Tuesday, September 11, 2018

The female sex offender charade once again

I want to write another post about the injustice that bothers me most in the world. Others are equally harmful to the innocent victims, but this one is offensive on a record number of levels. It combines the gratuitous harm of miscarriage of justice with affronts to every kind of reason and emotion that I can muster. Its supporters have exactly zero good arguments, and worse, all evaluation of the subject leads to the diametric opposite of punishment as an appropriate reaction. There is no harm and a lot of good in women having sex with young boys. Of course, they might catch an STD and be stuck with responsibility to provide for children, but that has nothing to do with the entirely spurious sort of psychological harm which is used to justify the current prosecutions.

What I call the female sex offender charade is a byproduct of 20th-century feminism. There was never any prior motivation in history to "protect" boys from female sexuality, because boys obviously don't need any such protection. There was at most overlap with religious morality-based crimes, as some of the women who for example would get the scarlet letter treatment in Puritanical times are called sexual abusers today, but the Puritans did not go full retard and pretend that boys are harmed by female sexuality. That is where we are now, which demands both an explanation and therapy for dealing with this horrible situation (if you are a reasonable, empathetic person).

It has always been recognized that male sexuality has the potential to abuse, and we male sexualists don't dispute that either. The sex laws arose out of a desire to protect both sexes from the excesses of male sexuality, a need which has some core validity even though it has gone way too far now. At the same time, feminism came with the baggage that the sexes are "equal," and voila, women get prosecuted for the "same" sex crimes. The creation of gender-neutral sex laws crept in without any attempt at justification as far as I can tell. It simply came to be taken for granted by the police and justice system and accusers that women can commit the same sex crimes as men and deserve the same punishment, and astonishingly, this radical new idea was accepted on pure superstition and without debate, all in the span of a few decades.

It is easy to show that it is logically impossible for women to sexually abuse males. This is obvious on every level from parental investment theory to the phenomenology of sex. Since sex is best understood as a female resource and the transfer of value from women to men, women cannot "sexually abuse" boys by giving them sex any more than you can steal from someone by handing them money. To be sure, you can commit some other violation by imposing an axiomatically valuable thing if it is unwanted, such as simple assault, but it is logically absurd to claim that the transfer of the thing itself is exploitative by virtue of being what it is. Any prosecution must stop at whatever crime it would be if you ignore the sexual aspect.

Women's violence can incidentally be sexualized, but sex itself can never aggravate its seriousness or be worthy of criminalization just because it is sex. Let us examine which conditions would need to be true in order for the proposition that "women can sexually exploit boys" to hold up to scrutiny:

We would have to assume that boys have something women want, just like girls have something men want. This currency would have to be not just valuable to the occasional outlier, but universally and intuitively understood just like we understand that men want to fuck girls. Boys would reliably need to be able to convert this asset to other currency just like girls can offer up sex and tempt the average man into giving her something else. And other boys would need to be able relate to the fact that it is by default a burden to give up sex just like girls do. It would have to be intuitive to us that the boy has given up something valuable and lost something that we, too, would not have wanted to lose.

I don't have to tell you that these assumptions are patently false. The market value of male sexuality to women is zero, for boys even lower, and the gut reaction to thus "abused" boys is envy. Yet the imbecile feminists and their brainwashees persist in their false belief that women can sexually abuse boys.

Before we should even begin to consider whether it is worth taking seriously, it should be based on some sort of intelligible theory. Yet there is absolutely none, just a blind denial of sex differences. If you wanted to be taken seriously, you would at least come up with an alternative theory for why it is bad for boys to have sex when they don't feel bad about it, in fact feel good and their peers and adult men envy them too. The feminists don't even attempt to explain this, which means they are so full of shit that they can be dismissed out of hand.

Granted, a lot of so-called sexual abuse of girls is also bullshit, and girls can also feel good about it. In those cases there is also no abuse. But at least we understand that a girl can in principle be taken advantage of, because girls obviously have something men want that they most often don't want to give. And even when they do want to give it, we understand that the girl has given up something valuable and lowered her sexual market value ever so slightly by doing so -- while the diametrically opposite is true for boys.

The rise of the "teacher" rationale for punishing sexuality is particularly baffling in its ability to brainwash otherwise intelligent people (Joe Rogan is a victim, for example). It is logically impossible for a positive value to turn negative because of the status of the person giving it. Just like a female teacher giving a boy money can't make him poorer, giving him sex cannot make him sexually exploited, because the sex is still axiomatically a good thing. And the status of teacher is evolutionarily novel anyway, not something with the evolved ability to confer abuse even to girls. Imagine the equivalent of a teacher in our ancestral environment, and it's obvious that they would be just another potential sex partner. The notion that this status equals sexual abuse is the height of modern absurdity, and when applied to boys it is surreal that anybody can be so stupid.

Perhaps the most damning rejection of the idea that women can sexually abuse, which should be understandable to fans of Jordan Peterson, by the way -- and I am sure he would back me on this -- is that there is no archetype for it. There is no archetype for a female rapist or sexual abuser. The closest you come is a succubus, but those are not understood to be scary because of sex itself, only because of deformities and other grossness. Female sexuality is forever and ever incapable of constituting abuse by virtue of being sex itself, and this truth needs to be reasserted in these dark feminist times.

The irony of feminism being responsible for this madness couldn't be starker, because this is the true misogyny of our times. I can't think of anything more misogynistic than pretending women deserve to go to prison for harmless sexuality. Astonishingly, this happens even when women are treated like dirt to begin with:


This poor woman gives sex to ungrateful bastards who call her derogatory names, blackmail her into more sex by saying they will cry rape if she refuses (which feminism has enabled), and then society manages to call her an abuser on top of that. It is so mind-bogglingly wrong on every level to criminalize women for this that I lack words to do it justice, but here was another feeble attempt. It won't be the last either, because this profoundly bothers me.

No comments: