Childhood is over for many children by the age of 12, according to members of a parenting website.
Netmums website users are complaining that children are under pressure to grow up too fast.
They say that girls are made to worry about their appearance and boys are pushed into “macho” behaviour at too young an age.
The website’s co-founder Siobhan Freegard blamed a “toxic combination of marketing, media and peer pressure”.
“The pace of modern life is so fast that it is even snatching away the precious years of childhood,” she said.
Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with this thing called..oh what is it…oh yes, puberty? And of course middle-aged moms are the most objective persons in the world to consult over whether 14 year old nubile perky breasted girls are showing too much skin in the street these days.
Meanwhile, 48 year old femiservative hag Claire Perry, now officially the British government’s ‘expert on childhood sexualisation’ (despite also not appearing to grasp the concept of puberty), has demanded that moms have the right to spy on their daughter’s online conversations (no doubt whilst masturbating with one hand, and rubbing the latest expensive miracle skin cream into their cheeks with the other) :
Children shouldn’t fear. There likely won’t be many adults left outside of prison shortly, as the BBC also reports on a new ‘child abuse shake up’ in the light of the Jimmy Savile satanic abuse lynching. Prosecuters are now going to pay more attention to rumours and gossip when deciding whether to prosecute, and all previous complaints against men will be reviewed in order to try to bring as many ‘sex offenders’ to justice as possible :
The British government this week demanded an end to the ‘sexualisation of children’. The calls came after the results of an ‘independent’ report by an organisation calling itself the ‘Mother’s Union’, and led, rather oddly, by a man – Reg Bailey. The report calls for restrictions on sales of sexualised and ‘gender stereotyped’ clothing for children, and also backs stronger measures to prevent children viewing sexy MTV videos, lad’s mags in newsagents, and, of course, internet porn.
If you take a look at the homepage of the Mother’s Unionyou’ll see that it’s an explicitly Christian family organisation. This is what apparently counts as an ‘independent organisation’ fit to decide legislation in 21st century secular Britain.
This report actually follows, and mirrors, an earlier one conducted for the out-going NuLabour government. That report was the work mainly of pop-psychologist Dr Linda Papadopoulos, a transplanted American feminist who revels in wearing highly sexualised costumes at children’s charity galas :
Linda Papadopolous - Don't Do As I Do, Girls
Her report claimed a clear link between sexualised imagery and violence towards females, as well as supposed evidence that teenage girls were being bullied into posting naked photos of themselves onto social networking sites.
It couldn’t possibly be that teenage girls have similar minds to 30 year old American pop psychologists, and simply enjoy being attention whores, like the sexual beings that they are?
Let’s be clear – there is no such thing as the sexualisation of teenagers. Only the artificial de-sexualisation of teenagers. Girls in their early teens have been marrying and begetting families since the dawn of human history. In fact, this has been the norm until the last century. Society doesn’t sexualise teenage ‘children’, mother nature does – through the flood of estrogen coursing through the female body at the menarche, the onset of puberty which has remained constant at around 12 years of age throughout most of recorded history (the apparent later onset of puberty in girls during much of the last 150 years appears to be something of an anomaly).
Of course, what we have here again is feminists (and their Christian femiservative sisters) exploiting the absurd definition of teenagers as children in order to restrict sexual competition from their younger rivals. It really is as simple as that. And to do this without any regard for the potential harm that this artificial sexual infantalisation of young adults (which teenagers always were and should still be) might have for their long term mental health, or ability to function as adults, is nothing short of abuse and exploitation.
As the carefully manipulated hysteria over child abuse continues to grow ever more intense and irrational, the sexual trade union deftly shifts the goal posts, knowing that the mob, both proles and ‘rational progressives’ alike, are too blinded with nihilistic self-righteous fury to even notice or care.
The Daily Sexual Trade UnionMail reports with gleeful approval over the outrage generated in bible thumping America at a pair of grown women in their mid-twenties dressed up as teenage schoolgirls - shockingly posing..errrm…well, shockingly posing as women in their mid-twenties.. I guess.
Despite the fact that all three cast mates are over the age of 21, the row stems from the fact they are shot as their high school characters.
The Parents Television Council released a statement condemning GQ for publishing the pictures.
‘It is disturbing that GQ, which is explicitly written for adult men, is sexualising the actresses who play high school-aged characters on Glee in this way.
Protected from the perverted lusts of evil men, American girls would clearly be so wholesome and virginal, they wouldn’t know the difference between apple pie and hairy pie until their 18th birthday’s….or their 21st. Or 25th.
Or maybe this forced ‘innocence’ is why they have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the world – eight times as high as Japan?
No, what’s freakingly disturbing is the blatant and shameless way that the sexual trade union is continuing to extend and cheapen the notion of what constitutes paedophilia - the abuse of pre-pubescent children, to encompass grown women in their mid-twenties posing sexily for middle-aged men.
And of course, if certain pussy begging progressive and fair minded rationalists get their way, when the global age of consent is eventually raised to 21 or 25, it will be an act of obscene heresy punishable by death to so much as question such laws.
