Are all male feminists sex predators, paedophiles, and rapists? I’m beginning to think, at the very least, that any self-identified ‘male feminist’, and certainly those who make a career out of that identity, should be placed on some kind of FBI watch list.
Hugo Schwyzer is the latest mangina to be exposed as someone unable to keep it in his pants – at least when vulnerable pussy is there for a beta male penis to take advantage of. Having sex with your students would normally count as a perk of the job in my anti-feminist eyes, but when the man doing the boning has bought into the sexual trade union ideology of ‘power structures rendering consent impossible’, and such crap, then it does mean your actions are effectively those of a self-confessed rapist.
As part of his role as a full-time mangina, Hugo had also been enthusiastically organising young females into taking part in ‘slut walks’. Another ‘perk of the job’, I guess. This is eerily reminiscent of another leading male feminist – David Futrelle – and his use of blogging as a thinly disguised means to arrange ‘meet-ups’ with his female readers, some of whom are clearly vulnerable, mentally disturbed, or even children. This is a guy who has described a grown man’s fantasy of sexually assaulting a boy as ‘tender and erotic’ and who spent much of his early career as a radical statutory rape apologist and child abuse denier. It also brings to mind infamous blogger Kyle Payne, who used his identity as a prominant male feminist to land a role as a student counsellor – and to subsequently film himself violating one of his passed out teenage charges when he was still unable to get laid. The fervent anti-porn activist is now back in prison for fapping off to child pornography whilst on probation.
It’s long been known suspected in the men’s rights community that male feminism is simply an omega male mating strategy for the sexually frustrated. Add to that the obvious deep-rooted psychological issues that these self-hating, white, middle-class nerds clearly possess, and you have a roll call of tragedies just waiting to play themselves out.
Husband of the President of Finland caught gawping at 43 year old (not bad for 43) Danish princess’s breasts. This is the kind of desperate beta male that ugly feminists attract and keep, and even then only with the help of wave after wave of ever more draconian and hysterical sexual trade union legislation.
Most of you will probably have heard of the decision by Reddit to ban all of its infamous ‘Jailbait’ sub-reddits – which apparently had been devoted to the sharing of ‘sexualised’ pictures of clothed teenagers in bikinis and such like. Most men’s rights supporters will have become aware because Adrian Chen, of Gawker.com, has decided to link this issue to his wish to see r/mensrights shut down.
This has immediately put r/mensrights back on the defensive, with many MRAs there fiercely proclaiming that the only context in which ‘child porn’ and ‘paedophilia’ are men’s rights issues is in the cases of double standards in sentencing.
Of course, it’s pointed out quite correctly how odd it is that Adrien Chen want’s men’s rights banned next, instead of any of the clearly awful reddits still out there such as r/beatingwomen or r/nigger. In fact, it’s odd enough that legal (at least in America) pictures of clothed teenagers should warrant such attention ahead of such other subreddits. I’ve even read that there is a reddit devoted to pictures of dead babies…well I guess it’s no surprise that feminists and ‘progressive liberals’ would be more enraged at pictures of 17 year old ‘children’ in bikinis than creatures taking pride in looking at pictures of murdered babies.
In fact, it’s no surprise that feminists see pictures of jailbait and talk of men’s rights to be on the same level. Both, when it comes down to it, threaten to weaken the sexual value of women in a free sexual market. Instead of being cowards again, the men’s rights community should realise that it is the very power that the ‘child porn/paedophile’ hysterias give feminists and their allies over men that make it such an imperative to continue to question the underlying basis of those hysterias.
Personally, I wouldn’t be totally saddened to see the demise of reddit/r/mensrights. Yes, it’s a highly useful source of links and news pertaining to men’s rights issues, but the inherent nature of reddit itself means that the mens’ rights subreddit will always be vulnerable to false flag attacks and manipulation from other self-interested groups. The level of discussion there is typically absolutely dreadful – near imbecilic. To try to contribute even intermittently is to be dragged into a femi-troll hell. You end up arguing a point, usually of the nature – ‘is this really a men’s rights issue?’ – with somebody who is ostensibly also an MRA, then finally click on ‘his’ comment history and find that you’ve wasted an hour of your life discussing with somebody who has either never commented about men’s rights before, is a diaper wearing fetishist, or even a feminist troll. And this is all made worse by the poor moderation (improved since the imbecile Kloo2Yoo left and was replaced by Annarchist, but still having to suffer from the mangina like moderation of feminist supporting Ignoratisloyla).
