“I beg to move: That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to create an offence of paying for sexual services of a person under the age of 21 years; and for connected purposes….

…There is an important debate to be held on the rights and wrongs of prostitution and the laws that should have an impact on it, by my Bill does not deal with that. My Bill does one thing: it raises the threshold for the illegality of paying for sex. Of course there is a threshold, which is currently 16. Where someone is under 16, the huge consequences of the criminal law and imprisonment are involved because of the age of consent. But the moment the victim becomes older than 16 there are no punitive powers to deal with the person who is paying. I wish to see this Bill adopted by the Government at some stage solely and simply to raise that threshold, because by raising the threshold one raises the threshold. That may sound like a truism, but this approach will change the behaviour of those choosing to pay. The behavioural implication is there for those worried about breaching the criminal law and risking 14 years in prison because someone could be a minor of 15 and a half years old. On that borderline, threshold behaviour changes, so I would like Parliament to change that threshold to 21. In essence, that will take all the teenage years out of the real threshold and will change the behaviour of people who are paying. I am not making moral judgments about what people do as adults.

My Bill seeks solely and simply to raise that threshold. I think that raising the threshold will have a huge impact because the age group involved—older teenagers—must be given the space in which to turn around their lives. Our current legislative framework makes them the victims as, in reality, the powers available to the police, even though they are often wisely and deliberately not used, are to arrest and criminalise young people, which worsens their life chances and their chances of turning around the situation.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2012-01-17b.618.0

Notice the part of his speech that I have highlighted in bold – at first it reads rather like gibberish, but he appears to be saying exactly what I’ve always stated here as the true motivation behind higher and higher age of consent laws.  The threshold must be raised to 21 so that men won’t even go near anyone who even could be under 21.  I’ll quote him again :

The behavioural implication is there for those worried about breaching the criminal law and risking 14 years in prison because someone could be a minor of 15 and a half years old. On that borderline, threshold behaviour changes, so I would like Parliament to change that threshold to 21.

In other words, we are now entering the world in which I have always predicted that feminists and their mangina puppets would be leading us into – where men are beginning to face legal risks (from ‘child protection’ laws) for even seeking out adult women in their early twenties.

And given that most females in the UK complete puberty by the age of 16, how exactly can you distinguish between a 20 year old adult woman and a 21 year old adult woman?  Obviously, the only sure way would be to only seek prostitutes who have obvious signs of aging – women in their late twenties or thirties.

This bill, if it becomes law, will have numerous consequences.  A line will have been crossed in the sexual demarcation between ‘children’ and adults (already ridiculously defined by feminists at 18).  Even young adult women over 18 can now fall under the ‘protection’ of anti-paedophile and child abuse laws.  Just as the raising of the minimum age for prostitution and pornography to 18 has made having sex with 17 year old girls morally and socially dubious, even though the age of consent is still 16 in the UK and most other countries (or lower), soon simply having sex with 20 year old women will carry connotations of paedophilia and child abuse.

Note also that it will become legally hazardous to buy a 20 year old woman a meal before having sex, or even buying a young woman a drink in a nightclub, lest you be accused of ‘paying for sex’.

And this, of course, is the real intention.  This is better for the average woman than the complete criminilization of paying for sex would be.  With this law, with this discrimination between women under and over 21, the sexual market price of the older woman is again raised.

Thanks to Human-Stupidity for notifying me of this bill – I can only find it on two sites online – the link given above, and Adult World News, which appears to be related to the excellent Melon Farmers anti-censorship/sex positive (male and female) news website.  But I can’t find it on any mainstream media site.

This is how politics works in the UK, especially the never ending barrage of anti-male sexuality legislation.  A bill is introduced into parliament, the House of Commons and then the House of Lords debate it, and shortly after, the new law is announced on page 9 of the Daily Telegraph.  There is no public debate – 99% of the public probably won’t be aware of it even when it has become law.  And of course, in the present climate it is almost impossible to repeal sex laws (apart, of course, from those relating to homosexuality and trans-genders).

*WARNING : The article contains a photograph of the woman pushing for this new femirapist law – Roselyne Bachelot.  Yes, she is disgustingly ugly and around 50, but you probably already guessed that.  Just be careful if you are in the process of eating something.

This is the Google translation of the first two paragrapsh :

Inspired in part of the Swedish model, a law for penalizing customers should soon be presented to the Assembly. The minister hopes of an application from 2012.

For Roselyne Bachelot, there’s no doubt: it must penalize the clients of prostitutes. In an interview published Wednesday in Le Parisien, the Minister of Solidarity and Social Cohesion reported that the information mission of the National Assembly on prostitution – consisting of UMP and PS – will soon propose a bill up in meaning, which could be voted on in 2012. The minister in charge of the fight against violence against women, intends to defend it.

