During the last week, I’ve been reading quite a lot of classic men’s rights literature, mostly from the 1990’s to the early 2000’s, including writers such as David Thomas (hence the recent post) and Neil Lyndon, author of ‘No More Sex War‘ (published in 1992).
In doing so, the explanation as to why feminist child sex abuse hysteria has come to be such a taboo subject in the MRM suddenly occured to me.
Paedohysteria and the feminist age of consent are no longer simply taboo subjects in the Men’s Rights Movement. Let’s not kid ourselves. These central feminist dogmas are now actively supported.
Less than two decades ago, and what strikes you isn’t just that men’s rights supporters were openly criticising child sex abuse hysteria, but that these men were speaking primarily from the persepective of FATHERS – including both Thomas and Lyndon (in the case of Thomas, in very strong terms). And if you read again the passage by Daivd Thomas I recently quoted, you will clearly see that it was understood by the author that any men’s rights supporter would be equally critical.
Fast forward to today, you have those who are indisputably the leading men’s rights activists ‘vehemently’ supporting the feminist Victorian age of consent, and it appears, the present hysteria that supports its ever more draconian application and justification. Laws which go some way to explaining the outrageous and shameful statistic that close to a million American men are now on the Sex Offenders Register, and increasingly de-humanized and as good as declared dead by the rest of society.
Yet, in this very week, two superb articles have appeared correctly deriding the suffragettes (who created the present age of consent) as violent terrorists and abusers of men and boys (for the white feather campaign).
And of course, most men’s rights activists would agree with the ‘official’ position on the age of consent and its surrounding issues.
How is this remarkable change within the men’s rights movement to be explained?
The answer, surely, cannot consist simply in the fact that paedo-hysteria is perhaps even worse now than it was 20 years ago.
Because, in the midst of the ‘satanic’ child abuse panics, I don’t think it was….at least not for the men’s rights authors who yet felt able and compelled to speak out against them.
And even in today’s hysteria, many figures from the mainstream media still feel able to speak out on these issues, from the Economist Magazine to academics such as Frank Furedi and even Richard Dawkins.
And when our fiercest critics have either themselves criticised paedohysteria (in articles they would rather we forget) or are even alleged actual child sex abusers, it is a downright lie to pretend that the ceaseless barrage of feminist laws that criminalise and target men are off-topic for a supposed genuine ‘men’s rights movement’ with any integrity and courage.
Paedohysteria hasn’t changed in the last 20 years. What has changed, and what might explain the change of attitude in the Men’s Rights Movement, is that the focus of paedohysteria and child sex abuse hysteria has changed.
Twenty years ago it was about father’s abusing their children, often in the most bizarre and hideously imagined context possible of ‘ritual satanic abuse’. This was primarily about radical feminists demonizing the family and the patriarchal father role.
Since then, the target of paedohysteria has switched, and the identity of the paedophile bogeyman been transformed..
Today, it is not so much about fathers sexually abusing their children, but rather hysteria over the internet ‘paedophile’ sex predator.
Instead of the patriarchal father being turned into a pervert, the feminists have moved on to demonising male sexuality in general.
Now it is the Jimmy Savile loner type figure who is once again the perverted devil and the threat to female innocence – the man who never marries, and who never has children, and who has never shown any interest in buying into the marriage contract upon which female sexual power depends.
And this explains the great men’s rights betrayal.
Fathers Rights Activists, who still constitute the greatest and most important demographic of the movement, are simply grateful that they are no longer the target of feminist inspired social hatred and sexual demonisation. Not only that, in the greatest betrayal, they actively support the spotlight being switched on to male sexuality in general – normal male sexual desire turned into a demonised representation through female sexual bitterness at the consequences of a secular free sexual market economy (an economy that these fathers typically are no longer competing in themselves). Men’s Rights fathers are thus free to focus on still ‘relevant’ (to them) issues such as domestic violence hysteria.
In this manner, the majority of men’s rights activists, who actively support patently absurd and irrelevant feminst sex laws that target men, are akin to the granny muggers and the drug dealers who beat and rape the lonely old park flashers in the prison showers in order to preserve their own self-esteem and ranking of social and moral (criminal) self-worth.
After all, nobody likes being at the very bottom of the dung heap – especially one created by feminists.
@theantifeminist
You’re a genius. I think you’re right.
Or put it even more simply, the Fathers Rights mRAs are almost copying what gays did in order to be left alone – had to at least pretend to sympathize with feminists, then join them and they could, because they are not paedophiles. (Well they at least, swear they’re not)…
The trade-off being roughly: Feminists: ‘OK gays, we’ll convince society that being gay is acceptable, because it’s not at all related to kiddie fiddling, providing you all become our white-knights and manginas and support our NORMAL male sexuality hatred, which we are going to re-define as paedophilia. If you don’t agree: we’ll do nothing to defend you, we’ll even conflate your sexuality with real paedophilia!’ ‘Deal?’
Gays: ‘Ok… Deal.’
Similarly, now, the FR mRAs are now being left alone (no) thanks to the Internet, so they’ve almost agreed to and made a much similar deal with them: leaving single men (non-fathers) who are truly independent and free from all the traps of women (feminists actually pedestalize such independence and freedom as an ideal goal for women), to be stigmatized and scapegoated in a way similar, or even WORSE than what pre-feminist sympathizing gays were.
They’ve seen a way to avoid their scrutiny (scapegoating, stigmatizing and hate) and they are really taking full advantage of it and even enhancing it to ensure it continues to do so.
However, it still doesn’t help them one iota more, when it comes to child custody rights and other Draconian laws used against them in other feminist hate institutions, such as the infamous ‘Family’ Courts…
Even the gays have a fair better ‘deal’ with them in other areas that affect their lives.
This is the best internet article on the subject, not least because it is short and to the point.
I suspect one of the reasons it has become awkward to go on accusing fathers of abusing their own children is because “absentee” fathers are now completely cut out from their children. Difficult to accuse someone of abusing a child when they have not been near the child for year! By the same token, accusing a father of abusing his children is no longer necessary for divorced wives to get all they want, so allegations of abuse are best reserved to go after moving targets (unmarried men).
What I hope is for the fight of fathers against feminism to be a fight to the death. For our brand of men’s rights it would be catastrophic if the fathers got shared custody in exchange for a truce with the fems and their sex abuse industry. It is possible for women to make concessions at a family level. However no woman, not even MRA women with impeccable credentials like Erin Pizzey and Esther Vilar, will EVER recognize my right to board a 10-hour flight and have my face between the legs 18 y.o. within 2 hours of landing. NEVER! You’d sooner see China recognize Taiwan.
One proofreading note: “fiercist” should be “fiercest”.
The most abominable act of self-centredness – which in terms of the way they totally disregard their own sex (let alone sexuality): makes even RADFEM hub look more humane, because at least they only oppose, oppress or hate what they believe (rightly or wrongly) to be a genuine foe.
Those creeping, crawling manginas are supposed to be our comrades, what a joke…
As you suggested by this comment in your previous post:
People like Steve Moxon, Angry Harry, a handful of other bloggers and the Authors of the books you’ve discussed here of course, are really the only ones we should consider as possible allies…
Those mRA’s wouldn’t give a rat’s arse if any of us, or even one of their own FR brothers, (if his ‘sex-offence’ related to feminist ‘paedophilia’) went to prison for years; in fact most of them would probably gloat over it, just to win even more approval from their ‘sexually-challenged’ (fem PC word) sisters.
I just noticed that the link to the leading mRA site that ‘vehemently’ supports it all, is no longer here. It used to be first on the list of links to Anti-Feminist Sites.
I hope it was intentionally removed.
BTW: it looks like our leading outspoken and FR mRA bloody PEST (HS) was just banned from the same leading ‘men’s rights’ activist’s blog!
😀
I doubt if Paul Elam cares whether I link to AVfM, but it’s an issue of personal conscience for me. For all the great work he does, and that AVfM does, I won’t have it on my conscience that I linked or supported a site that actively supports the feminist child abuse industry that is chewing up ever more thousands of men, as well as (if AVfM gets its way) processing more and more teenage boys as ‘child abuse victims’ – and thus according to all the independent non feminist junk science, creating real (and self-fulfilling) damage and traumatising those youngsters for life.
Thanks to you and Jack and Eric for the kind words regarding my article, btw.
@teantifeminist,
You’re welcome, we all agree that it’s the best one on the topic ever published online. It’s like a breakthrough!
Thank you for pointing this out. There are now more false-flag “MRAs” who in fact support feminist sex abuse hysteria than true MRAs.
Perhaps the sex abuse brainwashing has succeeded to such an extent that the entire landscape has shifted, so what used to be just a slightly less extreme version of abuse hysteria can now pass as MRA. But then again the manginas tend to be every bit as extreme supporters of feminist sex law as the feminists, and even more so when it comes to the female sex offender charade, so I really don’t get why they bother trying to distinguish themselves from the feminists at all.
Well put Eivind… and I’m sure I speak on behalf of my readers in saying that it is a pleasure to see you here!
No. Just no.
Eivind, you’ve really got the wrong end of the stick here.
Firstly, you’re confusing three separate things: the age of consent, paedo-hysteria, false accusations.
The latter two bring in the topic of demonisation of men. As an MRA I feel very strongly that men should not be portrayed as potential paedophiles.
But the age of consent is a non-issue, it really is. Come on, seriously – what’s so fucking hard to understand about it? Should it be lower? Who gives a fuck? In the UK it’s 16. Now you could argue there shouldn’t be an age of consent at all perhaps (I wouldn’t agree with you, but there you are) but if you are going to have one, what’s wrong with 16? To be honest I can’t see the issue – don’t fuck anyone under 16. It’s a clear bright line. It’s as simple as that. It’s like the speed limit – there really isn’t any point arguing about it. Sometimes it’d be safe to go over the speed limit, but if you get caught doing so you can’t really argue about it – you knew what the limit was.
What I’m most concerned about is seeing MRAs beginning to pick squabbles with other MRAs. For God’s sake, there’s few enough as it is. This is what the mad cats in feminism do – always picking fights with each other. We should be better than this.
I must point out that, because of the apparent gender of the ‘mra’ making this comment, I was in two minds as to whether to publish it.