The ‘advantage’ and appeal of Reddit lies in it’s community ‘upvoting’ system. But for a nascent, and still rather small political movement like men’s rights, this is its very weakness in terms of the potential it gives our cause to be manipulated by larger groups – such as feminists – as well as diluted by casual wanderers whose multiple accounts make up the majority of the 30,000+ ‘men’s rights supporters’ there (impressive only on paper). I still get far more visitors to this site coming from a link by InMalaFide than I do from r/mensrights. And if people feel the need for a reddit type service that cannot be manipulated or false flagged then I suggest they support Ferdinand Bardemu’s InBonaFide.
But back to the jailbait issue. Note the phrase ‘sexualised pictures’. What we’re talking about here is ‘jailbait‘. Although certain manginas are most often found boasting of their lack of ability to distinguish between pre-pubescent sexless children and hormone flushed large breasted ‘jailbait’, they seem to have found a way of exploiting the shock value of a ‘preteen’ reddit in this instance. But what I’m talking about here is ‘jailbait’ – clothed pictures of staggeringly attractive sexual beings that according to feminists are ‘sexualised’ and have become defined as child porn. Err, no, you can de-sexualise teenage post-pubescent girls, you can’t ‘sexualise’ them. These pictures might be sexual – any picture of an attractive 15 year old girl in a bikini is sexual to a healthy man – but they are not ‘sexualised’. Continue creating law after law that criminalise normal male sexuality in order to remove even images of such breathtakingly beautiful girls from the sexual market – but stop rationalizing your bitterness and jealousy by pretending that these post-pubescent teenagers are being ‘sexualised’.
When a man tells a young woman to stop dressing in public in a sexual manner, lest it increases the chances that they are sexually assualted, riots quickly ensue, and young slut walkers, most of whom are barely ‘adults’ themselves, go out of their way to exercise their feminist right to dress provocatively.
When women, or indeed, when a male feminist like Adrian Chen, tells 15, 16, 17 year old ‘children’ that any pictures of their even clothed bodies are obscene and pornographic, likely to lead to a lifetime of regret, shame, and bullying, then it’s just another divinely revealed secular truth, and any heretic like me who questions it is a sick bag pedo.
One of my readers posted an interesting link to the case of a 14 year old girl who became an ‘internet sex symbol’ after her Facebook photos were hacked into. The invasion of privacy involved is highly unethical, of course, but what the girl herself has to say about how the matter ‘ruined her life’ is illuminating :
It was a decision that she said ‘has ruined her life’.
‘When you’re 14 you don’t realise that the things you do really do matter at that point,’ she said in an interview on ABC News’ Nightline.
‘No one ever thinks that, ‘yeah, I’m going to take these pictures and it’s going to end up all over the Internet.’ You just do it for yourself.’
She was repeatedly called names and a ‘porn star’ at her high school after the photos spread online, from appearing in porn sites to popping up in advertisements.
Miss Varona thought the unwanted attention would eventually come to an end, but the problem has only worsened, she said.
A recent Google search of ‘Angie Varona’ drew almost 65,000 images.
There are also numerous unauthorised Facebook profiles, Twitter accounts and YouTube channels, all claiming to be Angie — one Facebook fan page has more than 41,000 likes.
‘[People were] telling me that I deserve everything that’s going to come for me, that they’re going to rape me when they see me because I want it and because I ask for it,’ she said.
I would confidently predict that most of the bullying, and likely the threats to kill her, came from her less attractive female peers. Again, this is being used as a feminist rationalisation as to why beautiful teenage girls should not post pictures of themselves in bikinis or revealing poses online – because they will be slut shamed by their peers, or because it might increase the risk of themselves being sexually assaulted or harassed. Yet overweight pug ugly feminist ‘slut walkers’ of 18 and 19 can turn the ‘right to be a slut in public’ into a mass political protest.
I should add that I use the word ‘slut’ in a non-judgemental manner. The male instinct to slut shame, whilst having a sound evolutionary basis, should be outdated so long as fathers have a right to paternity testing and the right not to support a child who isn’t their own. Personally, I think the men who are into slut shaming, whether of teenage girls or women, are scum – particularly the ones who are happy to bang ‘sluts’ themselves given the opportunity. But the nauseating fact is, feminists are only too happy to tap into this unwholesome feature of male sexual psychology when it suits their purpose of de-sexualising teenage girls.