As one commentator underneath the article put it well :
Huh ! WTH are they talking about……? Pedophilia? These are grown *** teenagers not preteens or children. The girl is 24 years old and looks good-it could be A LOT worse. And anyway its GQ magazine, which last time I checked doesn’t cater to the preteen demographic. So EPIC FAIL.
In the light of such lunacy, it’s hardly surprising that feminist and mangina fascists would like to silence anybody who would even seek rational debate over paedohysteria or the age of consent. For such irrational, hateful idiocy is only able to exist in an atmosphere of medieval witch hunts and the looming specter of gulags and concentration camps.
Paedohysteria, the obsession with ‘sexual innocence’, and the very idea of teenagers being non-sexual children, was virtually unique, until very recently, to the most backward theocratic segments of American society.
As little as a decade ago in the German speaking nations, the idea of even 15 or 16 year olds being considered ‘children’ was faintly ridiculous. About as inappropriate and demeaning as describing 21 year olds as children still is today in the UK. This distinction is actually embedded into their language, in the difference between ‘kinder‘ (children) and ‘Jugendiche‘ (young people – teenagers).
I remember visiting a sex shop in Hamburg and seeing a girl who could have been no more than sixteen years of age serving behind the counter. It wasn’t shocking. Why would it be, when many of her customers were 15 year old schoolgirls eager to try out the latest must have vibrator? Das Bild, the national working-class tabloid, regularly published photographs of ‘Jugendliche’, who were under 18, topless or fully naked. And back in the 1970′s, the most popular ‘saucy’ comedy film franchise was ‘Schulmädchen Report’, which would often feature scenes involving teachers carressing the breasts of their 15 year old pupils or spying on them as they undressed in the showers. These films were considered family entertainment, and were as popular in Germany as the Carry On films were in the UK.
Only ten years ago, the very idea of a sex offenders register would have been taboo in Germany, evoking painful reminders in the collective consciousness of homosexual uentermenschen being forced to wear pink triangles as they awaited their appointment with Herr. Zyklon B.
Now of course, as we saw last week with Angela Merkel’s previously unthinkable criticism of multi-culturalism, Germany has ‘moved on’. That a million Jewish kids came to be butchered upon the sacred alter of ‘child protection’, is no longer a living memory, but rather ancient history.
Why should Germany worry about what the outside world thinks of anything it does – anything that might provoke memories of the initial steps of the Nazi era? Certainly not when applied to Untermensch paedophiles. Not when America has already got nearly a million men dehumanized to the extent of being one small step away from a final solution, any discussion or criticism of which will get pederast senators and progressive humanists alike making threats against your retrograde and deviant thought crime.
So it’s no real surprise to learn that German television has now launched its own version of the boyish lovinglooking Chris Hanson’s Dateline USA. Just a little sad to think where it will inevitably all lead to (again). This time, likely on a global scale. In the words of a male German politician a couple of years ago, when Angela Merkel and her female ‘justice’ minister were trying to criminilize even kissing between under 18s, (and being forced to speak on condition of anonymity) :
“everybody can see that it’s a crazy law, but we’re all too afraid to speak out against it in case we’re accused of defending paedophilia. It’s just an act of sexual colonialism on the part of America”
Which of the two females below is most attractive? Now, be careful, don’t rush your answer. Ahem..it’s not as…ahem…obvious as it looks. Well actually, it must be blindingly obvious (hint, the one in the mini-skirt). Because if you make the wrong choice, you are a subhuman perverted mentalist monster in deserve of death. Isn’t radiant skin, piercingly bright eyes, and lush, glowing hair all rather overrated anyway?
I wonder what poor Heather Locklear must be going through? Something like this woman, I imagine.
Whereas getting turned on by 25 year old women, 14 years post pubescent, is now close to being considered paedophilia in America, 15 year old girls dressed in short skirts dancing around a 40 year old man in his red underpants is considered a sure fire no.1 pop hit in Japan. Or at least it still was only 5 years ago, until they too were conquered by the American feminist/puritan axis of ignorance. I wonder how it is, if paedohysteria and the sexual trade union in America is doing such a fine job protecting children from abuse, that the Japanese Prime Minister was almost run out of office for his failure to get rid of the US army in Okinawa. In the eyes of Japanese voters, thus ensuring that small Japanese children continue to be unable to walk to school without fear of being raped by products of an American society no longer able to tell the sexual difference between a 5 year old and a 25 year old?
Prepare to be outraged:
In fact Daily Mail readers might be surprised to learn that it was acceptable even in the UK, until very recently, for thirty something pop singers to have naughty schoolgirls dancing around them. The shocking scenes captured in the following video represent the UK’s 2006 entry for the annual Eurovision Song Contest – Daz Sampson’s ‘Teenage Life’. A poignant ode to lost adolescence, innocent school days that were never going to end….and the transient joys of being able to bang 16 year old sluts in school uniform on a daily basis. Unfortunately, Daz’s cheeky and tuneful ditty received mainly null pwoint from the Euro Judges…obviously acting under the orders of the sexual trade union…
The outcome of rationalist progress at its finest :
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!!!!).
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"