The Sad State of Men
Coming across the following ‘brave’ piece of writing, just made me realise how hopeless the situation has almost become for male sexuality, and for ever mounting anything more than token resistance to the femi-hags who are waging war upon it.
Among the male of the human species ephebophilia is perhaps the natural state. Perhaps not quite as far as a specific preference for but certainly the way The Good Lord* made us all those girls who have just recently matured to fertility are the very definition of sexually attractive.
And it does seem that Savile was an ephebophile. Possibly on the verges of hebephilia but not, in that strict usage, a paedophile.
The truth is, ephebophilia in human males is normal even if societally repugnant.
Yes, I know you can say the same thing about murder: the murder rates of hunter gatherer societies make that one of the leading causes of death among males. Normal and societally repugnant. But it is still true, male attraction to teenage lovelies is simply normal.
Pat yourself on the back why don’t you Mister? – for saying what every man on the planet knows is true? No, I really don’t think so.
Maybe I’m being a little harsh, and he is using his real identity, so to speak even the obvious like this is indeed brave I suppose. But it’s more his comparison of ‘ephebophilia’ with ‘murder’, as a ‘get out of jail card’, as well as some of the comments below the article by castrated manginas that has inflamed me somewhat.
We should all be aware of the naturalistic fallacy, and I’ve never said that the obvious factual truth that EVERY man who isn’t a pervert is sexually attracted to teenagers from 13-19 leads necessarily to the moral judgement, for example, that the age of consent should be 13. However, I’ve also asked the question here many times that if the claim that teenagers having sex with older men is ‘abuse’ was based upon clear and rational argument, instead of sexual prejudice, jealousy, and superstitious puritanism, then the makers of such claims would not have to pretend that the older ‘abusers’ of young girls are ‘paedophiles’ or ‘perverts’.
Anything that is normal and natural should only be criminalized and demonized if there are very clear and obvious (good) reasons for doing so. And feminists have criminalized and demonized not merely consensual sex between teenagers and ‘adults’ but any expression of attraction whatsoever, from glancing at a 15 year old girl in the street with her boobs and arse cheeks hanging out on display, to giving the state the power to break into your home in the middle of the night to take you away for simply looking at pictures of 17 year old girls in bikinis.
The supporters of tolerance for homosexuality (of which, of course, I am one) often point to the sexual habits of penguins and other animals to prove that homosexuality is ‘natural’ and any ethical position against it irrational. Yet many or most of these sexually tolerant ‘liberal progressives’ will have no qualms in describing the attraction to youth as ‘paedophilia’ or ‘perversion’ – something that is leading to ordinary men being dehumanized to the point where comparisons with the status of the Jews in Nazi Germany are becoming more and more apt on a daily basis.
Yes, there is also a (different) sense in which murder is ‘natural’, but the analogy is stunningly stupid because ‘ephebophilia’ is deemed criminal largely because of the lie that it is ‘unnatural’ and hence ‘inapropriate’ etc.
Sexual jealousy from older women towards young nubile girls is also perfectly natural and probably incurable, as is the resulting desire from older women with political and economic power to abuse their strength by restricting the sexual competition to themselves from younger females through legislation and shaming. But in this case, what is natural is harmful, and such women (feminists) should be punished by the law, or at least placed in secure psychiatric units and forced to receive counselling for extreme and harmful sexual jealousy and the resulting desire to abuse and manipulate young people (as should the mangina paedocrites who support them).
For as I have also stated here many times, the social and moral belief, codified into feminist law, that sex with teenagers is wrong and criminal, and that a high age of consent protects young girls rather than older women, is not ‘outcome neutral’ if mistaken, in the way for example, are laws requiring children to be fastened into seat belts whilst travelling in cars. In the latter case the belief that laws on seatbelts protect children results only in minor inconvenience, and does no harm to the child or to adults, if the belief is mistaken, and the reasons for the law groundless. Age of consent laws, however, together with accompanying child abuse hysteria, are not ‘harmless’. Apart from destroying the life of the adult, they also demonstrably harm the ‘child’ who is 1/ denied sexual autonomy 2/ forced to accept the damaging label of ‘child abuse victim’ 3/ often forced to testify against a man she may (still) love, and see him be sent to prison and beaten and raped as a result. (there are also many secondary harmful effects of paedohysteria and age of consent laws – such as inevitable intergenerational apartheid, lack of male teachers, demonisation and suspicion against men in general etc).
