A Tale of Three Reddit Posts – You can blow them up, but you can’t bugger ‘em :

POST 1 : Women are for children, boys are for pleasure Reddit/r/mensrights Upvotes after 24 hours = 186

A story detailing how 15 year old boys commonly dance for money in front of much older Afghani men, and are often taken to hotels for sex afterwards.

POST 2 : Taliban’s Army of Child Soldiers Reddit/r/mensrights Upvotes after 24 hours = 8

A story detailing how the Taliban forces Afghani boys as young as 5 to plant bombs and to serve as cannon fodder in their Army.

POST 3 : Pakistan’s Boy Soldiers Reddit/r/mensrights Upvotes after 24 hours = 6

A story detailing how 250,000 soldiers (boys) under the age of 18 are thought to be fighting in conflicts around the world.

First of all, this article isn’t about defending 15 year old boys having sex with Afghani men in a context where there is clearly massive scope for co-ercion. Whether or not this is anything but reprehensible is beside the point for the purposes of this piece. The point I wish to make is that it seems to me to be quite perverse that such sexual stories on Reddit routinely get massively more discussed and upvoted than do posts detailing Afghani men forcing children to do things that are clearly more harmful to those children – such as forcing them to risk probable death or injury in adult wars.

In fact the lackluster handful of comments on Reddit to my two posts on boy soldiers almost all contained references to the Afghani dancing boys.  The typical response was ‘what do you expect when men are allowed to fuck them?’.  In other words, why should I be worried about 5 year old boys being made to fight and die in war when 15 year old boys are earning their supper by dancing for leery, sex starved Muslim men?

I’ve spoken about this subject previously here – the danger of the men’s rights movement becoming nothing more than a mirror to the perverted priorities of feminism.  A mirror that serves to reflect and to validate sets of feminist values that have achieved prominence in society only because they serve the aging, selfish sexual needs of those unattractive, middle-aged feminists themselves.

I haven’t got time to write at length on this today. It should be enough to state the following : A world which sees sex as something far more ethically important and dangerous than being maimed and killed in battle is a world which derives its values from the needs of women and not from the needs of men and boys.

Human-Stupidity on the need for a new ‘baby-making’ sexual morality :

Change Sex Laws into “Baby Making Laws”: A new moral code

As a sexually liberated person, I once checked out all sexual morality laws

Morality Sex Law	New Offspring Law
No sex with young girls	Don’t make babies with young girls.
Though shalt not covet your neigbor’s wife: No sex with your neighbor’s wife	Don’t make babies with your neighbor’s wife
No sex before marriage	Don’t make babies if you are not married (except if it is planned, you are rich, or have someone to responsibly take care of the baby
Marry a virgin	Don’t marry a women if she already imight be pregnant, is (secretly?) pregnant or has a baby and wants to make you responsible for it. (unless you consciously want to adopt the baby)

Simply changing the word “sex” into “baby making” makes all these moral laws very palatable. When the moral codes, holy books were written, sex and baby making was all the same. Now we have choices. We can separate sex from baby making. It is time to update our moral codes to adapt them to the new reality.

(we might also write “condoms” into the new moral code, to prevent diseases. So a man is unfaithful if he has sex without a condom)

I repeat: all restrictive sex laws made sense in ancient biblical times. A man really wanted to be sure he would devote his life to offspring that was his. And these sex laws were the only way to assure paternity.

Read full article at Human Stupidity : Open Marriage is a solution