I wonder if this person – mra or feminist co-opter – would think about MEN fixing the time limit on abortions. A big red line, that if a woman crosses, she’s a child murderer. And who gives a fuck if she goes to jail for years?
I imagine Sasha wouldn’t like that.
In any case, as I just pointed out on Reddit – the age of consent serves as the basis for the entire hysterical feminist war on male sexuality. This site was never about calling for the (feminist) age of consent to be lowered as such, but since the Savile hysteria, and his lynching on the basis of merely alleged historical crimes that had virtually no significance at the time (given that it was a period of sexual liberalism) then I’m convinced now that the age of consent itself is a primary men’s rights issue. It needs to be lowered.
That’s not to say I don’t understand why there are good reasons why lowering the AofC itself should be avoided as a topic at places like AVfM that are battling to take men’s rights into the mainstream, or at least on to the streets.
Sasha – your ‘argument’ is nonsense. Does this mean that feminists are free to set the age of consent at any age they want. 21? 25? And the attitude of men’s rights activists should be ‘so what, fuck it, it’s a line in the sand’?
It’s obvious you’ve a feminist troll co-opter from Reddit. The mods at Reddit won’t ban you there, but I can and will ban you here. Have a nice life.
BTW, regular readers might want to know that the previous feminist troll – ‘lakitu2@hotmail.com’ – has been spamming me constantly since her last approved post, including making criminal threats of violence against myself and against men in general. She has also boasted of watching extremely violent videos in which men are raped and tortured.
In the UK it’s 16. What’s wrong with 16?
I’ll tell you what’s wrong. Firstly in all Western countries it matters shit whether the girl involved is above the nominal age of consent, and for legal purposes no man is safe if the girl is under 18/21. Hell, no man is safe anymore regardless of the woman’s age if she says she’d had a glass of beer, how would he be safe if the girl is 16 or 17?
The charades are endless provided it gets the man convicted. Sometimes it may not be the age of the “victim” that counts but the age difference with the (male) perpetrator. As usual, jail the man and forget about the rest.
And we’ve not even begun to speak about prosecuting your own male citizens for abiding by foreign ages of consent in countries where that age is lower than at home, a practice 100% contrary to international common law.
Western men have given up on the Western Whore anyway, let alone on the teenage one, so ages-of-consent shouldn’t matter much, but this crusade against men has one goal: prevent the Western male from taking his custom abroad. The consent of the UK or US brat is not a problem, the consent of the Thai competition is.
Remember, any woman aged 45 will set the age of consent at 44 if given the power to do so.
Regarding bitter feminist troll ‘lakitu2@hotmail.com’
Well I can see her point: those men were probably ‘misogynists’ and therefore deserved it…
Possibly even’misogynists’ who dared question feminist (and mRA endorsed) male sexuality laws that could and have already: put thousands of men in prison for decades of daily beatings and real rape from (their cohorts) homosexual thugs, for heinous and very violent crimes, such as of looking at images of sexy (fully clothed) 17 year old ‘children’…
These ‘misogynists’ are of course raping those ‘children’ by re-victimizing them each time they look at such images. HEINOUS! Disgusting child molesting perverts!
If they don’t like these laws (that are essential to protect children from
menpaedophiles) and don’t want to be raped in prison; they should stop complaining and do something sexually healthy and of course, something that is perfectly legal and socially acceptable, like watching movies or viewing images of misogynist MEN and even little boys, being violently raped and tortured or even murdered by man-hating, UGLY, bitter and jealous lesbian femihags like lakitu2@hotmail.com!Right Sasha?
The problem with age of consent law is first and foremost that it creates victimless crimes. It is not comparable to speed limits, because the correlation of underage sex to real harm has not even been established, and the punishment is way out of proportion. Unlike traffic accidents, which are indisputably bad for you and clearly cause more harm at higher speeds, indeed we have evidence that early sex is beneficial. It appears to be optimal to start right after puberty. See for example:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01677.x/full
“German women reporting earlier age at first intercourse (in all cases, postpubertal) had less intense cortisol increases in response to a standardized laboratory stressor (a nonsignificant trend in the same direction was observed for males), and faster recovery from the stressor.”
Actually, the speed limit analogy is very good for illustrating what is so absurd about age of consent law, even if underage sex really carried some risk worth punishing. Because they are not even used similarly at all.
We don’t pretend anybody who breaks the speed limit actually has caused grievous harm and is a “statutory murderer” or something like that when there is in fact no harm.
But we DO pretend a man who breaks age of consent law is always an “abuser” or “rapist” regardless of how the girl feels about it. It is dishonest, hateful and a miscarriage of justice. You cannot honestly call yourself an MRA if you support this charade.
@Eivind An excellent rebuttal of her analogy. Her way of thinking, her comparison of the AofC and the traffic speed limit, explains the lack of sympathy I believe (and particularly from other men), for men who cross that line, even if we recognise upon a few moments reflection that the age of consent is always going to be somewhat arbitary (unless fixed at a clear biological marker such as the onsent of puberty) and we don’t even seem to require any evidence that they are beneficial to those they supposedly protect.
Feminists manipulate something deep within male psychology, probably something akin to a ‘sexual cheating detecting system’, and that is why it hard for men to be rational about or sympathetic with other men who break age of consent laws, even when they are transparently absurd in the modern world. This is perhaps why somebody like Paul Elam, when confronted with the fact that the age of consent is a feminist construction and that serves no purpose to men or to ‘children’ still needs to experess a visceral distaste for ‘statutory rapists’. A line has been crossed, even if that line was set by the same feminists who burnt down the homes of war heroes and handed out white feathers to traumatised children returing from the trenches.
It’s almost as if, in the minds of men, the age of consent has become a kind of test in itself to measure a man’s capacity for sexual restraint. For women, of course, there is a clear self-advantage in having a high age of consent – it protects them from having to sexually compete with nubile young teenagers that their aging bodies can’t compete with.
But for men, it’s a little more difficult to explain when only a little reflection reveals how empty the logic for age of consent laws is (as far as protecting teenagers from demonstrable harm). Perhaps this ‘cheater detector mechanism’ in men’s brains is made even stronger by the conditions of modern sexualised urban society? With all the nubile flesh on display, with 13 year old girls walking around in see-through leggings, the primal parts of our brains are demanding ever greater tests of sexual restraint, and a high age of consent, together with accompanying paedohysteria serves this purpose. But the point is, the ‘test’ (i.e. the age of consent) is an end in itself.
The author Robert Kurzban argued something along these lines, that many social rules are entirely meaningless and even irrational or harmful in themselves, esepcially in the modern world, and simply serve as ‘tests’ of social conformity.
Of course, I’m not defending the age of consent here – simply trying to explain why men can apparently support it so vehemently without the need for rational defence.
BTW @Everybody : I’ve decided that from now until the end of the year, it is going to be ‘Age of consent month’ at TheAntiFeminist.com
I’ve been meaning to compile a huge list of age of consent arguments – putting forward arguments against the (high) age of consent, as well as debunking all the arguments commonly used in defence of it. I intend it to be the most detailed and authoritative resource for AofC arguments online. So I hope everybody will make some contribution!
Eivind
That is almost the catch-phrase or slogan for this blog. Welcome to theantifeminist.com We’ve been waiting (hoping) a long time for you to arrive!
Hmmmm….
Regarding AvfM: I wonder if this Sasha is the same as…
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/has-feminism-gone-too-far
And we all realize that Sasha’s sentiments are quite in line with the author of the above link (whoever they really are).
It could well be Eric.
How is it possible that a woman can pronounce upon an issue like the age of consent, as to whether it is a valid men’s rights issue, without any seeming awareness that we might be sceptical as to her motives, given that the age of consent is a law that ‘protects’ women (ostensibly young women below the AofC, but certainly those women above it who are protected from younger sexual competition)?
Whichever ‘men’s rights’ arena she arrived here from, it’s obviously a hot bed of feminist co-opters.
Meanwhile, it appears you were right in guessing that ‘Jennie’, our psychopathic manhating radical feminist troll, came from Manboobz :
https://theantifeminist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/jennie.jpg
This is the type of woman that Fraudtrelle is going to such degrading lengths to try to lose his virginity with. A woman who wants all boys circumsised so that they can ‘feel pain’, and who boasts of watching porn featuring men being raped and tortured.
Good luck David – you deserve it.
Arpagus:
Good to see you here too!
‘There are now more false-flag MRAs who support feminist abuse hysteria than true MRAs’
Exactly. The AOC is a good litmus test for smoking out these phonies. I can understand why some bloggers consider the issue off limits, but when they support feminist policies openly, it’s time to call a spade a spade.
‘It appears to be optimal to start sex right after puberty’.
For centuries this was the established practice. Vestiges of the same thing can still be seen in religious rites like Confirmations and Bar-Mitzvahs where at the age 12, the religious communities accept the child as an adult.
Jack:
Not only that, but most of these Fathers Rights mRAs don’t even understand that a lower AOC would benefit them as far as custody/visitation rights go. If, at the age of puberty, a ‘child’ could decide which parent to live with (or strike out on their own), the whole issue would become practically irrelevant.
Of course, social work is dominated by jealous femihags, and they all want the AOC as high as possible. President Michelle Obama, through her figurehead husband, actually defined ‘dependent children’ as 26 with the passage of Obamacare.
What a great topic to see in the new year with!
I think you might be kept quite busy with it though, moderating what I’d expect to be: numerous comments from trolling feminists and mRAs.
Speaking of Paul E. (and referring also to my question which you answered exactly the way I thought you would, re: the absence of the link to his blog): I doubt he even knows about this blog, let alone cares whether you link to his or not, but if he does I’m sure he wouldn’t have read anything more than about one post, especially if it was a post on anything to do with AofC. He would have been creeped out and given one of his female mRA’s a call for ‘moral support’ and counsel…
Thankyou Alan. I know it’s going to be popular with readers, but perhaps not so much with the rest of the mRM!