Of course, 14 year olds are a little less mature than 18 or 19 year olds, and to a degree less able to foresee the consequences of their actions. The gap is hardly wide enough to justify the discrepancy, however – the ‘ right to be a slut’. And the same principle applies – if it is society’s fault for slut walkers being unable to express themselves sexually, then why shouldn’t 14 year old post-pubescent females be able to post pictures of themselves online without fear of bullying – something which the thinly disguised child slut shaming of feminists and Adrian Chen actually encourages?
Because ‘pedos’ jack off to such pictures? Aww, a beautiful teen posts sexy pictures of herself online and surprise, surprise, it’s not just 17 year old Justin Bieber look-alikes that click on them when they show up at the top of Google image search. And what harm is done exactly by a ‘dirty old man’ being aroused by a picture of a fertile young female who ticks all the boxes – youthful skin, pert firm breasts etc.? If a young girl is taught to despise older people (men) so much that she is somehow traumatised by the thought that an old lonely wrinkly might be spending a few minutes in bliss just thinking about her perfect body that he can never have outside of his imagination, then that is simply a problem for our not so civilised and progressive society – the first (and last) civilisation in history to turn the hatred of the old into the basis of social morality.
Personally, I’m somewhat pleased that these subreddits were removed – not that I visited them, or ‘researched’ them myself anyway – I’m far too aware of crazy feminist laws to do that. Whether or not they are legal or illegal in the USA, they are now illegal in most of the rest of the world, thanks to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Middle Aged Feminist Hags the Child. Removing such content makes it a little less likely for an ordinary Brit, a Canadian, or an Australian male that their government will have the power to break into their homes at 2 in the morning and seize them as a subhuman pervert. In this regard, the police forces of these countries are the biggest losers in Reddit’s decision.
Of course, as has been pointed out here before, thanks to the sick world of psychotically jealous feminists, pictures of ‘sexualised’ anime characters who look under 18 are considered just as illegal, and just as much defined as child porn, as are pictures of real jailbait teenagers in bikinis. Odd then, that the forum – SomethingAwful.com – which apparently led the campaign to have the jailbait reddits removed as child porn is apparently a hotbed of anime images and videos.
I was also struck by the following post by ‘BoggiDWurms’ on the *site of a professional male feminist, crowing over the decision to close down the ‘child porn’ reddits :
The anime girl certainly looks under 18, and if she was real she’d likely be stoned to death in a jiffy if found walking the streets of Taliban controlled Afghanistan like that.
The other ironic thing about that post and use of video, totally lost on the self-rationalising ugly aging cretins who frequent that site, is that Beethoven – whilst something of an idealistic mangina in his misguided support for the proto-feminist movements of the day (of which his opera ‘Fidelio’ is an example) – was probably an ‘ephebophile’ (if such a category does exist), or in their progressive language – a pedo.
I remember reading a biography of the great composer in which a contemporary is quoted as describing how, as a twenty something, Beethoven would wander around the main square of his hometown Bonn, looking bashful and love stricken at every pretty young teenage girl who caught his eye. It is thought that Beethoven, who never married and who seems to have had a rabid dislike of forming any committed sexual relationship, composed some of his greatest works inspired by the beauty of the upper-class teenage pupils who he was paid to give music lessons to, and who he often and invariably fell in love with – including the Moonlight Sonata, perhaps the most romantic and beautiful piece of of all – being dedicated to a 16 year old girl (remember too that in this period girls began puberty a little later than the present and historical norm). It is also thought that the ‘Elise’ of his famous bagatelle – ‘Für Elise‘ – refers to a Viennese slang word of the time for ‘slutty’ young teenage girls.
Like his near contemporary Schopenhauer, Beethoven would likely have satisfied his raging sexual lusts with the young adolescent serving girls who were the norm in well-to-do European households at the time.
It is somewhat sobering to think that, thanks to feminist laws, in prisons around the world, there are human beings as sensitive and creative as Beethoven being raped and beaten every day as subhuman animals for simply looking at pictures, in the privacy of their own homes, of ‘sexualised’ teenage girls. It is an even more disturbing thought that ‘progressive’ 21st century civilisation, which justifies the naturalness of homosexuality on the basis that some penguins have been observed to be ‘homosexual’, will not even allow a sensible debate as to whether a serious crime against male sexuality, if not humanity itself, is being committed.