Of course, a high age of consent, and social and moral hysteria over ‘child abuse’ might still be justified if the harm to children that is avoided by the supposed protection afforded by these laws and attitudes outweighs the demonstrable harms listed above.
But – God forbid – if feminist age of consent laws and paedohysteria are based upon nothing more than sexual jealousy, prejudice, and lies [1], then it is a form of child abuse – amongst the worse we can possibly imagine. Especially so since the adults (largely feminists and femiservatives) responsible profit directly from this harm – psychologically, sexually, and financially.
[1] the age of consent was originally raised from 13 to 16 in the UK by suffragettes who believed sex outside marriage to be sinful, as well as the result of tabloid generated hysteria over ‘white slavery’ fabrications. At this time girls also began puberty 3 or 4 years later then they do today.
——————————–
If a man tells a women to stop dressing like a ‘slut’, in order to lessen the chances of herself being raped or assaulted, then protests involving tens of thousands of women spring up across the world within weeks – women outraged that men are telling them what they can and can’t do with their bodies. Yet women ae free not only to tell men what they can and can’t do with their eyes, they can legislate and define and abuse language itself in order to control men’s minds and very essences as men and male sexual human beings. And not only are there no protests from men against their female oppressors, but men will actually be more inclined in their millions to beat and kill their fellow brothers, even to lynch the remains of dead men resting in their graves – all at the command and behest of feminists.
But the worst ignominy of all is that there will only be one or two lone ‘fringe’ members of the ‘men’s rights movement’ who will dare to speak up and state the obvious, or even discuss issues like this. And to do so will risk bringing the wrath of other ‘MRAs’ to bear upon themselves…even though the very first men’s rights activist – Ernest Belfort Bax – himself clearly stated on several occasions that the feminist raising of the age of consent was legislation AGAINST MEN (and at the heart of both feminism and the suffrage movement).
Just as ‘sluts’ do not deserve to be raped for what they wear, men do not deserve to be dehumanized and criminalized, and ultimately raped in a prison cell, for simply being men.
This is men’s rights.
———————————————————————————————————————-
The current descent of British society into a state of hysteria, savagery, and ignorance – on a level that even inbred medieval peasants would likely look down upon – is something difficult for a man’s mental health to withstand. I’ll probably be taking a break from this site and lose myself in a good book or two for a couple of weeks, although I will briefly check the comments and spam folder every day. Please continue to post links to news stories and articles below this or the relevant post.
You are correct in your assertions however I believe that there is a large body of opinion that disagrees with the current hysteria as evidenced by the comments section in at least two of the articles found in one of the UK papers promoting it – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217352/Revealed-Fake-letter-cast-doubt-Savile-victims-claims–played-key-role-BBC-decision-ditch-Newsnight-investigation.html#comments
and this article which hints at a step back from the hysteria promotion – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2217214/Robert-Beatriz-Grant-Teacher-schoolgirl-going-strong-30-years-together.html#comments
I for one am heartily glad that you have taken the time to run your website and over the past year or two have gradually become an MRA despite the desire to have nothing to do with “gender issues”.
I am sure that more “normal” men will become vocal in their rejection of this assault over time as it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore.
Thanks for being there.
Freeychromosome
14 Oct 12 at 9:56 am
I wish you were right Freeychromosome, however I can only suggest you “don’t hold your breath”…
Alan Vaughn
14 Oct 12 at 10:17 am
An interesting facet of this kind of feminist indoctrination has become that you hear many women who are now in their 30s and 40s say, yes, during the sexual revolution and the years of sexual liberty, I had sex with older boys (or men), but I was just a vulnerable impressionable little girl, and I’m so lucky that nothing went wrong and those men didn’t exploit my innocence.
Really, you’re lucky that nothing went wrong? How insulting is it of feminism to make you believe that’s what you were, an impressionable incapable 17-year-old “child”. And how many women do you know for whom things DID go wrong that way, and are their numbers sufficient to say with any degree of gravity that you really were lucky? If I cross the street in a town that has next to no traffic accidents at all per year, am I really that incredibly lucky I didn’t get hit by a car? How about how lucky I am that the sky didn’t fall down on me, or that I never got abducted by aliens?
Unfortunately, feminists are quite aware of that problem. Which is why we have all those damaging high age of consent laws to begin with. To declare every jaywalker a traffic fatality, so to speak.
inclinedreader
14 Oct 12 at 11:28 am
“as well as generated hysteria over ‘white slavery’ myths”
The idiots who promote these laws do not understand that the men they want to get are protected by Anti-Racism. I have a better plan. Reverse certain double standards.
