Craigslist Drops Erotic Ads Internationally

Feminist and conservative pressure groups have finally succeeded in blackmailing Craigslist into closing down their erotic services sections in all of their international editions.

HARTFORD (Connecticut) – CRAIGSLIST has confirmed that it removed its controversial adult services section from its international sites, Connecticut’s attorney general said on Tuesday, four months after it did the same for its US sites.

The US move in September came under pressure from officials, including Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, over whether Craigslist was adequately policing illegal ads.

Mr Blumenthal, who is also a US Senator-elect, says Craigslist representatives confirmed to his office on Tuesday that it had removed erotic services listings from hundreds of sites in dozens of other countries.

Representatives of San Francisco-based Craigslist did not immediately return messages on Tuesday about when the change went into effect. The removal was first reported on Wired magazine’s website.

Mr Blumenthal called the company’s decision a victory against sexual exploitation of women and children, and against human trafficking connected to prostitution.

‘This move is another important step in the ongoing fight to more effectively screen and stop pernicious prostitution ads,’ he said. — AP  (http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/TechandScience/Story/STIStory_616394.html)

The End of History

First artificial human ovary could mature eggs outside the body

Women are now officially redundant.  Useless.  Or at least until the sexbots arrive.

Snark put it best in a comment I spotted at the Spearhead :

SHALL we see the same kind of articles that appeared when artificial sperm cells were created – you know, the ones calling for a male Holocaust, arguing that men are worth keeping around but only as dumb animals, etc.? Will we now see these about women?

Nah.

That would be MEAN.

Also spotted at the Spearhead was an interesting post in the forum by somebody called ‘Zebert’, who asked the following :

When historians write about our era, what will the say about feminism? I think:

Feminism was a social movement of the 1900s where women banded together to charge men a much higher price for access to female sexuality.

Oh yes indeed.

In response to the ‘feminism is cultural marxism’ brigade ignoring his claim, he goes on to say..

Throughout history feminism has gone by many names.

In all cases, women raise the price for male access to female sexuality, in exchange for more power.

A couple of members then deny that that the price of sex has risen with feminism (and it hasn’t, in itself).  Zebert replies :

Yes, any one man is getting more sex but the price is huge for all men. Women have been given:
- access to the workplace
- the vote
- no responsibility to defend the country
- a pro-female legal system
- 1000s of other items
So you see, the cost of sexual access has been huge.

In all cases, if men were to take these away (and be clear, men can and will) feminists would quickly counsel other women to revert back to the source of power that had served them well — trading sexual access for marriage — and the hypocrisy of feminism would finally become evident for all.

To which I’ve added :

Zebert is 100% right.

http://theantifeminist.com/the-sexual-trade-union/

http://theantifeminist.com/a-very-brief-history-of-feminism/

Feminism has always been about preserving the average (unattractive/aging) woman’s sexual asking price.

I fail to see how anybody can read anything about the first wave of feminism and not see that.  Second wave feminism sprung into existance and near-immediately overthrew thousands of years of ‘patriarchy’ the moment the pill (and the truly free sexual market) came into existance and people are still convinced it was all a marxist plot to wreck the family.

Yes, men are having more sex, or at least sex with more women, than ever before.  Feminism has been one long history of failure.  All the costs to men and to society that Zebert listed (the vote, pro-female legal system, women in government etc) have failed to prevent the lowering of the sexual asking price of women.

But that’s what it has always been about.  Women playing catch-up in their attempts to stop technology forever widening the free sexual market.

And in a few years time, 3d tactile holographics and sexbots will make 95% of women sexually irrelevant.  Feminists will have finally lost.