Why do I call the old bitch a whore? I’ve been meaning to write a piece on ‘re-defining whoredom’ for a long time, in fact since I started this blog, but it’s flat cleaning day today (I have my 17 year old French fuck buddy coming round at the weekend). I’ll just state my belief that a whore is a woman who defines her essential being in terms of her sexual market value – always seeking to increase her own ‘price’. Under this reasonable definition of what constitutes a whore, feminists are the biggest whores on the planet, and Roselyne Bachelot is a classic example.

By throwing men into jail – including even disabled men, or men who for whatever reason can’t attract women into bed without paying for it, she hopes to increase her own sexual market value (and those of her female electorate) by limiting the sexual alternatives available to all men. In any sane, civilised, and just society, she should be put on trial for attempted rape, for even contemplating a law such as this with such transparent sexually self-interested motives behind it.  But without doubt, she is a whore. A woman who clearly defines herself by her sexual market value and makes a political career out of trying to raise it through legislation such as this.

A comment left underneath the article by a cheering feminist is illuminating,  She ends her congratulatory rant with the words – ‘women are not for sale’.  Well prostitutes do not sell themselves, they sell access to their bodies – for a few minutes or for an hour.  But feminists obviously regard themselves as their bodies, and the price that men have to pay to have access to them.

Despite what a lot of men’s rights supporters believe, women who give sex freely, without judging what they can get out of it – women who are happy to fuck you in the toilets of Starbucks 10 minutes after meeting you, quite content in the knowledge that they’ll never see you again, or women who would happily give a stranger in a wheelchair a blowjob out of sheer pity (if it wasn’t the fear of getting arrested or being labeled a slut) are the least whorish women. O.K, mummy’s baby, daddy’s maybe, slutty women will cheat on you etc etc. -well,  we have paternity testing already, and a discussion of whether it is slutty women per se who wil be more likely to dump you and take the kids (or just women who will lie to your conservative puritan deluded ass that they will be faithful) is the subject of another essay – as I said, it’s flat cleaning day, and I haven’t even put the sheets in the washing machine yet.

I also had to get this provocative, inarticulate rant out of my system after reading the much more articulate Krauser PUA, although he has deemed it necessary to add a clarification, obviously not quite sharing my own extreme and contrarian views on sluts :

http://krauserpua.com/2011/03/28/tricks-and-hos/

On the flip side, any time a woman reciprocates a trick’s overtures by delivering some gratification she is a ho. When a woman insists on the man buying drinks and food she is a ho. When she dolls up and takes her friends to a club for free entry and drinks she is a ho. When she holds out on blowjobs until the man buys her a handbag she is a ho.

Trick-Ho interactions take place on the economic and ego planes. They are shallow and self-defeating over time. Deep rewarding male-female interactions take place on the character and charisma planes. Men and women are truly happy when their energies match and sexual polarity pulls them together. This is why women in love can say “Even if we were poor and hungry I’d still be happy if I’m by your side” and why most men are repelled by shallow bimbos.

This is why a girl who lets you fuck her in a pub bathroom on the second date is less of a ho then a girl who holds you off for two years till she gets a rock on her finger. [clarification: a girl who fucks just anyone she tingles for in the toilets is a slut. A girl who sets a high threshold of personal value that you then meet and quickly guide through the milestones of the human courtship ritual and only then fucks you in the toilets is not a slut. So says Krauser]

In my view there is a difference between a slut and a whore. A slut is a girl who will fuck you in the toilets after meeting you. God I wish all girls were sluts, although perhaps my affirmed desire never to marry or even have a long-term monogonous relationship plays a part in that wish. Sluts are the enemies of feminists because they bring down the sexual market value of women in general – the ‘non sluts’, just as prostitutes do.  However, women who define and calculate every sexual interaction with men, every step of the courtship ritual, as being about selling goods and hoping to get the highest possible price for them – these are whores, and feminists are the worst of them.  A prostitute is an honest whore, in fact, more of a slut than a whore, at least as compared with a feminist, unless she charges a ridiculous rate for the goods on offer.

Fuck, I haven’t even washed the floor yet. Krauser’s list of affirmations to help you develop the mind-set to snare hos are quite useful/funny as well :

• Alpha seed is more valuable than female eggs,
• Girls like sex more than men do
• Women get old quick. Men mature like fine wine
• The best men have higher value than the best women
• She’s beautiful, yeah. But what has she ever acheived in life?
• The world is awash in beautiful women. The vagina is not gold-plated
• That girl has to be fucked by somebody. It might as well be me.
• Beautiful women want the same things as average women.
• Every girl tingles to the same things.

A real voice for men.