Actually, my site was one of only 4 or 5 that Paul Elam linked to when be started AVoiceforMen. We used to be in regular correspondence and I respected him (and stil do) as much as he obviously respected me. That is one reason why I was angry at the time with Jay Hammer’s pointless troll attacks on him for not being left-wing enough (and my subsequent need to defend Jay/JeremiahMRA. Something that has been repaid with a total of lack of gratitude from him). And that is why I’m angry with Human-Stupdity’s persistant needling of Paul too. Simply marginilizes us when we shouldn’t be.
It’s too late now of course, and it’s also obvious now that Paul Elam really does vehemently support feminist age of consent laws – hence age of consent month here to educate the rest of the men’s rights movement.
EDIT : Let’s not discount the possibility that Paul Elam is aware of criticism that his site is becoming a little too mainstream and North American and that this is why he has taken on Lucian as ‘European director of men’s rights news’.
So, are you saying that at that time, he would have agreed with OUR views on AofC and feminist’s ridiculous male sexuality demonization and subsequent OTT laws? And possibly, might even have allowed the topics H-S wanted to discuss?
Yet now or recently, he has joined feminists and mRAs, on this particular thorn in their side?
I only thought he would not like you or your blog – hence my question, by his total dogmatic handling of H-S, who effectively, if nothing else revealed Paul’s true-colour as an MRA.
How do developing countries manage to have such high population growth? Answer: by letting their young females hop into bed with older geezers. And when the produce of those zillions of paedo-couplings grow into unemployed, hungry mobs, they floodgate into Europe or the US. The modern White Man is History’s biggest fool.
And perhaps a little too ‘Father’s Rights’ focused. It’s supposed to be a men’s rights forum and these days the number of men who are father’s is steadily dwindling, therefore anti-male sexuality laws must be affecting a steadily increasing number of (single and lonely) men…
Actually, Lucian has made his views known in response to Human-Stupidity at AVfM (not sure if this was before HS appeared to be banned) :
http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/lucian-valsan-named-avfm-european-news-director/
In that case, it’s odd that he comments at Eivind’s blog. Furthermore, Human-Stupidity’s point was I believe that Paul Elam appears committed to arguing that we should help feminists raise the age of consent in countries like Spain (13), Germany (14), and Italy (14). Indeed, if we really believe that 15 year old boys who have sex with adult women are abused, we should be fighting for the age of consent to be raised in those countries just as fervently as feminists are, in order to protect boys.
In fact Austria was one of the first European nations to implement virtual child pornography laws, and the first country (I believe) to jail somebody over viewing pornography in a case which it was accepted in court that all the models were over 18 (in fact over 20).
I don’t have time to check myself now but the first European directive a few years ago was based on the United Nations declaration of the rights of the
femi-hagchild, which expressly defines child porn as any image representing a child (which itself is defined as a person under 18). In the year after that directive, a number of EU nations implemented virtual child porn laws, including the UK, Austria, Germany, and most of the Scandinavian countries.Well as far as I understand it, the official position of A Voice for Men is that Lucian is therefore a child abuse victim and that if he does not identify himself as one, then he is in denial and failing to take the abuse of boys seriously.
Lookie here:
http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=56253
Bobbejane says:
November 21, 2012 at 1:18 pm
I think any sane person will agree that this is happening because:
1. Political correctness and multiculturalism forbids the leftist from interfering when people of other ethnicity are at work.
2. The leftists have created a culture of sexual liberty and sexual perversion, where it is normal for young girls to dress slutty, have sex and get drunk.
3. The people who perpetrate this criminal acts are not butchered like the pigs they are.
The solution to this problem is simple.
1. Start using add-campaigns, the educational system and the police too systematically remove Islam from our society. Bombard them with commercials and tell the teachers to attack every aspect of there barbaric believes, the same should be done to any culture and religion that does not properly respect western culture.*
2. Arrest everyone who supports a sex-free and child-sex environment: These would include politicians, teachers, entertainers, businessmen or social-counselors. Anyone who thinks a girl below 16 should be sexual active is a potential pedophile and pervert and is corrupting the youth and should be arrested.
3. Anyone who rapes or who engages in a relationship with an underage child should be arrested and after his guilt has been proven in a trial, should be tortured to death and hung at his local village/neighborhood square for all to see.
* Western culture isn’t defined, it applied in a convenient way. What ever is called western culture, is western culture; even if definitions contradict each other. This is how a constitution law works, this is how western law works.
Reading these white nationalists almost inspires me to convert to Islam.
Well, I don’t know. Though we didn’t use that name then, I have been a men’s/father’s rights activist since the 60’s, when feminists started taking over out society with misandry. So, I do object to painting all Mra’s with the same brush.
Not that I can deny there are some big time losers in the MRM. I wrote the following article in late 2011, and posted it on MGTOW, shortly after a NYT idiot claimed the age of consent in Mexico was 12. Within a few minutes, it was deleted, and I got a life-time ban.
Later, when I posted a very similar article on Spearhead, an anonymous commenter, most likely a MGTOW moderator, made a sarcastic comment about my obvious interest in under age females. I, a man who has been faithful to his wife of 37 years. Unbelievable.
Since I wrote that article, a cousin here in rural Mexico told me that 35 years ago, a 12 year old girl got pregnant by a 25 year old man. After some investigation by both sets of parents, they ascertained the girl most definitely wanted to be “his woman.” And, so it was. They raised together a family of children, and the lawyers and cops had nothing to do with it.
In the highly superior USA, he would have gone to jail, and her family would have been supporting those kids, instead of him. And, of course, she would have soon done it again with other men. And, half the kids would have ended up in jail, etc.
The rest of the story is she has had most of the men in the neighborhood over that 35 years, heh, heh.
##### #####
In November, news from the city of Puebla was reported, perhaps world wide. A 10 year old girl gave birth. Of course, there were comments on the news articles, trashing the nation of Mexico. Alas, some years ago, in Amarillo, Texas, which happens to be in the USA, a medico told us his clinic had an 8 year old girl who was pregnant. So much for racist hate for all things Mexican, I guess.
Anyway, one US hack writer reported the age of consent in Mexico is 12. I live in that same state, and while consent is complicated, it would best be described, simply, as age of consent at age 18, not age 12, but depending upon circumstances. But, let me explain in detail the laws of my state.
If you have sex with a girl below her 12th birthday, this is a criminal offense of the same nature as forcible rape or forced prostitution, and you can be sentenced up to 40 years in prison. But, the important issue is, the cops or prosecutors can press charges, without regard to what the girl or her family think. This is the same concept as statutory rape in the US. If you did it, you are going to prison and no defense exists.
And, when I say 12th birthday, that is the general rule where the ability to press charges changes to the family. In at least one state, it is at menarche. So, if she is shown to be menstruating at age 8, the cops are out of the picture, in that state. Unless there has been a recent change.
From her 12th birthday to her 18th birthday, it is only a criminal offense if ‘estupro’ is involved. Not being a Mexican attorney, I would translate estupro as ‘dirty tricks’. Fraud; lies; false promises of marriage; or something like that. Such that afterwards she realizes you were using her in an unacceptable manner.
But, here is the big difference, aend probably why the stupid female hack writer (i.e. – ‘journalist’) thought 12 was the age of consent.
AFTER THE 12TH BIRTHDAY, ONLY THE GIRL OR HER PARENTS OR GUARDIANS OR REPRESENTATIVE CAN PRESS CHARGES OF WHAT WE CALL STATUTORY RAPE. If the ‘family’ does not press charges, nothing happens to the man/boy. Period.
There is also a break-down for 12 to 18. If the girl or family presses charges, and she is past her 12th birthday, but not yet had her 14th birthday, ‘estupro’ is a legal presumption by the court, due to her age. You did it, appropriate person files charges, she is 12 – 14, 5 years in prison.
To make that clear, 12 – 14, you cannot defend yourself against charges of estupro. Nor can she speak up in your defense, even if she wants to.
After the 14th birthday, if charges are filed, you can try to defend yourself by proving the absence of estupro. If she is on your side, I assume she can testify she was your willing partner in sex. I am guessing on that, but it is consistent with other legal issues.
If you disprove estupro after the 14th birthday, likewise you go free. If not, five years in prison maximum.
The problem is, Mexican judges, like American judges, are always loose cannons on deck. If the judge doesn’t like you, he can rule for estupro even if she wanted to have sex with you, just because he wants to.
After her 18th birthday, the only thing you might have to worry about is a false rape charge. But, the police ask the embarrassing questions that are prohibited by law in the US. So, the odds are much smaller that a false charge would stick in Mexico.
And, of course, yes, if a retarded girl is involved, that can put you in trouble by special protective laws. But, the judge will have to be shown the girl was truly incapable by mental insufficiencies, it is not automatic, which means you can mount a defense if you have one.
Now that I have told you the laws as I understand them, let me say anyone who dinks around with young girls, in this case, under 18, does not have my sympathy when he ends up in prison. I have high risk aversion, and see no reason to mess around with under age girls, when there are billions of adult women in the world. Don’t do it.
###
A few months ago, a niece, her cousin, and a friend, were found at a dance in another town at 3 am. They are around 14 years old. Though humans are unpredictable, if they had been caught having sex with an older boy or man, there is a good chance the family would not file charges, because here they understand young females better than the dummies in the US do. and, if those girls were willing partners for sex, the typical Mexican family will question why a young man should go to prison for their daughter’s slutty behavior. Mexico is very judgmental of females.
###
One other thing I forgot to mention. If you bang a young girl over 12 years old, the men in her family may well administer machete justice. Another means by which the family deals with such issues. Don’t do it.
And, I also forgot American law, which says any American citizen or resident who has sex with a girl under 16 years of age in any nation in the world, goes to prison in the US for 15 years, no matter what the law in the other nation says.
I was reading an article on the drug cartel violence in Mexico recently – on a blog that devotes itself to telling the truth about the level of violence taking place there, complete with gory photos and videos etc.
One article (replete with photo) particularly stood out. A suspected rapist had been tortured and beaten to death by a drug cartel eager to be seen as ‘on the side of the people’. Amongst other things, a long spike had been inserted into his anus, his penis cut off etc, disembowelled. Judging from the look of sheer terror and pain frozen on the corpse’s face, all these things were done while he was still alive.
The comments from the Mexican readers were universally of the ‘he deserved it, he probably died too quickly’ etc and praising the drug cartel for finally doing something good.