Feminists can be dealt with by activating Animal Rights. Torturing animals in the fur industry is obviously worse than looking at 17-year olds.
Christian Fundamentalists can be dealt with in a comparable way. Point out that flaying animals alive could be well worse than a Morning-After Pill. They should give up their extreme speciesism. Human Stupidity recently has something about that topic.
Columnist
14 Oct 12 at 3:38 pm
Thanks FreeYChromosone, I appreciate your support.
theantifeminist
14 Oct 12 at 4:26 pm
Good points IR.
Yes indeed, women coming forward in their fugly forties claiming willing sex they had with an older man when teenagers was ‘abuse’ is assumed to be sufficent to justify the high age of consent laws. It’s actually a completely circular argument. If the age of consent was 25, you’d have bitter women in their 40′s and 50′s complaining that they were ‘taken advantage of’ in their early 20′s by older men, and that their lives ‘have gone wrong’ as a result.
Especially, as in the Savile case, if they were being offered money by tabloids and the lure of victim compensation.
BTW, I should make clear I’m not denying that often they genuinely do feel ‘abused’ and regretful in later life. If society (and the law) gives older women the chance to re-frame their youthful experience in a way which expresses and rationalises their bitterness and jealousy, then they will do so.
As I have written here before, there is no objective, independent reason to belive that a teenage girl will be harmed by having sex with an older man – especially if you accept that teenagers can consent to sex with each other. There is certainly nothing from evolutionary psychology which I can think of that would lead to youthful sex with older partners being intrinsically harmful.
Perhaps ‘intrinsic psychological trauma’ is a natural response to being ‘pumped and dumped’, or otherwise abandoned as a teen, as a young girl is less able to defend or support herself in such a situation? As I have discussed here previously, this seems unlikely, given that a teenage girl still has many fertile years ahead of her, and with a baby or not in tow, would still likely be able to attract a new mate and provider, or at least be in a far better position than say a 30 or 40 year old woman. And what survival benefit would such an inate truamatic response to being abandoned serve anyway? It would also be argument against any kind of teen sex, even with peers, if it was valid.
There cannont be anything intrinsic to the act of sex with an older partner that causes a teenager to later feel ‘abused’ or to suffer any negative psychological reaction, apart from the societal reaction which encourages her and enables her to reframe and interpret her experience as abuse. So to offer the ‘abuse’ testimonies of women as evidence that such acts should be regarded as abuse is a completely empty and circular argument.
theantifeminist
14 Oct 12 at 5:02 pm
I just popped over to the false rape society…I mean ‘community of the wrongly accused’ to see if they might have something to say about the Jimmy Savile hysteria.
I don’t know if I’ve missed something in this article, but it genuinely almost made me physically sick :
http://www.cotwa.info/2012/10/congressmen-ought-to-stop-giving-sexual.html
“First, boys should not have sex with underage girls, but not for the reasons Rivard suggests. Putting aside issues of morality, the girl was underage at the time of the act, and her willingness, or unwillingness, to engage in the act has nothing to do with crime of statutory rape. If she was underage, it was rape the moment the act occurred. Yes, Rep. Rivard, rape is “easy” in that instance — because the girl was underage. If a girl becomes pregnant, the illegal tryst will come to light, and the state has a duty to prosecute. Rivard seems to be telling boys to be wary of having sex with underage girls not because it’s illegal but because the girl might reveal the tryst, which is troubling and bizarre on a host of levels.
Second, Rivard’s comments suggested that boys should be wary of having sex with underage girls because the girls will lie and claim it was nonconsensual. Rivard’s message wrongly suggests that girls have a propensity to lie about rape. The reality is that teen sex occurs routinely in our culture — it would be impossible even to estimate its frequency — and the overwhelming number of such incidents do not spark false rape claims. That is a fact.”
I can only assume that the FRS employs mainly female writers now too.
Thank Christ Ernest Belfort Bax isn’t alive to see our glorious modern day ‘men’s rights movement’! !
theantifeminist
14 Oct 12 at 7:07 pm
Man, you’re on fire today, AntiFeminist! Lots of great points. You say:
“However, I’ve also asked the question here many times that if the claim that teenagers having sex with older men is ‘abuse’ was based upon clear and rational argument, instead of sexual prejudice, jealousy, and superstitious puritanism, then the makers of such claims would not have to pretend that the older ‘abusers’ of young girls are ‘paedophiles’ or ‘perverts’.”
