Five analogies to show the absurdity of holding women culpable for sex crimes

There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals. In the same way that you wouldn't draft a 100-year-old man to go to war, a fair and rational society would not hold women culpable for sex crimes because it makes no biological or social sense. Doing so anyway is what I call the female sex offender charade. This bizarre charade last week brutally claimed another victim when 28-year-old Brittany Zamora was sentenced to 20 years in prison for being nice to a teenage boy. It is a surreal, hopeless situation -- what it must have felt like to more rational people when witch trials were going on, except worse because now we single out not just victims at random, but the nicest women for our time's worst travesties of justice!

The female sex offender charade is a litmus test for whether humans can be even a little bit rational about sexuality, given careful explanation, which is why I focus more on this than sexual rights for men, which we can forget about as long as people gladly oppress women so senselessly. As male sexualists we know from experience that we are up against dimwits so dense that there is probably no hope, but these analogies will at least arm you with the best chances of finding out if there is a little bit of human decency inside the person you are debating.

I find the gambling analogy most useful for rebutting the sort of delusion which compels simpleminded fools to accept that women can sexually exploit boys because they "can't consent." This analogy is so powerful that we can even grant them that children can't consent!

I agree that children shouldn't be allowed to gamble. A casino which allowed children to play would indeed be exploiting them. Casinos also exploit adults, to be sure, but let's grant adults the freedom to gamble their money away if they want to accept the terrible odds at casinos.

But now imagine there was a casino which was rigged in such a way that you could only win. At this imaginary casino, everyone ends up with more money than they had when they came in. If such a place existed, could you say with a straight face that it exploits children? Would you be afraid to let your sons go there? Of course not! Just explain to them that most casinos aren't like that, and they would be fine or better than fine.

In our eagerness to prevent child exploitation, society forgot to ask if the thing was worth preventing or could be exploited, which male sexuality vis-à-vis women cannot be even in principle. If you are male and have sex with a woman, then you have already won and become the envy of your peers regardless of your age. Sexual relations between women and young boys is no more (actually a lot less) fraught with exploitation than the two of them playing a game of checkers, so calling it exploitation is just as insane. Just like we cannot call it financial exploitation when the boy receives a monetary gift, we cannot call it sexual exploitation when the boy gets to have sex with a woman.

Cases like Brittany Zamora's where the males are willing participants are 100% clear-cut. There is no sexual exploitation or abuse whatsoever, and the boys are only lucky. But let us now address what happens when the male is unwilling, literally forced, and perhaps even a victim of some real violence. In those cases the violence itself might reasonably constitute a crime, for example simple assault, but it can't be aggravated by the sexual aspect because female sexuality is to male sexuality like real money is to Monopoly money. A male who accuses a woman under the current sex laws is as if someone had their Monopoly game stolen and then went to the police and insurance company to report the loss of real money, demanding the face value of all the notes to be redressed. The only "sexual abuse" or rape here is of the intellect, and feminists have been very successful at raping the justice system to this effect, but the minds of us male sexualists shall be unassailable!

For many years I resorted to the reverse robbery analogy when explaining why women can't rape men, and I still think it works pretty well. Women "raping" men is like someone forcibly stuffing your pockets with valuables. But now I have an even better analogy to explain why women can't rape men: the theft-of-air analogy. If someone breaks into your house and fills a container with air, you can reasonably accuse them of breaking and entering, but the air theft is nonsense, because no one recognizes that you have lost anything meaningful by having air stolen from your property. Male sexuality is like that on the heterosexual market. It is worth something in an absolute sense -- actually, it is essential -- but there is so much of it to go around that any man who claims injury by having it stolen is subject to ridicule rather than sympathy. So just like a burglary isn't aggravated by the theft of air, female violence is never aggravated by sexual violation. That doesn't mean women are free to assault men, of course, any more than people are free to break into your house to steal air, or to hold you up at gunpoint to stuff money into your pockets, but we need to leave the "rape" nonsense out of the prosecution of the crime.

Miscategorizing these crimes as sex crimes does a disservice to the victims as well as the wrongly accused women who have done nothing worthy of the inflated punishment for sex crimes. And it turns the entire justice system into a freak show, which of course is the reason why these stories make the international news. Feminists will claim that they depict justice, but deep down we all know it is a charade. You the reader know my analogies make sense, even if you cling to the lie that the emperor is clothed in the wonderful new garb of gender equality because that's the nonsense society currently expects you to parrot and you are too weak to stand up for the truth.

So to sum up my top five analogies against the female sex offender charade (in no particular order, but I feel #2 packs the most punch):

1. Holding women culpable for sex crimes is like drafting frail old men into the military, too sarcopenic to hold a rifle and unable to see where they are aiming. This is the sort of situation I see when a woman is put on trial for a sex crime, and I consider everyone involved a bad person except the harmless woman herself.

2. Women "sexually exploiting" boys is like a lottery with only winners, exposing you as idiots for wanting to "protect" your boys from such a windfall.

3. Female sexuality is to male sexuality like real money is to Monopoly money. This is an inescapable result of the fact that sex is a female resource, which evolutionarily follows from the different minimal parental investments of the sexes. The reality of the sexual market is such that we simply cannot pretend there is equal value stolen even when the sex is forced. Male heterosexuality isn't worth more than the paper it is written on, so to speak (i.e., the physical substrate is worth protecting from violence, but there can be no added symbolic violation because sex was taken).

4. Women "raping" men is a reverse robbery, where you are forced to accept assets. I respect your right to refuse, but you don't get to pervert the meaning of those assets. The fact that they are assets remains true just like money retains its value even if it is unwanted.

5. Or at worst, female sexual coercion is like the theft of something practically free like air or garbage. The legal reaction needs to be brought into line with reality, which indeed it was for most of history until these insane feminist times. Male sexualism is here to correct that again.