq points out the contradictions inherent in a social democratic society where sex has become a commoddity.  In such a world, we ought to encourage classes of 16 year old schoolgirls to visit retirement homes and to give the lonely old men there one last blowjob before the dying of the light.  In my view, such a world would be fairer, more beautiful, and definitely more consistent than our present one.

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?