Selena Gomez breaks down describing the threats and bullying she gets from other jealous female teenagers – of course, these ugly girls then go on to become purely objective ugly women, who create laws and define paedophilia purely on the basis of the interests of ‘children’, it being purely co-incidental that such laws also raise their own small and diminishing sexual market value. And shouldn’t Selena be more upset and traumatised by the thought that lonely old men might find ‘sexualised’ pictures of her stimulating?
*I never have and never will link to that disgusting site, in doing so giving it page ranking with Google. On that one thread alone, I saw :
1/ feminists declaring that they have ‘no problem’ with minors being prosecuted for uploading sexy pics of each other (notice that 16 year old girls are children in the context of ‘paedophilia’, but simply ‘minors’ when discussing whether feminists can have them prosecuted ‘for their own protection’).
2/ a feminist declaring that ‘they are armed and ready’ for men’s rights supporters. Needless to say, if I approved a comment like that here from a men’s rights supporter….
3/ an aging feminist invoking voodoo science and declaring that men who look at a picture of a 17 year old ‘child’ in a bikini are ‘stealing’ her sexuality – something akin to the primitive beliefs of African tribes who, never having seen a camera before, believed that their souls were being stolen when photographed for the first time. Also, again, something very like the medieval Christian and present day Muslim view of the importance of a teenage daughter’s virginity. Muslim fathers would honour kill their teenage ‘sluts’. Feminists are a little more sophisticated, and impose voodoo victim science on the poor girls.
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind.—Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has a problem: What to do about all the forced prostitution that he’s sure will be happening when Indianapolis hosts the Super Bowl this winter on February 6.
Of course, Zoeller’s actual problem is that he (and his cadre of advisors and consultants) haven’t yet figured out that most of the women involved in prostitution have affirmatively chosen their profession—and that all those statistics he’s been reading about the number of trafficked women and children in the U.S.—he’s claiming that “[a]s many as 300,000 girls between the ages of 11 and 17 are lured into the United States’ sex industry annually”—are staggeringly inflated.
“He [Zoeller] said the recent track record of America’s most-watched sporting event suggests that along with it comes an uptick in women, especially those under age 18, who are brought into the United States illegally and forced into prostitution,” wrote Eric Bradner of the Evansville Courier & Press.
See, even though the Indianapolis 500, Indiana’s biggest sporting event, draws hundreds of thousands more fans to the city than a Super Bowl, Zoeller’s sure there’ll be more hooking because, “It’s the international focus. It’s a different kind of sporting event.”
Apparently he’s confused about the fact that when pretty much everyone else in the world says “football,” they’re talking about what we call “soccer.” Apples and oranges, don’t’cha know?
But no; Zoeller’s paranoia will be prostitutes’ problem, if he has anything to say about it.
After a September 30 “training session” called by Zoeller for “law enforcement, prosecutors and victim advocates,” he’s urging the state legislature to pass a new law that would criminalize “the organized exploitation of children by people who profit from the sale of sex with minors”—or as we know them, “pimps,” whose activities we suspect are already illegal.
“Our goal is to increase awareness that prostitution isn’t a victimless crime,” Zoeller claimed. “Many of these young women who enter the sex trade are often physically forced, coerced, raped or imprisoned by their traffickers.”
Trouble is, apparently all that force, coercion, rape and imprisonment is really, really well hidden.
“If they [police] know what to look for, what questions to ask, we’re hoping we can identify more victims and serve them,” said Abby Kuzma, director of the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Office.
And if they can’t find “victims” to “serve,” they’ll do their best to create them. Just three days after the confab, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police (with a Fox 59 News crew in tow) raided three massage parlors in Marion County, seizing massage tables, computers and arrested two women, neither of whom were minors, and neither of whom appeared to have been “trafficked.”
Not too surprisingly, officials in Dallas, Texas, the site of the most recent Super Bowl, made similar predictions about the impending rampant sex-trafficked child prostitution, yet interestingly, no one appears to have done any follow-up after the 2011 Super Bowl to see how many trafficked child prostitutes were discovered servicing Super Bowl attendees.
Perhaps in Indiana, the news media will be a bit more thorough.
The Good Men Project is yet another one of those sinister attempts to create a castrated ‘male voice’, a website fronted by well-intentioned shame filled manginas as a cover for the broody interests, and easy manipulative skills, of the sexual trade union. In this article, they decided to ‘ask the nation and thought leaders’ their opinions regarding online porn.