- Just so, in the same way that someone lying to your face tends to offer an elaborate story, full of details, to make up for the lack of truth through sheer volume. You’ll see this play out in court as well, where one can say, “Cutting off your husband’s penis was a crime.” – a simple declaration of fact – but a defense lawyer will begin airing a whole laundry list of ‘facts’ to advance the narrative that the woman was in fact justified in committing that act. Many feminists are lawyers, and they know how to game societal mores to advance their cause.
“…often point to the sexual habits of penguins and other animals to prove that homosexuality is ‘natural’ and any ethical position against it irrational. Yet many or most of these sexually tolerant ‘liberal progressives’ will have no qualms in describing the attraction to youth as ‘paedophilia’ or ‘perversion’ – something that is leading to ordinary men being dehumanized”
- We live in a real life Animal Farm, and just as in the book, not all animals are equal.
“Sexual jealousy from older woman towards young nubile girls is also perfectly natural and probably incurable, as is the desire from older women with political and economic power to abuse their strength by restricting the sexual competition to themselves from younger females through legislation and shaming.”
- By waiting too long to marry, they’ve hit the wall and gone past their expiration point. Though most will die childless, and so their tyranny will eventually end, they’ve got an endless amount of bitterness, anger, depression clouding their reason, and they will vent this pus out in the only way they can – through legislation and social pressure. Most men, including myself, have had a hard life at times, but we deal with the pain and move past it, maturing in the process – this is not possible if your head has been filled your entire life with stories about how special you are, how you don’t ever have to settle or compromise, how destiny will assure that The One perfect man will eventually come along: rich, great looking, manly yet sensitive, etc… When the illusion is shattered, sometime in their late 30s/early 40s their minds just snap and the meds they’re put on does nothing to foster sobriety and growth.
“If a man tells a women to stop dressing like a ‘slut’, in order to lessen the chances of herself being raped or assaulted, then protests involving tens of thousands of women spring up across the world within weeks – women outraged that men are telling them what they can and can’t do with their bodies.”
- Despite the fact that most of those slut walkers look like unwashed hogs I’d never assault if you shot a gallon of testosterone in me daily, what they and their nutless manginas refuse to acknowledge is that acts have consequences. Throw an apple in the air, it will fall back to earth, strut into a biker bar braless, wearing a mini-skirt and no panties you’re likely to be given free booze all night and then be gang raped and all the feminist wishes and politically correct platitudes still will not make up for making a bad decision and taking the consequences.
Great post on your part.
Alex
14 Oct 12 at 9:26 pm
Paedohysteria in the gaming community:
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/10/professional-video-gamer-suspended-for-saying-he-had-sex-with-a-14-year-old/
John
14 Oct 12 at 9:51 pm
so true. The sense of entitlement that these children of the feminist revolution grew up with is often baffling. They were told by their first-generation feminist mothers that they could be anything they wanted, that the world would be theirs for the taking, and that they would never have to settle for less. Well, granted, many have built respectable professional careers for themselves, but relationship-wise, as they fast approach their late 30s, they are realizing that not having to settle for less doesn’t mean you can hold out forever.
inclinedreader
14 Oct 12 at 11:14 pm
Here’s a good summary about our TRUE enemies from none other than John the Other…
I’m just waiting for Fattroll to quote mine it, but since it essentially and accurately describes him, he may decide to leave it alone.
Alan Vaughn
15 Oct 12 at 9:35 am
Antifeminist:
If I could suggest some reading: the ancient Greeks and Romans really clear my head at times like these. Or, some good hard science is always good. (But budget SOME time for quality porn as well!)
It seems like the best antidote to insanity is always hard facts. (Both as a preventative and cure). Remember that some of our greatest scientific and philosophic minds came out of the darkest periods in history.
Eric
15 Oct 12 at 8:45 pm
Alan:
LOL you didn’t have a very long wait—Futrelle jumped on it today!
Eric
15 Oct 12 at 8:47 pm
Antifeminist:
Interesting. This was the same argument that Carolina Courtland was using recently.
It ought to be obvious that consent can be given, since so few females at that age seem to need much coercion.
Eric
15 Oct 12 at 9:05 pm
Freeychromosome:
It’s become increasingly difficult to ignore—and our opponents are very aware of that fact. That’s one reason why there’s been such a ratcheting up of paedohysteria recently. Probably with a lot more to come.
Things are rapidly reaching a tipping-point. Eivand Berge had a good article about media censorship of anti-feminist; anti-paedohysterical positions. One way or another, things are going to change: either a severe crackdown or an implosion of the feminist cultural paradigm. My guess is probably going to be the first of those two.