Interestingly, when I read these ‘narco war’ blogs, I rarely see the term ‘paedophile’ being mentioned. I’ve even read that the drug cartel bosses are famous for entertaining themselves with underage prostitutes (and sometimes boys).
I can imagine that when American paedohysteria and age of consent laws are finally introduced into Mexico, lynchings like this of ‘paedophiles’ will be a routine occurence there.
Ive been busy so not much time to contribute. I will say this about this article: an absolute masterpeice. It never occured to me to look at it from that angle. I look forward to your AOC argumentation posts hopefully i will have more time on my hands soon.
Your views are always welcome and much appreciated here Highwayman. I was actually going to post one of Gannon’s essays today that you recommended to me as a way of checking whether you were still alive. I hope you will contribute to age of consent month here.
Anon70:
Glad to see you here too! This forum seems to be a growing haven for MRAs discussing topics ‘too sensitive’ for AVfM or the Spearhead!
A lot of readers here might not know, but you and I had several discussions at Welmer’s over the AOC in Mexico and Latin America generally!
What you’re saying is very true about the dangers of American men messing around with younger women there. I would add though that much of those problems stem from men’s ignorance of Mexican society more than anything else. I would qualify what you said above: ‘don’t do it’ with ‘unless you know her and her family VERY well.’
Another point too is there is a HUGE difference between how these cases are handled in rural Mexico vs. Mexico City.
Columnist:
According to the brillant author of that article:
‘These children are neglected and hungry for love. The men offer them car-rides, treats and kebabs(!) and then drugs and alcohol and then they corrupt them (sexually).’
Anyone stupid enough to believe this is a positive danger to society. And comments like Bobbejane’s shouldn’t be laughed off, because these people are crazy enough to do just what she advocates—if the legal restraints were taken off.
That’s why I really fear the rise of media-driven paedohysterical vigilanteism—especially in America—because kooks like these only need a wink and a nod from the authorities and they won’t stop at mass murder. Judging by the title of their blog, they consider Count Dracula a hero and likely would have no problem imitating his bloody habits.
Alan:
‘…revealed Paul’s true colors as an MRA.’
Admittedly, I began fearing for the worst after Elam’s ‘MRM Blueprint’ article. He actually said there that the MRM mission ‘was to complete the work feminism started.’
The last time I looked at AVfM, there were more articles by women than by men. This is really just heading towards a conservative version of Manboobz, but fundamentally the premises are the same: accept feminism and work from those premises.
Antifeminist:
After reading Jennie’s comment at Manboobz and Bobbejean’s at Vladtepes, I can’t help but wonder how many sane people are actually left on earth.
So one says that a slut who ‘pulls a train’ at a drunken orgy is still a rape victim. The other says that a 14 y/o who engages in consensual sex because she’s in love was also raped. And the men involved in both cases should be slaughtered like cattle for not refusing sex when it was offered.
It seems another component of STU attitudes involves a man actually putting his life on the line for the ‘privilege’ of competing for sex with bitter femihag cougars!
I probably shouldn’t even mention this, but our friend Fraudtrelle has reached a new low, even for him, as a paedocrite today. Writing about the violent protests in Toronto against Dr. Warren Farrell, Futrelle had the nerve to say this:
‘Let me put a giant trigger warning here for disturbing discussion of incest and child sexual abuse’
And then goes on to quotemine Farrell that FARRELL had made comments about ‘underage sex’ back in 1977 that Fatroll finds offensive today! LOL The whole article reads like Antifeminist’s expose on Futrelle himself, with Warren Farrell substituted!
I’ve been saving that article on Fraudtrelle’s controversial veiws on 90’s internent porn news groups for an occasion when he really upsets me.
I haven’t read his article on Farrell yet, but it looks like ‘David Futrelle pleads for an end to regulation of internet pornography fearing mass arrests’ is getting published tonight!!
I’m become ever more convinced that this paedocrite needs watching. There is some level of self-denial and double think going on in his brain that is simply disturbing and boardering on the psychopathic.
Happy Thanksgiving btw Eric (and all my American readers)!
I wonder what Paul Elam thinks of Warren Farrell now, btw. I wonder if he wishes him to be ‘raped in prison’ for talking about the feminist age of consent like he did Jay Hammers. Maybe he’ll kick him out of the movement?
P.S. One of Fraudtrelle’s groupies actually commented:
‘Why should we excuse this man’s (Farrell’s) actions? Unless he’s formally apologized for that article and recanted on it, he should get criticized for it.’
Ummmm….does anybody at Manboobz want to hold Uncle Davy to the same standards?
If his groupie ‘Jennie’ doesn’t stop spaming me I’m also going to publish an article highlighting how certain of his commentators are psychopaths who make violent threats and boast of taking pleasure in the rape and torture of men and boys.
Jennie isn’t the first one, btw.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2012/11/22/tales-from-the-infrared-the-weaponized-pens
Straight from the avfm at the 30 min mark they talk about age of consent.
Thanks Will – I’m going to steel myself and listen to it now.
EDIT : sorry – required the sick bag just 2 minutes into the discussion.
Actually, I didn’t see anything to do with the age of consent. Just a vagina and a mangina talking about how a 16 year old will have ‘his’ or her ‘heart ripped out’ by having consensual sex with someone over 18, something that is legal just about everywhere on Earth, apart from a handful of backward Third World and/or theocratic American states.
I really do feel like throwing up.
I’m dismayed to see this Theantifeminist article has a puny -4 votes on reddit.com/r/MensRights/
But then again on the same Reddit yesterday the top contribution was a short self-rant by a woman saying “MRM made me a better girlfriend”. I suspect that Reddit is for readers with a short attention-span. Anything longer than 10-lines is too much. Also the system of up- and downvotes is conducive to herd behaviour.
I was at Walmart in Orlando last week. There was a big display panel with pics of people reported missing. The title in big lettering was “HAVE YOU SEEN THIS CHILD?”. It had to be seen to be believed. First the missing are all female, apparently no males go missing in Florida. So much for the AVfM aspect. But here’s the non AVfM part: they’re all females between 14 and 18, most of them between 16 and 18. Many mug shots were mug shots of seasoned whores! To see the child-word applied to them is sick.
Sasha is indeed A Voice for Men co-opter, errm..I mean commentator :
https://theantifeminist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/sasha-avfm.jpg
Finally I was blocked, for good, at avoiceformen
A pity, because as you agree too, almost all goals they promote are noble. Except they fail men on some issues.
I try to put restraint, but at this title about 13 reasons why it is bad to be a man, I felt compelled to add a few more.
I tried to be as moderate as possible, talking about issues like
being able to take bath photos of your toddler to WalMart without being arrested.
Or not getting mandatory prison terms for mere possession of videos of oneself at an earlier age, jerking off.
Or being able to take risque photos of your 16 year old legal wife, without becoming a sex offender for decades.
I did not think I was being extreme. But it was enough to tick people off.
I’ve just listened to AVfM radio (link above). Good gracious! By the sound of it you’d never guess you were listening to an MRA show. Had it not been for the US accents and the poor audio quality you’d have thought you were listening to some BBC extended news interview. Guy explaining how he was abused and only realised 10 years later (!!!) how he’d been dammaged. Woman going on about how “unhealthy” it is for a 16 y.o. girl to fall in love with a man over 18. And so on.
Do you know who the vagina and the mangina were Jack? I didnt’ listen to it all, and I’m not going to, and I didn’t recognise the voices. It wasn’t John the Other and it wasn’t GirlWritesWhat ( I don’t think – hope not).
No idea. I didn’t recognize the voices. I started listening at 24:00, the talk was already about AOC. Then I moved forward to the recommended 30 minutes and listened for 5 minutes. That was enough. The man “testifying” of his abuse sounded quite young, not al all like the tenors (Elam and JTO).
Appears to have been Dean Esmay and Typhoon Blue.
I do think girlwriteswhat is genuine, but all the others – particularly TyphoonBlue, have always given me the creeps.
antifeminist, your comments on Lucian are right on. It is so unfeasible that anyone does not understand that logic.
Especially because Lucian himself admitted having been a victim of child abuse, at age 14, at the hands of an 18 year old woman that took advantage of him. An age difference of 4 years, the woman being over 18 is usually not covered by Romeo and Juliet laws and thus clearly is child abuse
a) in Romenia (age of consent 15)
b) in almost all jurisdictions in the US
c) certainly by Paul Elam’s standards, as I never saw him defend lowerering the age of consent from 15 to 14, in Romania.
Lucian actually sound pretty reasonable, it might be wise for adolescents not to engage in sex in as young an age as Lucian did.
I just missed Lucian making a clear argument why his 18 year old abuser needs to get many years of prison and 40 years of sex offender registration.
Lucian timidly hinted that age of consent between 15 and 18 is ok and certainly should not be lowered. This position certainly is fervently defended by Paul Elam.
Now I would never use Paul Elam’s site to advocate lowering the age of consent below 14.
I usually abstain from specifying exact ages of consent, though I am quite adamant
that huge enormous prison terms are unjustified,
that 18 is way off as age of consent, and
that possession of drawings, photos and movies ought not be a heinous crime with mandatory 5 years prison for each photo. And
that we don’t need re-definition of 2000 year old terminology (“rape”, “child”, “consent”, ….) meant to manipulatively confuse everyone
If I read him correctly, I don’t think he thought of himself as in any way ‘admitting’ that he had been abused.
He seemed to be merely pointing to that experience as ‘proof’ that he had always refused sex with girls under 16 (even when he himself was under the age of 16).
And in the sentence after that ‘boast’ he mocks your (and our) arguments by claiming that he ‘didn’t feel like his male sexuality had been oppressed’.
I mean what kind of cowering mangina ‘boasts’ that even as a ‘child’ he ‘refused’ to have sex with anyone but an adult????
Sounds like TyphoonBlue has her hands firmly around his balls and his male sexuality, if you ask me.
Really? What scientific evidence have you come across that leads you to suddenly suspect that it might be unwise for 14 year old post-pubescents to have sex?
Lucian stated categorically that an age of consent of 15 or 16 was a ‘minimum of common sense’.
