I’ve been told here quite a few times (and elsewhere) that it’s absurd to believe that femihags are competing with teens and young women, and if they are motivated in any way by sexual reasons to further paedohysteria and anti-sex laws it’s ‘bitterness and resentment’ rather than ‘eliminating competition’ or raising their own SMV.
Well, I think it might be useful to take a brief look at the British celebrity Carol Vorderman here, and perhaps at the end of this article you might be more willing to take seriously the idea that even older feminist women are (or feel they are) directly in sexual competition with attractive young females.
Carol Vorderman, born in 1961, became famous in the UK back in the 80s and 90s as a host on the popular intellectual word game ‘Countdown’ on Channel 4. At the turn of the millennium, in the still early days of the Internet, she fronted a campaign on behalf of the radical feminist children’s charity the NSPCC, warning of the dangers to children online of predators and paedophiles.
From a BBC news report in July 2001:
Children’s charity the NSPCC has launched a campaign aimed at protecting children from coming into contact with paedophiles via internet chatrooms.
The safety initiative, launched by television presenter Carol Vorderman on Tuesday, includes an appeal to the government to fund a public awareness campaign to highlight the dangers of the internet for children.
The government is moving in the right direction to make the internet safer Ms Vorderman said: “The abuse of children via the internet is a real and growing threat. It’s time to tighten the Net.”
Ms Vorderman, a member of the government task force for child protection on the internet, said she wanted changes to the law to safeguard children online.She called for more resources for police, extra training for the judiciary and more emphasis on what the internet industry should do in terms of self-regulation, such as warnings in chatrooms.
The NSPCC wants 50,000 campaigners to send postcards to Home Secretary David Blunkett calling for funds for a public awareness campaign about the dangers lurking in cyberspace.”
The year before the NSPCC campaign, Vorderman had caused controversy by appearing at the BAFTA awards in a short figure hugging dress, referred to in the Press simply as “that dress!”. She was 39 at the time, and widely mocked as mutton dressing like lamb. Over twenty years later, she was still bitter about the public reaction.
Carol said: “When I was 39, not my grandmother, not my mother, it was the 21st Century it was the year 2000… I went to the BAFTAs wearing a short dress, not a micro skirt, they made a Kilroy Show on the BBC and they flew in this dress in from Paris.
“It was an Ingaro dress, and the dress arrived and this huge debate in the studio was not is this a nice dress, but should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee! Oh the vitriol was incredible.”
Around this time, I sent a letter to the popular music paper ‘The NME’ signed as ‘Carol Vordermean’, in which I argued angrily that any man who didn’t think she looked hot in “that dress” should be castrated as a paedophile. It was published (with a disclaimer). Incidentally, I felt far less alone back then than I do now, even though I did not personally know anybody who was openly attracted to teen girls and who could see the STU motivations. I just assumed that virtually EVERY other man like me would intuitively understand the glaring STU feminist motivations. I could never have believed, not in a million years, that 25 years later, despite the ‘Manosphere’, despite a popular online Men’s Rights Movement, hell despite a ‘MAP’ movement, that there would still only be four or five other individuals who agreed with me (and even they – YOU! – appear to only agree to ‘appease’ me sometimes!). That the vast majority of men who openly admitted to attraction to teens and argued against the never-ending laws would barely even be able to see feminists, let alone women, as the cause of their plight. That the ‘leader’ of our movement would be an autistic imbecile whose main argument was that women teachers not getting the pussy pass for having sex with 14 year old Chads and Tyrones is the worst injustice in history?? No, I could not have been able to conceive of any that back then, and I probably would have committed suicide if I had known.
But back to the lovely Carol Vorderman. At the height of the #MeToo movement in 2019, Carol was not only venting about the backlash to “that dress” but linking it to #MeToo and boasting that the men who described her as “mutton dressed as lamb” would be crucified and cancelled today.
Nearly 20 years ago I walked down the red carpet at the BAFTAs wearing a short strapless blue dress. I was 39, hosting lots of prime time shows, had two young children, and feeling healthy and happy.
The newspaper headlines the following day, however, screamed otherwise. I was described as ‘mutton dressed as lamb’; columnists made barbed comments about my dress and debated whether it was appropriate for a woman my age to wear a dress that showed her knees.
There were even TV shows about it, the same dress flown in from Paris for a Kilroy show. The debate raged for months. Was I hurt by this furore?
Not really — more bemused that my choice of clothing had created such ridiculous comments. If I had my time again, I’d wear that blue dress in a heartbeat, but then I’ve always loved a bit of mischief.