Is Internet pornography really turning us all into sex addicts? Will boys who grow up on degrading porn be unable to form healthy sexual relationships as adults? Is repetitive porn viewing really changing our brains?
And, most importantly in my mind, are we—as guys—talking honestly about any of this? Are we ready to have a frank discussion about the role that online pornography plays in our lives? Are we ready to man up and tell the truth?
Well, judging from the few answers actually published, they mostly asked women and a handful of white knights. There is sadly no doubt that men, as a whole, are hypocritical as can be when it comes to being honest about their porn compulsions, but I am sure that this magazine could have found a few more openly porn positive men to interview. Judging from the article, the 99% of us who look at porn are all so shame ridden at ‘objectifying’ women that we are constantly having to justify to ourselves why we haven’t yet cut our own dicks off.
Jesse Kornbluth, the former editor of AOL, gives the following typical self-vaginalizing judgment :
The scale of porn is huge. What causes the acceleration? It’s not abundant supply. It’s demand. Porn and teenaged boys have been inseparable since the beginning of time. The Internet offers more extreme porn than the airbrushed Playboy images I grew up on, but that’s not a reason to get unduly riled. I’m much more concerned about porn and adult males, many of whom seem to use it as a substitute for real relationships. Substitution quickly becomes distance, and distance becomes an unbridgeable chasm—and the porn-obsessed masturbator develops an unhealthy view of sex and women. Millions and millions of sick men out there. If I were an American woman, I’d be very cautious.
Cautious of what? Why is she cautious of men who have found a substitute for the perils and traps that real relationships bring to a man in modern America? Actually, the only thing she, and all the other women questioned, are cautious about is the sight of their sexual power over men diminishing. As she makes clear, she isn’t afraid of teenage boys turning into perverts, only growing up not being addicted to having ‘real relationships’ with women. In other words, she fears a generation of independent and content masturbators.
Another women questioned opined :
“The inherent problem with porn, from a female perspective, is there is minimal kissing or tenderness, much less sensuality. How many women want to wear high heels to bed? I would like to view what transpired between Rhett and Scarlett after he carried her up those stairs.”
Well, actually there already is a multi-million pound female porn industry – it’s called ‘romantic fiction’. And when it does get really racy, it’s not called porn at all, but ‘erotica’.
Only yesterday I posted my discovery that Jessica Valenti, leading online feminist, wanted realistic sex dolls to be banned on the grounds that they ‘objectify’ women.
Obviously, as learned readers of this blog will know by now, as well as anybody with an ounce of common sense, Valenti and her fellow feminists want to ban sex dolls because such things, increasingly realistic, threaten to give men sexual independence from women.
Following the recent Ontario/Canada Roundtable on Gender Equality, the below provisions have been proposed for the new Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act, the first draft of which is currently being finalized.The provisions are specifically meant to target the concerns that were expressed at the roundtable that sexbots will negatively impact the pursuit for gender equality and may unduly emphasize the objectification of women as sexual objects.The suggested provisions fall into the larger framework of regulating the emerging service robot industry that will be governed by the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act and under the direction of the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence, to be established in Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories at the end of next year.
It is further proposed that provisions 6 and 7 are integrated into the Criminal Code of Canadato ensure uniformity with respect to the illegal creation, use, distribution, advertising, export and import of sexbots which are made in the image of minors under the age of 18. For the purposes of s. 163.1 of the Criminal Codethe definition of “child” should include sexbots created in the image of minors under the age of 18.
…The use of sexbots shall be restricted to government-regulated establishments unless otherwise approved by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial Intelligence.
…The use of sexbots in the privacy of one’s home is prohibited, unless otherwise permitted by the Ministry of Robots and Artificial intelligence or a relevant regulating agency as per the criteria outlined in the Human-Robot Personal Relationship Act.
Dr Ian Kerr, a grinning mangina, apparently holds some position as professor of robot ethics at the University of Ottawa, and it appears that this fact gives him the ability to influence government policy and law making.
And what is most terrifying is the glimpse it gives us into how femi-nazi anti-sex laws, which lead to the rape of the male, come to pass. Sex bots are still a few years away, yet already there are ‘experts’ on the ethics of human-robot sexual relationships, feminists whose supposed expertise on such matters means that they can hold a ridiculous conference behind closed doors and then fully expect the government of their land to pass laws that will deny happiness to millions of men and criminilize those men as sex offenders if they dare seek that happiness. Simply because all these ‘experts’ have to say are the magic words ‘need to protect women and children’ and any rational scrutiny, let alone empirical judgement or testing, is not required.