@Anonymous age 70
In Brazil they have similar laws. Under 14, estupro (rape) is presumed. But the accused can PROVE it was not rape. Just the burden is up to him.
If he has witnesses that the girl always happily went into his bedroom, and happily walked out again, that would be proof it was not rape.
Of course, feminist influence tends to make these laws more stringent.
@antifeminist:
amazingly it seems that Lucian is not aware of the implications of Paul Elam’s age of consent philosophy.
He is not aware that his male sexuality only remained un-repressed because an 18 year old girl risked long prison terms. Thus Lucian could have the sex he wanted, at the age he wanted (which still makes him a rape victim)
I don’t know how old Luciano is, but he probably still could press charges against his rapist. Maybe only now, after our explanations will he become aware that he has been shamelessly abused and raped by the 18 year old girl. Only now he will become aware he was a crime victim and needs to put his abuser where she belongs: behind bars.
I think Lucian is not yet up to date with Paul Elam’s morality. Or, more likely, Lucian manages to be in total denial and apply these laws very selectively only to others.
like TyphoonBlue, have always given me the creeps.
Yeah. Typhoonblue has a status in AVfM way above her merit and competence. I still remember the article she wrote for AVfM, about, of all subjects, the sociobiology of sex. It was a subject way above her league. She’d got the theory of parental investment all wrong, assuming it was mens’semen that was in short supply while in fact it is the opposite (male sperm is cheap and female eggs are precious). I suspect she feels good among MRAs because she can enjoy a red carpet treatment she would not get among feminists.
Lucian is living proof. He has been damaged to the point that he did not even notice he has been abused and raped. /sarcasm
I guess I try to appease Paul Elam & Co. And in the current climate, with the current laws, it might be traumatic.
Imagine Lucian’s girl friend being in court, at age 18. Imagine Lucian being imprisoned, for contempt, if he refused to testify against her. Until he gives up and testifies, so she can get the punishment she deserves as a child rapist. /sarcasm
@antifeminist, notice I said “MIGHT be unwise”.
I think it is wiser for me not to have a definite firm public stance if sex at young age is wise or not.
With US sex education in Paul Elam style, it is almost certainly unwise.
With Dutch sex education, with good birth control and positive environment, it might be wise.
Hmmm…I guess my point is that you start a war with Paul Elam on his site over the age of consent then come to my site and suggest an age of consent of 15 or 16 might be reasonable.
BTW, it’s something of a circular argument – “it might be unwise because it might be thought unwise, in which case, it might be unwise”.
EDIT :
I think we all agree upon that. I’ve stated here numerous times that anybody who involves a teenager in a criminal act that leaves the young person at risk of manipulation and abuse by the feminist child abuse industry, including the courts and forced victim labelling, is an abuser.
However, your argument is still circular and irrelevant. We’re talking about what the age of consent should be, not whether having illegal sex with somebody under the age of consent will be harmful as a result of it being illegal (and because of the related consequences of it being illegal, such as poor sex education for teens). We know that is likely to be the case, I don’t think any of us here dispute that, as studies have conclusively shown that to be the case.
As for me, I think it is OK for people to have sex as soon as their sexual secondary characteristics are in place. If the body is geared for sex, so is the mind, period. Btw, do you know why modern women want women to shave? Answer: so that puberty should become invisible, and therefore redefinable.
Antifeminist:
Thank you I had a good Thanksgiving—in spite of all the depressing commentary yesterday!
Fraudtrelle’s article sounded almost like a paraphrase of the one you wrote on him earlier. That and his hijacking of the anti-Suffragette posters makes me think he has a serious screw loose somewhere. Not too mention his hysterical comments on Fidelbogen’s blog when he was accused of doxxing (Fidelbogen’s site got hacked about a week later BTW); and his ghost-written self-glorification at the SPLC!
Definately, he needs watching. Male feminists like Schwyzer and Payne are mostly sleazy opportunists, but I think Futrelle is mentally unhinged. That might explain how he ‘hooks up’ so easily with his equally unhinged groupies.
I don’t see paedohysteria becoming too dominant in Mexico. A lot of what Anon70 was referring to has to do with the corruption of the Latin American justice system.
For example, Hillary pressures Mexico to crack down on ‘sex tourists’. The Mexican judges know this; and they know some guys are going to come there anyway. So, it’s no problem to set up an American with an ‘underage’ prostitute. Then it becomes a matter of how much money the American is willing to pay to keep from being extradited back to the US to face feminist wrath. Pay up and it’s over; if not…oh well. The Mexicans have an example to make Hillary happy and keep the foreign dollars flowing in.
I’ve heard this happens in Europe, probably in Asia too. This is another reason why I dislike PUAs like Roosh and Krauser—they really sound like they have no idea of how these societies really operate, and men who follow their advice could really get hurt.
For men who know people in these countries and understand the culture, ‘statuatory rape’ isn’t really too much of an issue. It’s the guys who go into it thinking it’s an easy way to score who really get into trouble.
True Eric, particularly in the case of Roosh. I’m pretty certain that he’s going to be set up as an example sooner or later.
To be fair to Krauser, he does seem to be aware that PUA is a dangerous tool :
http://krauserpua.com/2010/03/17/we-are-giving-dynamite-to-children/
Although there is a lot of deceit and false promise/information in the PUA community, I’m starting to think that if we could somehow reach out to them and offer them something real, and tap into their (huge) demographic, then we could build something that would be a true alternative to what we have with AVfM and the rest of the socon father’s rights movement.
A voice for men and the spearhead are easily the most popular men’s rights sites – Roosh V, who provides 100% of his site’s content, gets at least 10 times the traffic of both of them put together. Someone pointed out that his site gets more visitors than feministing.com
‘I reached for the sick bag about two minutes into it.’
Me too.
The whole argument between Blue Cheer (or whatever her name is) and that whiny mangina is premised completely on the FEMINIST concept that all sex is rape.
The female commenter continually referenced that rape occurred because the older partner represented an ‘authority figure.’ Feminists argue that all sex is rape because patriarchal society puts men in the position of authority. It’s the SAME argument, rehashed.
Taken to its logical conclusions, consensual sex could ONLY occur with an inferior partner; and we see feminised women following this practice by having sex with any dirtbag while shunning real men. It also benefits the STU since, by the same criterion that Typhoon Blue was preaching, men should ignore nubile young women and pursue the most disgusting femihags instead. Otherwise, it’s rape.
Exactly Eric.
And this is why there is no other word to describe the ‘official’ MRM position on the age of consent as fraudulent.
Either they claim that youngsters are traumatised by sex with older partners, for which the only evidence is from feminist junk science studies (the study that Dean Emsey refers to, and which Paul Elam has referred to in the past, is from a feminist who asked men ‘abused’ as boys to describe their feelings of hurt – in other words, her ‘study’ pre-selected men who already identified themselves as child abuse victims).
Or else they claim that sex with older people is abuse in itself – based entirely on feminist ‘power relationship’ arguments that turn nearly all consensual sex into rape.
I don’t see PUAs advocating travelling for sex that much. They pretend to score on the domestic market. There are (non MRA) sites dedicated to getting laid abroad, where tips are also exchanged about the dangers awaiting the sex-traveler. One such site is the worldsexguide (Jackson’s forum). Such sites are the sites that really piss the STU off, not the MRA sites.
Jack wrote:
“In the UK it’s 16. What’s wrong with 16?
I’ll tell you what’s wrong. Firstly in all Western countries it matters shit whether the girl involved is above the nominal age of consent, and for legal purposes no man is safe if the girl is under 18/21. Hell, no man is safe anymore regardless of the woman’s age if she says she’d had a glass of beer, how would he be safe if the girl is 16 or 17?
The charades are endless provided it gets the man convicted. Sometimes it may not be the age of the “victim” that counts but the age difference with the (male) perpetrator. As usual, jail the man and forget about the rest.
And we’ve not even begun to speak about prosecuting your own male citizens for abiding by foreign ages of consent in countries where that age is lower than at home, a practice 100% contrary to international common law.
Western men have given up on the Western Whore anyway, let alone on the teenage one, so ages-of-consent shouldn’t matter much, but this crusade against men has one goal: prevent the Western male from taking his custom abroad. The consent of the UK or US brat is not a problem, the consent of the Thai competition is.
Remember, any woman aged 45 will set the age of consent at 44 if given the power to do so.”
Do you know of an organisation called ECPAT? Type the name into your trusty search engine. You’ll heart them, believe me.
I’d better get my bum into gear and write an open letter to those people and post it here before AOC month finishes.
Stay well.
Oh, I almost forgot-I had a thought about the observation that you don’t see underage kids marching in “Let’s lower AOC” rallies or engaging in similar activism.
A rejoinder to that is that by the same token, AFAIK there’s never been any great movement amongst youngsters to raise the AOC. Not when it was still 12 in the UK, not when it was raised to 18 for those in a position of trust or responsibility, not when ridiculous laws were brought in about having to abide by your own country’s AOC when you are in another country.
The last example, in particular, brings me to an issue I find well worth bringing up. How much knowledge do we in so-called democratic countries have about changes in the law that may vitally affect us, let alone how much actual say or input do we have, apart from electing a bunch of interchangeable jokers every few years?
How many people, for example, even know there’s now an o/s AOCin their country? How much debate was there before the legislatures of the various countries in questions passed these laws? Not much. One day we woke up and it was different, that’s it. It was a diktat from on high.
The same applies to the other laws I mentioned to almost the same extent, though at the time, there seems to have been some political horse-trading that necessitated some public debate.
I’m referring to AOC for gay sex lowered in much of the English-speaking world (along with heterosexual anal intercourse BTW)and at the same time 18 became the AOC in certain cases and making it illegal to use under-18’s in porn. As well as that, in the last decade or so in the US, laws against sodomy and gay sex have been taken off the books.
It makes me wonder if the gays, the male ones anyway, really need the femihags anymore. They’ve got what they’ve wanted- or at least what they’ve loudly protested they’ve wanted for a couple of decades-legal sex at 16 or 18-even in the US.