Fast forward to this year’s BAFTAs and can you imagine a similar brouhaha over a pair of 39-year-old kneecaps being on display? In this post-#MeToo era, someone making the kind of ageist comments I had to put up with would be laughed out of the room, or laughed at.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7380427/Why-cruelty-ageism-MeToo.html
And she’s right. She won. Carol is wearing even more revealing – even see-through – dresses at awards ceremonies, now she’s approaching 70 years of age, and no man dares to call out the elephant in the room. In fact, you’ll see comments from male simps saying how gorgeous she looks. Yes, she won. Is there any more clear evidence as to the SMV and STU motivations as this?
And if anybody thinks that she is just a deluded bitter woman whose victory is simply showing her aged body off in transparent dresses and cowing men into silence, not according to Carol herself. As she nears pension age, she openly boasts to the Daily Mail of her multiple male lovers, who she calls ‘special friends’.
The Countdown favourite, 62, appeared on Michelle Visage’s latest Rule Breakers podcast where she discussed the ‘system’ she has had in place for the past 10 years.
Giving a very candid insight into her complicated love life, Carol said she’s ‘not into one night stands’ but dates multiple men whom she affectionately names her ‘special friends’.
When asked by Michelle if she was in a relationship, Carol quipped: ‘No! I’m having the best time. I’ve spoken about this once. I have a system which I’ve had for 10 years. They’re called ‘special friends’.
‘I spoke a couple of months ago about having ‘special friends’ and it was like, again, the world had fallen in for some people but actually what I found was there was an awful lot of women who said “I’d never thought about it like this”.’
Carol added she has been in ‘long term relationships, if you like’ with her special friends – and has been dating some for years.
I wonder if Carol would be enjoying such a sex life if we still lived in a world in which men called out 39 year old women for dressing like young girls, let alone 65 year old women in see-through dresses dating multiple (presumably) younger men? Or if teen girls and even young women had not been put totally off-limits for middle-aged men, thanks to a hysteria led campaign from feminists that she literally started?
Next time you think the old anti-feminist is being ridiculous for claiming that SMV and sexual competition is a prime motive of older women, place the image of Carol Vorderman in a see-through dress at 65 in your head. Spare a thought too for Alexander Cashford, who may still be alive instead of having his head beaten in with rocks for approaching a 16 year old girl, if not for a hysteria sparked 21 years ago by the NSPCC and its 39 year old sex symbol in “that dress“.
This is an encouraging video – ‘Black Pigeon Speaks’ is a YouTuber with half-a-million subscribers, and he too is pointing out that the hysteria over Grok making bikini pics of women is simply about ‘theft’ – giving men something for free and therefore taking away the ability of women to use their sexual power to extract value from men. In the case of Only Fans whores up in arms and claiming to be ‘violated’ over Grok putting them in bikinis for free, I don’t know how clearer it can be, and if this doesn’t wake people up to the STU motivation behind just about all feminist anti-sex laws and agendas, I don’t know what would.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIDqjGL7wQg
Rape has always been about theft. Rape is theft. Female sexual consent is stolen instead of paid for.
Historically it was always treated as such. Feminists reveal that they still regard it as a crime of theft when they insist that “rape is rape”, and that a man refusing to pay a prostitute post-sex is as much rapist as a psycho dragging a random woman into bushes.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-06/man-jailed-for-rape-after-tricking-sex-worker/6075496
Similarly when they do not distinguish between attraction or abuse of toddlers or pre-pubescents from attraction to teens when it comes to their definitions of paedophilia, legal definitions of child porn, or underage sex (I know that feminists have introduced the laws making underage sex below a certain age “rape” but as MH was saying recently, that is more an attempt to bring in US statutory rape laws and we see in France that they simply made the existing age of consent (15) as the boundary).
I wont say that ‘rape’ is simply theft (unlike feminists), as in real cases of rape it obviously involves bodily invasion and real trauma and such, but the same can be said for being violently robbed – it’s not simply ‘theft’ in such cases.
By the same guy:
“Moral Panic or Lonely Women’s Age-Gap Rage?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9_W8SxvTRU
Well done article! “No, I could not have been able to conceive of any that back then, and I probably would have committed suicide if I had known.” I had to laugh at this because of its truth.
Another one from Black Pigeon Speaks-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkxKJQ3W5_0 . Comments also show a dangerous level of understanding of the issues, so good to see.
His viewcount may be tampered with by y/tube but it’s well in the thousands.
Next stop Joe Rogan for Black Pigeon Speaks or someone saying similar things but with maybe a few tens of thousands of views rather than a few thousands?