In Ian Kerr’s case, it seems his ability to pass laws that will affect millions of people arises from being a middle-class kid who obtained a degree in philosophy at a second rate university and wrote his doctorate on a subject (ethics of human-robotic relations) that maybe only a dozen other people in the entire world have explored. Sex bots are still some distance away, no society could have an intelligent discussion on what laws need to be passed, because most people are completely unaware of what sexbots even are, let alone what ethical issues they might represent.
This strategy follows that used by feminists in the past with regard to new technology changing porn and sex. For example, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, recently ‘celebrating’ its 20th anniversary, included the outlawing of any pictorial representation of a minor in a sexual context. In other words ‘child pornography, defined to the max. Now, in 1989, any such pictures would be photographs of actual minors. Yet the feminists were careful to word the convention in terms of ‘representation’. Probably few of the 180+ countries that signed the treaty in 1989 realised that the wording of the documents that they were putting pen to paper to would lead to millions of ordinary men being criminalized for clicking on a mouse to view a digitally created anime picture that was merely a possible ‘representation’ of a person under 18.
Similarly, it appears feminists are drawing up laws against sex bots before even most educated people are fully aware of what the consequences of these laws might be for ordinary male sexuality in a future high-tech world. And one thing that keeps feminists motivated in doing this is that they know full well that once passed, it is almost impossible to repeal any sex offender legislation ‘that protects women and children’.
However, what might trip up the femibeasts is that they themselves do not know what the full implications upon society will be if the sexual trade union laws that they create are applied fully and logically in a different world.
Ian Kerr and his fellow feminists want any sexbot that looks under 18 to be banned full stop, under the pretence of virtual child pornography laws that criminalize the creation of any sexual image of a minor. Never mind that such ultra-realistic androids would surely prevent ‘paedophiles’ from having the urge to have sex with real minors.
But hold on a moment. If an ‘image’ now includes the three-dimensional shape of a sex doll or a sex bot, then surely the multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry is going to go bankrupt overnight? Given that most teenage girls are fully developed at age 16 or 17 these days, an image of a person looking under 18 must include any woman who attempts to make her skin or her body as youthful and as perfect as possible (i.e. when it was 16 or 17 years old). The Swedish celebrity false rape accuser Ulrika Johnsonn, recently paid over £50,000 to ‘have the body of a 16 year old girl’. Now why isn’t she in prison being raped by butch lesbians for ‘creating the sexual image of a person under the age of 18’? This is the logic that follows from the creation of these absurd feminist laws designed to restrict sexual competition to themselves in a widened free sexual market – in other words, the rape of the male.
I would suggest that in the year 2020, when Josef Shiele of Bremerhaven, Germany, becomes the first person to be dragged before the courts for having sex with a cute, youthful looking Japanese sex bot (well, if they’re all going to be banned you may as well get yourself a good one), he takes his case to the European Court of Justice and points out that this is a gross violation of his human rights and dignity. That he should be punished for ‘creating’ the realistic, 3-dimensional sexual image of a desirable nymph when millions of women attempt to do the same each and every day with their own bodies (in order to be attractive to men like himself and all the other ‘perverts’ who constitute the vast majority of the male sex).
This will become even more absurd in the coming years, as scientists finally develop ways of obtaining the age old female dream (and men’s) – of permanently giving women the appearance of youthful, virgin skin. Already rich, middle-aged women are flocking to expensive Asian clinics in order to have stem cell therapy with the intention of giving their skin a more youthful (pre-pubescent, in fact) look. And by all accounts, this therapy will probably work, at least when mastered in a few years time.
It’s going to be a strange and brave new world, in just a couple of decades or less, when virtually ALL women, even 70 year olds, are walking around looking like Miley Cyrus. Who knows how such a thing will change the dynamics of the free sexual marketplace? One thing is for sure – the same feminists who create these absurd virtual child pornography laws that criminlize ordinary men for victimless crimes, will be the first to seek the treatment that turns their faces and bodies into that of buxom 16 year old girls.
After all, how could they possibly hope to compete with the sexbots otherwise?
If you would like to contact Ian Kerr and tell him what you think of his shameful participation in the rape of the male, his e-mail address is : firstname.lastname@example.org