OTOH, I’m not sure how viable the 18 if-you’re-their teacher-or-coach etc. thing really is in the long term. What if you’re a teacher and your girlfriend or boyfriend was in another school and transferred? I suppose it would still be legal but the trouble with these exceptions to the usual 16 AOC is that they could always be used as an excuse for generally lifitng the AOC. After all, aren’t we all to some extent teachers and coaches, priests and pastors, to these poor innocent 16 and 17 year old children?
Think of the children!!!
Antifeminist:
Interesting coincidence on RooshV. Fraudtrelle quotemined him today. Apparently Roosh also believes that puberty ends at 18 years; at least from the passage Fatroll quoted.
Roosh: “When a loaf comes out of the oven (puberty) it’s warm and delicious, you can’t help but stuff yourself. (18-24 years old).”
Fatroll, of course, furiously objected to men even being interested in females even slightly above the AOC. He also found Roosh’s comparison of women to bread disgusting. (I have to admit that I did too). Although in Fraudtrelle’s case, he probably can’t hear talk about food for very long before running off to Burger King! LOL
Again Fatroll proving the purpose and validity of this blog.
And the fat paedocrite Fraudtrelle is right on this occasion – Roosh is spineless in denying that he’d rather date 15 year olds.
He can at least admit to wishing to date 16 year olds can’t he? I mean Americans abroad are still allowed to bang 16 and 17 year olds right?
Less balls than a typical American father’s rights activist.
This is what one of Fraudtrelle’s groupies says (kirbywarp) :
Prefering to have sex with younger women, even in the 18-24 year range, is now paedophilia in the minds of feminists, and will soon be in law around the world.
Certainly as the only political movement that can stop it is in the hands of socon American father’s rights activists eager to create their own version of the feminist child abuse industry.
Jack:
Another good site is
http://www.happierabroad.com
I think that moderator there is also a PUA, but he doesn’t push it on anybody. The site though is absolute goldmine of anti-feminist research and foreign dating links, &c.
@You’re dog meat, Brady!
That kind of contradicts itself: You say we have given up on the Western whore anyway, but what you’ve omitted is the reason. That being what this whole thread is all about: The age of consent, coupled with ridiculous feminist statutory rape laws, making it literally dangerous to even consider them as possible mates / sexual partners.
As for the Thai competition, there are already laws recently passed, putting them at an even greater distance (legally as well as geographically) in the US with their unbelievable IMBRA law. Meanwhile, as we recently discussed (here on this blog), the bitter, jealous femihags in Sweden are already demanding an investigation, with no doubt similar, or even tougher anti-male laws to result, from such ‘investigation of abuse’ by Swedish men of these Thais or Asian (young, hot, attractive and desirable) women…
If feminists didn’t have their way with AofC laws and the even more complicated and ludicrous statutory rape laws, men would have no need to look to Asia for a real woman and a decent (NON-feminist brainwashed zombie) for a wife! And the jealous old bags, wouldn’t need things like IMBRA or, concoct stories of ‘abuse’ to prevent men from looking overseas for what he clearly cannot find and never will find, ‘at home’!
Eric,
I knew about the “happier abroad” site. This is a site chiefly making the case for going aborad though, and personally I’ve graduated above that. I don’t need convincing any more. My long-time haunt is
http://www.internationalsexguide.info/forum/index.php
Of which I’m a senior member with over 500 posts under my belt if I remember right, albeit under a different alias. It’s a stric P4P (“pay for play) site, and PUA philosophy (“getting is for free with game”) is derided. Tips are exchanges about where to go, which hotels to check in, what the going rates are, possible hassles, etc.
Muslims have muhammed, who had a 6 year old wife.
We have Jesus, who had no wife, let the adulteress woman off scott free while condemining men who merely looked at women.
That is why we will never be going nowhere. Jesus puts women above men and ours is a Jesus religion. Society is about helping the woman and having children and supporting her and them and raising them. Not pleasure and happiness for the man. The man is a worker be, not a ruler. That’s how it has always been in the west and how it always will be. Christianity is a gnostic faith at heart and really does see the older god as a demon (aswell as the islamic reincrarnation of that god) and the new testament rejection of anything pro-male as the quench.
I’ve had a look at IMBRA-fuck me dead. Poor old seppos get slogged with over-the-top laws even worse than anyone else.
@Ano in last comment-I admire your readiness to be radical about Christianity, though I do not think you are correct. Jesus did say to the woman taken in adultery to not sin again, and he did call the tax collector Matthew. I’m guessing tax collectors would have been at least as inclined to go to prostitutes as anyone else.
AFAIK, no-one has been successfully prosecuted for sexual relations with anyone under their country’s o/s AOC when they haven’t broken other laws eg violating host country’s AOC.
Australia’s wonderful Child Sex Tourism Act allows for civil as well as criminal prosecution so I guess there’s a possibility you could be done in a civil court if the plaintiff or their family had the financial resources.
However, based on what I’ve seen on the web, there hasn’t been a single child sex tourism case in Oz or anywhere else that did not involve using sex tourism legislation in place of other readily-available laws. For example, a conviction under the Act for possession of pornographic images obtained in a foreign country could be obtained by means of domestic child porn laws rather than the Child Sex Tourism Act. The reason they haven’t appears to be in order to enhance the number of sex tourism convictions.
Re The Prophet Mo-it’s been remarked that until our own time, no Jewish or Christian critic of Islam criticised Mo for consumating his marriage to a pre-pubescent girl. Most of them appeared to see no issue with it one way or the other, because they were by no means polite about Islam.
Jack:
Thank you for the link!
Antifeminist:
LOL imagine the humilation if Roosh were awarded a ‘Paedocrite of the Month’ someday—an award named for Fraudtrelle himself!
That could be said about almost all of the female commentators on AVfM actually. Yet the mRA’s there respect them like they are (Elam’s) disciples or better. JUst look at the voting. If one of those female comments with something really ground breaking idea like “Yeah you’re right Dean”, the upvotes go through the roof…
@Alan Except GirlWritesWhat. I think AVfM was so eager to negate the charge that the MRM was composed entirely of angry ‘misogynist’ men that they took on board any female YouTuber who claimed to be anti-feminist.
I’m not too familiar with GirlWritesWhat’s early history, but I think she got most of her subscribers from making videos on atheism and other non-mra subjects originally. In her case, it’s obvious that she’s as articulate and rational as any male MRA, and does come across as 100% genuine too. She deserves to be highlighted – but the rest…euuughhh.
The MRM wishes to return us to 30 years ago, what of us who wish to return to 250 or 2500 years ago? The democratic party is sucessful because it excludes none, the MRM is not because it hates male perverts as much as any woman. The MRM is comprised of upstanding males, those with other wishes need not apply, this is why it won’t go anywhere.
Women are not a prize worth fighting for. They may be pretty but they’re not nice. Old style kill the rapist/pedo/whathaveyou, castrate him, execute wayward males, I’d fight against that, not for it. The MRM has nothing for the non-upstanding male.
@theantifeminist
Yep I agree, GirlWritesWhat: she is great (I even said so a few weeks back).
I wrote that comment last night, rather hastily on a laptop with a low battery warning, telling me to either save my work or plug the charger in, so opted to post the incomplete comment before it died.
What I didn’t have time to include last night was my main point: about the mRA commentators at AVfM, simply agreeing with (thus automatically upvoting) the women posters / commentators, BECAUSE they are women.
In other words: just typical mRA white-knighting and many of them probably either don’t read what those women writers / commentators have said or, don’t understand what they’ve said, nor do they even care.
It’s just ‘standard AVfM etiquette’ or even trendy for them to show (more than necessary) full acceptance and praise of ANY woman who says she ‘understands’ or that she ‘sympathizes or empathizes’ with men’s issues or men’s rights…
I’m with you: euuughhh!
Here they’re generally not welcomed, not only because of the examples we see set by them at AVfM, but our experience proves they are not and simply CANNOT support us; in particular they would never (even though they could), accept the real men’s rights issues that are openly discussed, fully recognized and accepted as high priority concerns, here.
These very real Men’s Rights issues are of course, totally denied by and are indeed taboo (banned) topics for our
mangina traitorspeers and their ‘sister’ mRA’s on the mainstream mRA blogs…I see Paul Elam has written an excellent article on the damage that female vanity and the cosmetics industry is doing to the Earth (and boys).
Shame he’s not able to add the irony that they are inflicting all this damage in the vain attempt to look 15 or 16 again, whilst criminalizing millions of men as subhuman paedophiles for desiring real 15 and 16 year old girls.
@Alan Also seems to reflect the ‘madonna/whore’ syndrome that you find a lot in the MRM, and which seems in fact to be hardwired into male psychology.
This is I why I’m also a bit hesitant with the common manosphere idea that American woman have been ‘corrupted’ by feminism , and that Asian or South American women represent a more unpolluted version of how women used to be etc etc.
Antifeminist:
That article came across to me as another ‘let’s spread the misery’ type. Although it’s certainly true that the earth-goddess feminists are hypocrites and they’re paedocrites besides, since they want to look like what they want to outlaw!
BTW, a guest contributor at AVfM who is the head of MRALondon posted an article today on the White Feather Campaign that looked interesting.
That does look interesting and very encouraging.
Actually, given the history of father’s rights activist ‘stunts’ like this in the UK, it’s surprising it’s taken as long as it has for our MRAs to do this sort of stuff.
But looks like we’re off the mark!
I’d love to join these guys but unfortunately it would too great a risk to my anonymity, and in any case, they probably wouldn’t have me (being perfectly o.k with the Pankhurst’s raising the age of consent from 12 to 16 – pure evil feminists get it right sometimes, I guess).
Alan:
If these women are so concerned with fighting feminism, I have no idea why they feel the need to do so on Manosphere blogs. Their own gender needs their help a lot more than we do.
In a way, the feminist women CAUSED the men’s movement in the first place! Why these guys imagine that women can run the Manosphere any better than they’ve run anything else is beyond me…
Excellent point Eric, and I’ve made it here many times in the past – particularly in relation to the Reddit Men’s Rights ‘sympathetic women’.
I think theantifeminist answered that one and all other questions asking why they’re needed and what use they are etc., when he pointed out that at least AVfM might hope, that they help to dismiss the widely accepted belief of the MRM being nothing more than a bunch of angry misogynists:
Surely we can do much towards dismissing that notion ourselves without having to effectively ‘use’ women to prove the fact that we’re not?