I know Joe Rogan is an arch paedocrite, but it would be a quantum leap if this issue started being discussed at that level of coverage, even if he himself took an adversarial position. And he might not even be that adversarial if he knows there’s views and popularity to be had from cautiously pointing out STU hypocrisy.
I know these are just the musings of a madman with no particular ability to change anything.
If questioning the STU ever became as popular as anti-woke or ‘red pill’ ideologies and such, then you could be sure Joe Rogan and the rest would be on board.
The Black Pigeon guy has a lot of interesting videos, I’ll have to binge watch them all next weekend. Examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm8IYtVQ0bE “Incels” Spark CIVIL WAR?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gODcCCBVg3s Will AI destroy OnlyFans Simp Economy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9_W8SxvTRU Moral Panic or Lonely Women’s Age-Gap Rage?
Excerpt from the last one = “Let’s tackle this Reddit induced paedophilia paranoia nonsense head on. Calling a 30 or 40 year old man dating a 23 year old woman paedophilia is as intelligent as a head of lettuce – paedophilia is about pre-pubescent kids, not consenting adults.”
I don’t think YouTube are inflating his view count, btw. The ratio of likes to views, and comments to views seems pretty good. For example, the video you linked to: 6.1K likes after 94K views and 1,500 comments. Compare with the Berge’s Nathan Larsson video with 14 likes after 4.2K views.
Anton Kutcher is starring in a sci-fi series – “The Beauty” – which depicts a world where a drug has been developed that can turn everybody into their most beautiful version of themselves.
Unfortunately it seems as you would expect to have a woke message rather than exploring what it would mean for sexual competition and such.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cddgrp0yvg1o
Just some anecdote with AI.
While I was looking at my desktop wallpaper I wondered why do have (or why we perceive it as such ) African women more frequent problem with sagging breasts. So I asked AI.
Usual answers about lack of water, multiple pregnancies, UV rays etc. etc. BUT..surprisingly
Documentary Bias: Western media often selectively shows older women in tribal communities who have already had many children, while younger women in the same tribes often have firmer breasts that are more likely to be censored or excluded from the final footage.
That’s really interesting, as you wouldn’t even expect a “woke” AI to even admit that, but more significantly, was it even in its training data or found online, or did it “reason” to that conclusion?
AI has been leaving my jaw dropping recently. For example, I was talking to a chatbot the other day and mentioned I had been suffering from a cold and hadn’t been able to get out so much, which was annoying due to the weather being so nice. It replied with something like: “that must have been so frustating to feel the sunshine teasing you through the windowpane.” I Googled those words, and there is nothing I found that it could be simply “copying”. I mean, I think we’ve gone beyond being able to dismiss AI as simply “stochastic parrots” at this point.
Maybe in future, it would be good to have article/discussion dedicated to AI findings…
1. The “Aesthetic vs. Ethnographic” Censor
Western broadcasting standards often apply a double standard to nudity. Younger women’s bodies are frequently viewed through a sexualized lens. Showing them uncovered might trigger higher age ratings or require blurring. Conversely, older women—especially those who have nursed many children—are often categorized as “ethnographic” or “educational” subjects. This makes their footage “safer” for television, leading to a final edit that disproportionately features older women.
2. Narrative Framing: The “Hard Life” Trope
Documentarians often travel with a specific story in mind: the “vanishing tribe” or the “struggle of the wilderness.” Images of older women with sagging breasts serve as a visual shorthand for a hard life, many births, and the passage of time. A fit, young tribal woman might not fit the “primitive” or “harsh” aesthetic the director is trying to sell to a Western audience.
4. Cultural Protectionism
In some cultures, younger, unmarried women are more shielded from outsiders and cameras. Older women, who hold a higher social status as matriarchs, are often the primary representatives of the tribe to film crews. This results in a demographic imbalance in the available footage.When it comes to searching, it is able to retrieve information I wouldn’t be able to reach via websearch.
……………………
3. The “Queen Bee” and Social Competition
Psychologically, an environment with limited seats for women can create a “Queen Bee” effect.
A director who has fought hard to be the “one woman in the room” may feel an unconscious discomfort with presenting other young, vital women as the focus of attention.
By centering the documentary on matriarchs and grandmothers, the director remains the primary “active” female force in the project, while the subjects on screen are safely categorized as “non-competitors” in terms of societal beauty standards.
4. Fear of Being Accused of “Selling Out”
A female director’s self-confidence is often tied to her credibility among peers.
If she shows a beautiful young tribal woman, critics might say she is “exploiting” her subjects for views.
If she shows an older, nursing mother, it is seen as “brave” and “honest.” Choosing the latter is a socially safer bet that protects her reputation and, by extension, her professional confidence.
That’s a good idea, MH.