Eric
15 Oct 12 at 9:17 pm
PS: I left a comment on Worstall’s site. If it doesn’t get deleted, it ought to give the White Knights something to fume over for awhile…
Eric
15 Oct 12 at 9:35 pm
Eric,
I also posted this one to a much bigger and very paedohysterical witch-hunters blog, which was linked to in the comment immediately above yours, but it’s ‘awaiting moderation’. I’ll wait and see what happens and if the femihag that obviously owns the blog won’t allow it, I’ll paste it here later.
I posted under the pseudonym ‘Jason Savile’ to make it a bit more ‘interesting’…
Alan Vaughn
15 Oct 12 at 11:20 pm
Alan:
While surfing the Manosphere, I came across a blog called ‘Vigilant Citizen’ with a big article about Saville.
http://www.vigilantcitizen.com
The title of the article says it all: ‘A Prime Example of an Entertainment Industry Abuser Protected by the Elite’. A specimen of the article’s general tone:
‘How many other Jimmy Savilles are in the entertainment industry? Insiders will tell you the industry is literally crawlling with them. And it goes a lot further than abuse at the backstage of a show. It’s an organized system, complete with mind-controlled slaves …blah…blah…blah…blah…blah… &c
One of the comments posted there reads: ‘These people (like Saville) deserve to be burned alive.’ And three others rather gloatingly reference Saville burning in Hell. One guy posted a link to report to him any suspected ‘paedos’ in the entertainment so that he could ‘spread the word’ (translate: initiate a pogrom).
This kind of thing is very instructive. These are the types of kooks that paedohysterical media scum like Murdoch are inflaming. There’s nothing in this article that doesn’t sound like a re-phrasing of some anti-Semitic literature from 1930s Europe. And we all know where that led…
Eric
16 Oct 12 at 2:08 am
One guy posted a link to report to him any suspected ‘paedos’ in the entertainment so that he could ‘spread the word’
Spread the word, and maybe collect blackmail money.
On the whole I don’t feel overly sorry for the male glitterati now lined up for extortion. If Saville were alive Today, he wouldn’t defend himself in any way beneficial to other men. He would, to paraphrase Eivind Berge, “say he didn’t do it”.
jack
16 Oct 12 at 6:54 am
Actually that might not be true Jack – Savile might have been atypical in that regard, In fact, one of the reasons that media and the mob ‘knows’ that Savile must have been guilty and definately a ‘paedo’ is because he defended Gary Glitter :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/sir-jimmy-saville-defended-paedophile-pop-star-gary-glitter-saying-he-did-nothing-wrong-and-calling-child-porn-just-dodgy-films-8192715.html
He would have denied these allegations of course, but I don’t know if he would have put on the whole mangina/paedocrite act and claimed that he can’t stand ‘paedos’ and wants to kill them all (like Freddie Starr is doing). We’ll never know of course.
theantifeminist
16 Oct 12 at 7:50 am
Just a couple of weeks ago that 30 year old teacher who ran off with the 15 year old girl was dominating the news here and gaining a lot of sympathy – even from some older women. Nobody was calling him a paedo etc.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209245/Anne-Diamond-faces-storm-says-runaways-So-what.html
I suspect the current Savile hysteria is a response to this.
theantifeminist
16 Oct 12 at 7:55 am
Eric, click on the link to ‘witch-hunters blog’, in my reply above… The femihag (or possibly mangina) that owns the ‘yourdaughterswillbenext’ blog ALLOWED my comment!
Alan Vaughn
16 Oct 12 at 8:51 am
Alan:
I saw that…maybe the ‘Saville’ name got them interested…
I checked on VC’s blog, the comments are getting more disgusting. Now, some are even talking about going after Saville’s associates—for knowing about it and NOT saying anything!
These are the New Inquisitors, in embryo.
Eric
17 Oct 12 at 12:46 am
Wow, the Daily Mail didn’t exactly give that story a balanced presentation. They sound like they were about ready to start a witch-hunt on Anne Diamond as well.
Did anybody notice that the snotty author even went out of his way to point out that there was a 10 year age difference between Anne Diamond (58) and her 68-year old husband?
These paedocrites have something seriously wrong with them. It’s like their whole personalities are consumed with this irrational hatred.
P.S.—Just my opinion, but Megan Stammers is really cute! LOL
Eric
17 Oct 12 at 1:30 am