There are certainly more than enough (and steadily rising numbers of): creepy, crawling white-knights and manginas within the MRM that are proving that we not only DON’T hate women, but the average mRA doesn’t even have a problem supporting feminism and many of its misandrist ideologies either!
The MRM, thanks to such white-knights who REFUSE to even consider male sexuality as a REAL Men’s (Human) Right’s issue, is looking more and more like a movement that is assisting feminists towards achieving their ‘mission’, by the day…
“(being perfectly o.k with the Pankhurst’s raising the age of consent from 12 to 16 – pure evil feminists get it right sometimes, I guess).”
Why are you ok with that? I hope islam wins an ends such foolishness, and with a blade rather than with the tounge, so that those who believed differently suffer worse than the men who were victims of their laws.
I was being ironic you fuckhead.
Now please go away. It’s obvious to me now that you’re MikeeUSA. Why the hell do you pick out my site to troll the most incessantly when I’m one of the only men’s rights sites to actually question paedohysteria (and nearly all the others, like AVfM, actually support it, and even want to promote and profit from our own men’s rights version of the child abuse industry)?
You need psychiatric help.
You think you’ll find happiness by marrying a 6 year old girl, and think that this is a worthy goal for the men’s rights movement to allow you to do so, but you don’t seem to have enough sanity to realise that 6 year olds don’t stay 6 very long, and within a couple of years you’ll be wanting to marry another 6 year old girl.
Now fuck off and set up your own website where you can argue for real paedophilia. Somehow I think this is unlikely, given that you’re too much of a cowardly bitch to even use a real isp to leave your comments here with.
Haven’t seen anything from ol Mikee in a long time – thought he’d either given up on his campaign to legalize REAL paedophilia and REAL rape of actual children, a long time ago; or that he might even have been caught and sent somewhere that doesn’t allow Internet access for any of their residents (inmates).
Not sure that Mikee would even understand what a word like ‘ironic’ means – from what I remember of his comments at The Spearhead, before Welmer was able to completely ban him, his literary skills were about the same as those of his ideal mates (6 and 7 year olds).
He probably believes that if he mimics a child in every other detail i.e. academically and intellectually, his argument for legalizing child molestation and his sick perverted sexuality, might be more convincing…
I’m not completely without sympathy with Mikee (psychopathic trolling aside), and I don’t want to fall into the all too human tactic of ‘he’s below us, so (please mob) feed him to the dogs not us’.
Yes there is an important and crucial distinction between pubescent sexual females and pre-pubescent children, and no doubt Mikee is a pervert and a real paedophile who needs help (and probably can’t get it due to today’s society).
Unfortunately, his sexual desires and need for sexual love from 6 year old girls will unlikely ever be consistant with morality or even his own psychology (or theirs). However, it’s scarcely more perverted than a lot of things considered ‘normal’ in today’s society (at least the attraction itself), and real paedophilia is just the normal male attraction to youth gone awry in a psycho-sexual sense.
I’m not accusing him of being an active paedophile, and he should be free to put forward his case, however unpleasant it appears, without fear of persecution.
Only not at this blog, given that his real pervsion is exactly what has been exploited by feminists in order to criminalize normal male sexuality and inflate the definition of paeodphilia to encompass it, and his agenda simply clouds the issue.
Especially when in the past, he has insisted on using language such as ‘controlling little girls’ and being their ‘master’ etc. (which leads me to suspect he might even be a feminist troll). It also leads me to lose any sympathy with him. There are many real paedophiles I suspect whose brain structure is very similar to that of a real child (michael jackson, who liked boys just below puberty, was probably an example). Persecuting such people as devils seems as much sense to me and almost as evil as buring children for having sex with each other.
If you are real Mikee, please understand that your only chance is if the sexual trade union and its paedohysteria can be challenged in some way by activism, and that at in a couple of decades your sexuality might be expressed in a legal, non-harmful manner, and you will be allowed complete contentment with your pre-teen sex bots or ultra-realistic home printed sex dolls.
Your constant trolling does not help your cause or ours. Please have the intelligence to respect that and use your time more constructively.
EDIT : given that MikeeUSA actually seems to believe in marrying these little girls, and given that he refers to historical evidence that having sex with 6 year old girls was accepted within marriage, his views are actually a lot closer to the Socon American fathers’ rights movement than ours are here (a few MRAs have actually made the argument that, yes, it used to be o.k. for men to have sex with 13 and 14 year old girls, but that was because they married them). They should really have no problem with Mikee having sex with little girls, as long as he marries them first.
Alan & Antifeminist:
I had a suspicion it was Mikee too. Besides paedophilia, he also has this strange obsession with beheading people who oppose him. He threatened to call an Islamic death squad on Rookh when he was trolling at Anglobitch. LOL
I have a feeling that he wouldn’t survive very long under Sharia Law himself, though. LOL
“Now please go away. It’s obvious to me now that you’re MikeeUSA. Why the hell do you pick out my site to troll the most incessantly when I’m one of the only men’s rights sites to actually question paedohysteria (and nearly all the others, like AVfM, actually support it, and even want to promote and profit from our own men’s rights version of the child abuse industry)?”
The other guys are not worth talking to, you are. They don’t care at all and root on the side of the feminists. Why even bother with them. A voice for men is a voice for _men_, not all males. Men are defined as the respectable top contenders and the males that play a supporting role. Males that don’t help women nor support anything are not considered Men in the english language. Men are often the worst enemy of the rest of the males. Men put males in prison, and in the past executed them en masse. It was like a behive.
Why use a real isp when you don’t have to? I argue for males to be-able to have young girls in all my works and code projects.
@theantifeminist
When this commentator makes remarks like that I can understand why you also think he might in fact be a feminist troll.
The use of that word ‘male’ alone, is enough to almost totally convince me…
I am also not without sympathy for him, IF he is a genuine paedophile, especially if he is only a paedophile by default: I.e. I know one back in the town where I grew up and as far as I know, he still resides there (when he’s not in prison).
This unfortunate individual aged about 2 years older than me, now in his mid 50’s has the mental and emotional maturity and intellectual development (equivalent IQ) of a child around 10 years old. I don’t think he’s actually a Down’s Syndrome victim, but one could be forgiven for believing he
Through his eyes, under 12 y/o girls – children, are realistic partners – he thinks and responds to cues the same way they do – his behaviour mimics their’s very well.
He IS a child (same age peer) just like them as far as he is concerned, thus he is not taking advantage of them and he is hardly a ‘predator’, yet he has been sent to prison at least twice that I know of, for some kind of statutory rape or sexual assault of a minor or similar charges…
I think in the second instance, his solicitor tried to argue that (diminished responsibility) and he was told when it comes to sexual assault or exploitation of children, it could not be used as mitigation.
Needless to say, the paedohysterical community in which he lives (but doesn’t belong to), don’t see things the way I do and would all love to see him burnt to death, just the same as all other paedophiles (i.e. those who like looking at pictures of 17 year old children) should be…
@Alan
Not sure I understand you there. I think if you read that entire comment of MikeeUSA’s again, he’s arguing that sites like AVoiceforMen are only standing up for men who support women (i.e. a socon father’s rights site). Something I think we can agree with Mikee on here and have often stated ourselves in the past.
Exactly Alan. One tactic (and it’s very tempting) is to try to deflect all the hate for normal male sexuality that feminist have managed to direct on to, back at the real, original target (real paedophiles).
That leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Seems to me that, despite the fact that paedophiles ARE clinical perverts, and the attraction to teenage girls is perfectly normal and natural, it’s a little too like what the granny muggers do with the ‘nonces’ in prison (or father’s rights activists have done over the last 20 years as described in my recent article).
It’s also very dangerous I think to seek to maintain the flames of paedohysteria (or savage penal retriubtion in general) when it’s going to be a hard task to end the brainwashing of society that feminists have so expertly undertaken with regard conflating normal male sexuality with paedophilia.
That’s also, by the way, why I disagree strongly with Jack and Human-Stupidity on the issue of the death penalty.
I say it could be the work of a troll simply because feminist’s inherent hate of the word ‘man’ or ‘men’. They much prefer, in fact they may even be compelled to use ‘male’.
Whenever I see that word used where ‘man’ or ‘men’ or even ‘guy’ (especially if MikeeUSA is an American) would be a better fitting noun, it is invariably written by someone who at least observes PC English and that generally means someone with ‘feminist leanings’, or at least a young person who has more likely than someone older, been educated by the feminist system. In the same way you noticed his (or her) use of phrases like ‘controlling’ little girls and being their ‘master’, I become just as wary whenever I see the term ‘male’.
Oh… Yes of course, I do totally agree with his comment on AVfM, whether he’s a feminist troll or not.
This thing about child-wives reminds me of Ramzpaul’s video on Youtube about the prophet video that caused such a stir. Ramzpaul video was in reaction to no less a person than Obama himself having flagged the infamous prophet video.
Says Ramzpaul: “I don’t think the Prophet was a peado because we have only his 7-year-old wife word for it, and who’s to put faith in the testimony of a 7-year-old girl?”
Alan:
When Mikee was trolling at the Anglobitch blog, Rookh was also of the opinion that he was a feminist troll.
6/3/2011: “The context indicates that the ‘man’ might well be a feminist troll…I guess that state can lead to erratic behaviors of all kinds: rape, child abuse, murder, and suicide…I sincerely hope that you are not in such a condition, and if you are, extricate yourself from it as soon as possible.”
Rookh’s follow-up comment dealt with the AOC, which is of interest to relate:
6/4/2011: “Indeed the feminist hysteria against men who have relationships with younger women (not necessarily illegal ones either) relates to their past-prime terror of sexual abandonment to prostitutes, homosexuality, or still younger women…However pursuing relationships with ‘under-aged’ partners in our culture is not very sensible; simply because men who pursue relationships with ‘under-aged’ girls tend to be imprisoned and badly treated…Maybe the solution is to move to a country where such relationships are seen as acceptable.”
one comment of mine has been awaiting moderation for almost a week. Anything offensive in it?