A new site is coming soon…on the History of Feminism.  We might have our differences of opinion on what precisely are the evil forces driving feminism, the how and why of the harridan machinations behind their beastly rise to power.  But we can surely all agree upon the importance of promoting our own alternative ‘narratives’ - challenges to feminist historical propaganda and dogma regarding ‘patriarchy’ and the ‘fight for gender equality’.  The intention will be to get the new site on to the front page of Google for search terms such as ‘history of feminism’ and ‘feminist history’.  It is important that feminists, and would be feminists, are made to confront the reality that there is now an alternative history of how things came to be…

If you would like to submit any articles please either copy and paste them as a comment below, or e-mail them to schopenbecq (at) yahoo (dot) co.uk

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

George Orwell – 1984

Swedish Feminists Claim Success in Raping Men

A Swedish report last week declared their government’s prostitution law, which criminilizes men who pay for sex, to have been a great success.  I haven’t started to put the report through Google translation so I’m not yet in a position to properly critique it (at least Swedish femi-nazi ‘research’ appears to be published online – unlike British and American Government sponsored trash).  Judging from the link she provides in her Guardian article, I doubt if the British sexual trade unionist Julie Bindel has read it in translation either.  But there’s no doubting the fact that she is delighted enough with the study’s reported findings, delighted enough to predict that they will be enough to force a similar law to be passed in the UK.

Miss Julie certainly has read the countless British academic studies and papers that have already been published criticising the Swedish law – she’s only too happy to mention them, sure in the knowledge that the conclusions of an ‘independent commission’ are enough to negate each and every one of them. Except that the ‘independent’ commission was, ahem, appointed by the Swedish government and its femi-nazi justice minister Beatrice Ask (54) – the same minister who recently caused outrage even in feminist Sweden for calling on wives and daughters to name and shame fathers  merely suspected of paying for sex with prostitutes.

By what criteria has the Swedish law been a success?  Julie Brindle’s article hasn’t got much to say about any possible reduction in alleged human trafficking in Sweden (probably because such trafficking was minute in the first place), but she does gloat that it has halved the number of men paying for sex with street hookers.  In other words, the law has been a success because Swedish men seem to understand that if they seek cheap anonymous paid for sex over a committed and faithful relationship with a woman as ugly as the average feminist, they face being beaten and raped in the local sex offender unit.

Exclusive rights to your penis and a lifetime of nagging that ends up costing you half your entire income as well as your kids when she finally dumps you for black cock

London Escort – £200 & NSA for the greatest hour of your life

The Sexual Trade Union

Social Purity MovementFeminism exists as a defender of the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of aging and/or unattractive women. This is its entire raison d’etre, the reason it first came into existence with the social purity movement reformers of the 19th century, led by their harridan battle cry – ‘armed with the ballot the mothers of America will legislate morality’.

And legislate morality these pioneering feminists quickly did, even before they had won the vote. That is, they successfully lobbied for restrictions on prostitution, a rise in the age of consent from 12 to 16, or even 18, and the closing down of saloons where their husbands might mix freely with unattached young women.

To feminists, and indeed, to the vast majority of the female sex who give feminists the power to speak on their behalf, morality is little more than ensuring the reproductive and sexual interests of a post peak fertility female who relies on heavy parental investment from a committed male partner. The extent of female desire for involvement in the political process is directly proportionate to the threat that women feel in a free sexual market.

Feminists tend to dislike Darwinism almost as much as the evangelical creationist does. Yet you could pretty much feed into a computer equipped with a Darwinian algorithm the reproductive needs of a 9 month labouring female simian in a sexual jungle and you would be pretty much guaranteed to find the computer would accurately predict EVERYTHING that a feminist finds ‘objectifying, exploitative, abusive etc.etc’.

The infamous Amanda (see posts below) takes umbrage at my description of her blog as a piece of sexual trade unionism. In fact every single one of her posts bears some relation to sex and reproduction seen through the eyes and vested interests of an unattractive post peak-fertility female. Even the title of her blog gives the game away.

If feminists like Amanda could point to just one cause of theirs that DECREASES their own individual sexual power (relative, for example, to that of a beautiful 18 year old) instead of INCREASING it, then I’d swallow my words. Anyone who thinks that will ever happen though, has probably never read the history of feminism, and certainly not its first or second wave origins.