Is that the one where you graciously stated that you ‘wouldn’t argue with me’ if I considered relaxing ‘the quite reasonable’ feminist laws on the age of consent, thereby making me look like an extremist and you the voice of moderation on this subject?
The day after I’d announced an age of the consent month in support of you after you clumsily spammed your way into a confrontation with Paul Elam over the age of consent?
And the very morning I woke up to a message from immature Dad’s rights activist Ray accusing myself (and even Angry Harry) of wishing to abolish the age of consent (because I moderated one of his comments)?
Oh yea, that’s the one.
You can make all the disclaimers you want on your own website when you typically backtrack after starting something you can’t finish – just don’t do it on my site please.
Antifeminist:
Besides the physical aspect to (genuine) paedophilia, I’ve pointed out to Mikee before that the psychological factors are important. All major child psychologists (Freud, Montessori, Piaget, Koffka, &c) are agreed that abstract reasoning does NOT develop in children until the reach the age of puberty—another reason why puberty is clinically adulthood.
Once a girl reaches puberty, she’s going to change psychologically as well as physically, because now she can reason and make choices. Choosing prepubescent girls as lovers on the grounds that they are immune from feminist corruption is an illusion.
@Eric
Rookh also confirms theantifeminist’s sexual trade unionism as the primary motive of feminism, when he said this to Mikee:
I don’t think Mikee (unless he is indeed a feminist troll) would have understood any of it except, maybe his suggestion to perhaps migrate to a country where relationships with pre-pubescent children are an accepted part of their culture. However, as Eivind Berge would quickly point out: the feminist police state is omnipresent, thus if Mikee tried that he would be deported back to the USA and arrested, tried and punished with the same laws governing sexual liaisons with minors used in his home state…
@Ano
let the adulteress woman off scott free while condemining men who merely looked at women.
Matthew 5:28
Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her – ?????????? ?????, earnestly to covet her
I think that’s the clarification that this “lust” is willful not involuntary. Sin after all begins in the mind.
“let the adulteress woman off scott free”
John 8:11
Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
Nah Ano what you expressed are merely misconceptions but I do agree that western christianity in its current form is misandric.
Sorry for derailing the thread.
@ano,
Well I suggest that you’re not either: a man or a ‘Male’, according to your own politically corrected English language. You’re not even the paedophile you pretend to be.
No, your comments are more like the work of a typical feminist troll.
Go away, you’re not helping anyone or anything with your mindless drivel…
I actually agree with much of what Ano says, but his philosophy entirely overlooks the fact that adolescent boys in America are allowed to enjoy the fruits of adolescent girls, even under the God of the New Testament.
As long as they are only a few years apart, even in good old feminist New Testament America, teen boys can enjoy intercourse with girls under 16, even if they aren’t married! That’s good old apple pie America for you, and most people, even the supporters of pedophilia, entirely overlook this fact.
Modern America seems to be designed not only to benefit the Old Feminist Whores, but also virile, popular teenage boys. Men/males over the age of 20 need not apply to the party. A lot of people arguing this topic seem to overlook the teen boy angle. Adolescent boys are as great a threat to adult males in America as are the feminist whores.
That is what we are dealing with.
Good point Jhonny. That’s why I’ve always critical of the “men and bois” angle. It’s grown men who are having a hard time, not boys (even if the latter are not having it quite so good as girls of the same age). Youthism is rampant in society and its evils compound those of feminism.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/updates/female-sexual-predators-dean-on-huffpo-live/
And here’s creepy typhonblue on the age of consent, replying to a commentator (not me) on YouTube :
https://theantifeminist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/typhon-blue-aofc.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg7EVy7Mi60&lc=oP0qM5Pae6Cy6mua2KywA-R_ETZens1EHZHhEBe9gZI&feature=plcp-c
I read the links on Dean Esmay’s article. According to one of them, ‘children under 17’ are being targeted. Another of his examples of female ‘paedophilia’ involved a woman having sex with a 16 y/o.
It looks like AVfM wants gender equity in paedohysteria.
And more PayPal donations…
@theantifeminist
What is really funny about those religious men and women seeking to raise the age of consent is they ignore their very own bible.
Even in the “good book” the minimum age of marriage is straight after puberty.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/marriage_age.htm
And that the ‘virgin’ Mary was 13 when God raped her…I mean induced the miraculous conception in her.
Those sexual puritans especially the religious ones ignore or are ignorant of the fact that in ancient jewish culture up to the time of the new testament is that the minimum age of marriage is straight after puberty:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/marriage_age.htm
Whoops double post.
O.K – I unapproved the second one. Problem is that the spam filter will probably put your next comment into the moderation queue.
At least we have almost 120 comments for this article so far – must be a new record!
Antifeminist:
120 comments:
I just glanced over the Spearhead. Here’s the number of comments for the last 10 posts: 24, 24, 10, 36, 57, 17, 18, 67, 14 & 83. They used to get 120 comments without even trying.
I bring this up to point out the difference between holding the line on principle and going mainstream. AVfM and the Spearhead are going to swell the readership on sites like these! That’s why I don’t think anybody else is going to get the Jay Hammers treatment. These guys don’t have the clout to do it anymore.
And it certainly isn’t going to help them to have Typhoon Blue making arguments about men traumatized by female sex predators, or some whiny mangina on the Huffington Post. I remember when I was 15, having sex with an older woman would have been something I BRAGGED about; and the same is true for most normal guys that age. If any guy back then went went around howling about being ‘sexually traumatized’ by something like that, we’d have thrown tomatoes at him.
Reading Esmay’s article and seeing the ‘mens’ rights movement’ slowly become a mirror version of the feminist child abuse industry tempts me into abandoning any association with the MRM.
Then I remember that Ernest Belfort Bax – a champion of free love who objected to and mocked the feminist raising of the age of consent – was the first men’s rights activist. Then I think back to classic authors such as David Thomas, Warren Farrell, and more recently, Steve Moxon.
And so long as Angry Harry links to this site, the American father’s rights socon movement and their femiservative supporters can scream for the age of consent to be raised to 30 for all I care. I can still call myself a men’s rights supporter, and not only that, one of the true heirs to Ernest Belfort Bax.
But you know, the depressing thought has just occured to me.
The commentators at AVfM are cheering that Dean Esmay being invited on to the feminist Huffington Post to talk about female sex predators represents a ‘breakthrough’.
And they’re quite right.
This is probably the biggest ‘breakthrough’ and possible ‘influence’ that the men’s rights movement has achieved, and probably will ever achieve.
So on this day, December 1st 2012, we can truly say, that our greatest achievement has just been made. The American ‘men’s rights movement’ looks set now to successfully spread the feminist child abuse hysteria/industry meme across the world, and to encompass and process thousands or even millions of new ‘victims’ (boys), including even 17 year old ‘children’. As Tamwil says at the Voice for Men – ‘they will be destroyed for life’.
Unfortunately, a single author blog like this can’t really ever hope to compete with a site like AVfM.
Imagine such a site with the likes of Eivind, Human-Stupidity…even Steve Moxon perhaps, writing for it?
I know my articles would be of a much higher quality if I had a week to write just one and knew it would have a large readership.
The trouble with such a ‘no holds barred’ large site would be who would take the whack if one of the authors said something contorversial or even illegal?
We have to remember that with a site like AVfM, the buck stops with Paul Elam. Likewise The-Spearhead. That includes the comments sections, never mind the articles.
LOL…
That’s for sure. When I was that age and in HS my peers used to make up stories about having sex with the hottest teachers, or even the not so hot ones, just to win approval or acceptance by certain groups of boys.
Similar to taking up smoking – to look grown-up or to win acceptance. I don’t think any of the boys who told us of those encounters were actually telling the truth, but they sure gave the rest of us plenty to think about (masturbation fodder), if nothing else!
By contrast, the same-age girls didn’t seem to talk much about their liaisons with men teachers, probably because unlike us boys, their stories would probably have been believed, because they in all likelihood, would have been telling the truth…
Alan:
I don’t doubt this is how most of these so-called female predators get caught in the first place. The guys are strutting around like peacocks bragging about their conquests, and some jealous femihag finds out. I doubt if the guys ever file actual complaints.
Girls, of course, will invent false accusations which are automatically believed…
Antifeminist:
On a more positive note, we’ve been discussing lately on Fidelbogen’s blog the fact that the MRM is in retrograde here while around the world men are making positive gains. Fidelbogen believes that many non-Americans are beginning to equate feminism (including its Socon variant) with US cultural imperialism. I’ve heard many Latin American women say that feminists are trying to be like American women and that the real women stick to their own culture.
@theantifeminist
Well maybe part of the solution can be found in there…
I.e. do we really NEED to associate with what I call the mRM? (‘m’ = manginas).
OK, you and all regular commentators on your blog are ANTIFEMINIST, but I am quite comfortable with not identifying with a movement that has now confirmed without ANY DOUBT whatsoever, that promotes and endorses feminist hatred…
Steve Moxon, Chris Brand and all the courageous journalists at Spiked-Online (to name a few that are more ‘our kind’) don’t associate with, or even identify in any way, the so-called ‘Men’s Rights Movement’ when discussing these sorts of issues either, thus why do WE need to??
Because it would be a betrayal of Ernest Belfort Bax, David Thomas, Angry Harry etc. It would be like giving up, and it would also be a lie.
This is why I almost fell out with Human-Stupidity when he insisted on us calling ourselves the ‘radical men’s rights movement’ putting us on a par with radfem who want to enage in genocide with the male sex. Abandoning association with the men’s rights movement would be preferable to that, but still a submission.
Steve Moxon might dislike the victim culture connotations of ‘men’s rights’ but he’s clearly as much a defender of men and the all too real victimisation of men by feminists as any MRA is and more than any mRA.
Questioning feminist laws that criminalize and define millions of normal men as subhumans is mainstream men’s rights, whatever anyone else says, and however much good work they are doing in other areas of men’s rights.
@theantifeminist
Yes I agree, especially your last sentence, but I find Human-Stupidity’s suggestion offensive. We’re not radical at all. We resist and would love to remove something from our culture that is more than radical. How can it be ‘radical’ to want to be allowed to live a NORMAL life and not be demonized and criminalized (raped by loony radicals) for it?!
There are so many based posts here, the 2026 internet might break.