A comment was posted below my ‘All Feminists are Rapists’ YouTube video the other day which made a very intelligent point that I’ve been meaning to discuss for some time :

“Traditional” right-wing religious women are EXACTLY the same as the left-wing feminists are. They just use different mumbo-jumbo to achieve the? same ends. For example, both ‘radical’ & ‘traditional’ women oppose any kind of sexual competition e.g. prostitution, pornography, etc. Feminists blabber about ‘patriarchy, equality…’ while right wing fems quote bible verses. Same b.s. different packaging.

And this, in essence, is the difference between somebody like Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton.

..And this is why, in my honest opinion, the men’s movement will likely never be more than a damage limitation exercise in terms of the steady erosion of men’s rights. Men have as many conceptions of justice and of what is important in life as there are stars in the sky. Women tend to have only one. And this is the case whether they are right or left, religious or atheist, conservative or ‘progressive’. Men debate the ends whereas women only ever dispute the means.

It is also why I am so sceptical of ‘sympathetic feminists’ or even, unfortunately, women per se joining our movement. Invariably, they are confused feminists, dimly aware that most women in their position are unhappier than ever, coupled with a vague awareness that this requires not more economic and political independence for women, but rather a simple closure of the free sexual market and a return to traditionalism. We, the men’s rights movement, are simply a means to achieving that selfish conservative end.

I don’t want to close on such pessimistic reflections. I still have faith that the ever increasing speed of technological progress will eventually render the sexual conflict between men and women obsolete and irrelevant. Feminism has always been about playing catch-up in the quest to stop new technology from widening the free sexual market and putting the sexual interests of unattractive women at risk. As progress speeds up, one must hope that this will become increasingly impossible. To take one example. Anyone with eyes and ears will have noticed a marked ‘return to puritanism’ over the last year alone with regard to the media witchunts of ‘cheating’ husbands such as Tiger Woods. Quite possibly, even probably, within a couple of decades, the majority of people, at least young people, will be aware that they can be expected to live to remarkably long ages. When people can expect to live to be 150, 200, perhaps much longer than that, what becomes of the idea of marriage and life-long commitment? Would we simply see a formalized acceptance of the mating patterns we are increasingly seeing today – a woman demands exclusive commitment from a man for a decade or two, then dumps him and takes the kids and a massive divorce pay off to another male? Hopefully not. At least, in the long run, even women might see that their primitive Savannah sexual codes will become increasingly irrelevant and out of place in an unimaginably altered high-tech future. Perhaps even they will demand, through genetic or pharmaceutical intervention if necessary, the God given ability of a man to partake in sexual pleasure without demanding that the object of desire becomes his exclusive instrumentalized property for life.

Useful Links and Resources :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Butler

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=v6_4ifVpWwMC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=suffragettes+age+of+consent&source=bl&ots=x-Lq62Z9Ed&sig=LrPeJto9vt5_tSqz_CERzhxEPwQ&hl=en&ei=0z2DTIinEZi8jAeVjrWbCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=suffragettes%20age%20of%20consent&f=false

http://www.ejfi.org/Civilization/Civilization-3.htm

http://www.jrank.org/history/pages/8116/social-purity-movement.html

Feminists seek legislation over sex bots

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.

Now I learn that feminists in Canada are already drawing up legislation that would limit the sale and ownership of sexbots – realistic androids created for the sexual gratification of men.

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.

Terrifying.

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.

For example, recently, a British airport’s security added x-ray scanners that are so powerful that they literally create an image of the naked body of the person being scanned. But now a ‘child rights’ group has pointed out that the creation of those images, when the person who passes through the scanner is under 18 (or looks under 18), is contrary to the government’s own virtual child pornography laws. The x-ray scanner has now been scrapped.

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 : iankerr@uottawa.ca

Top Heavy

In the not too distant future, most women will look like this..