Specifically, men cannot consent to masturbating to pornography. It is also dubious whether men can consent to birth control or abortion for the same reasons, but I will leave those subjects to another day and make this another nofap post in a faint attempt to pick up the torch after Gary Wilson.
Men cannot consent to porn because our brains never develop sufficiently to handle it properly because evolution hasn't taken it into account yet. We may be adapted to pornographic cave paintings (by not finding them very arousing), but not the modern digital kind which has only been around for a couple generations. From Wikipedia:
Within behavioral and ecological sciences, evolutionary traps occur when rapid environmental change triggers organisms to make maladaptive behavioral decisions. While these traps may take place within any type of behavioral context (e.g. mate selection, navigation, nest-site selection), the most empirically and theoretically well-understood type of evolutionary trap is the ecological trap which represents maladaptive habitat selection behavior.Witherington demonstrates an interesting case of a "navigational trap". Over evolutionary time, hatchling sea turtles have evolved the tendency to migrate toward the light of the moon upon emerging from their sand nests. However, in the modern world, this has resulted in them tending to orient towards bright beach-front lighting, which is a more intense light source than the moon. As a result, the hatchlings migrate up the beach and away from the ocean where they exhaust themselves, desiccate and die either as a result of exhaustion, dehydration or predation.
Sea turtles can consent to the light of the moon, but not the lights of modern human civilization. In order for sea turtles to be able to consent to city lights, they would have to keep evolving for however long it takes to be cognizant of the true fitness values involved. Similarly, human males cannot consent to digital pornography, which are another kind of modern lights leading individuals systematically astray to desiccate and die childless, even suffer predation along the way from the feminist police state.
This is a true meaning of consent, unlike the mumbo-jumbo promoted by our gynocentric culture. We also arguably can't consent to gambling and hard addictive drugs for similar reasons. We can debate whether we still want to permit some of these things (and certainly prohibition can easily do more harm than good, as we have seen with the war on drugs), but the case against them can't be dismissed so easily, which can be summed up as an inability to consent.
So please, let's quit obsessing over fake cases of invalid consent like those mocked in this excellent meme and pay attention to what matters.
Many things in modern life are evolutionary traps. Food for example. Too much sugar, too much fat, too much proteins. To our feeding instincts, a gourmet restaurant is a porn theatre, a grocery store/supermarket a sex-shop.
Novels and movies are a perversion of our instinct for hearing stories or gossip.
Betting, driving at other than very slow speeds, listening all the time to music and songs, ...
Modern life is just one evolutionary trap after another.
It is tragicomic and downright charmingly naïve of them when the feminist police state persecutes men for falling into evolutionary traps and continually drums up more hysteria on that (and this being the charming part) at the expense of pursuing more actual sex because they feel sex crimes are now mostly located on the Internet:
“A large increase in online abuse and we need more police resources for this and bla bla bla,” always the same story. I’ve pretty much said what I want to say about this in my post on the implications of persecution on false pretenses:
In summary, I reject both sides of the wanker’s delusion: pornography/masturbation is neither sexually valuable to men nor sexually exploitative of girls (which follows by logical necessity since there can be no exploitation without a beneficiary, duh). But now on further reflection I have a thought experiment to add aiming to suss out where the voodoo is located according to the wankers, or more to the point the police and feminists who are wankers too in the flipside sense of the delusion. Is it in the “sex(ualization)” or the technology? Insofar as it is in the “sex,” it must be a sort of cuckery about upholding the girl’s “honor,” her reputation of chastity (aka blue-knighting in Tom Grauer’s term to reflect the uniquely feminist agecuckery). But since they imagine that they need pictures for this or at least a piece of literature rather than a mere rumor that she is loose (which doesn’t get prosecuted at all), I conclude that the superstition is mainly centered on the technology.
Let me therefore propose a thought experiment to maybe help some normies snap out of their psychosis. If I am right, this kind of magical thinking did not exist before the printing press, which has lost much of its voodoo magic and is now replaced by a reinforced digital black magic where the normies literally believe girls can be “sexually abused” over the Internet, and then further abused whenever “abuse material” is shared. Unless it is just the same stuff as honor killings are made of but directed at men in our culture, surely it must be a superstition related to the (to them) mysterious workings of the technology which allows the normies to believe something so foolish as a girl actually being abused by sending pictures of herself and men looking at them? Well, let us then remove the technology from the equation while keeping everything functionally equivalent, which means it should also be morally equivalent if they aren’t captivated by a delusion...
Suppose there is a mountainside within walking distance with the same images on the walls as what is digitally considered “CSEM.” Make it as photorealistic as you want. Would the normies still want to imprison men for walking to the mountain and looking at it? It is then the primitive act of walking which is the crime, rather than downloading digital files imbued with voodoo magic. Hopefully some of you can see that this is bonkers. If you agree but object that the thought experiment does not account for “spreading child pornography” and this is what we need to stop, you would be wrong about that too because men can tell their friends where the mountain is located so they can go see it and tell others and so on. They can even wank there by the mountain for those who believe that is meaningful to girls and men rather than an evolutionary trap for men who are only abusing themselves. It is exactly equivalent in every morally relevant sense, so imagine how morally depraved it would be to have a witch-hunt on men who walked to look at a mountainside or (the horror of horrors) told others about it!
Well, the same madness does in fact apply digitally, and we are living with it right now.
Not on topic but this case shows how police is an enemy:
This guy that I never heard of before got convicted in a third-world country that has no working police and court system and is probably corrupt as hell, just by the fact that the pigs - represented here by Interpol - flagged him with a red notice. Police are the witch-hunters of today and witchcraft is now replased with sex.
Well, as long as they hunt beautiful young women for being nice to boys, do you think they will have a second thought about hunting men for bullshit reasons?
Hannah Harris is the latest victim of the female sex offender charade and a contender for the hottest.
Hannah Harris, 23, had sex with the pupil in the supermarket car park after contacting his parents posing as the mother of his fictional girlfriend to hide their relationship....
She cried in the dock as she was convicted of a single count of engaging in sexual activity with a child by a majority verdict at St Albans Crown Court yesterday.
'When the parents became aware, they realised they had unwittingly facilitated the contact. They had been duped by the boy into the belief he was seeing someone of his own age.'
The prosecutor added: 'As a teaching assistant at his school she (Harris) would have known his age - such activity is a criminal offence regardless of whether he believed himself to be a willing party.'
Oh, yes, nothing in this world matters, no matter how positive it is to everyone involved and envied by all normal males, because the metaphysical badness of sex trumps everything. These sickos are so emotionally retarded that they will burn the whole world to uphold that lie, which is here based on a sort of platonism about numbers where "14" confers only ability to be abused, and so we are supposed to ignore everything real including sex differences and only consider that abstract fiction. My opinion of the normies sinks lower each day they fail to stand up to it. We simply don't have it in us to end witch-hunts by resistance. They must pass by some other means such as collapse or maybe war which the media which the media is promising us these days, but I believe more in collapse:
I totally agree Eivind. The prosecution of female so-called "sex offenders" is a special kind of evil. They dont care if who they torture is the most beautiful and innocent. Their evil agenda trumps everything.
As I pointed out in my previous comment, Interpol like the police in general is an evil anti sex-force. They have no problem with sending false information and accusations to foreign countries(with often underdeveloped justice systems)about people they "see" as sex-criminals.
Kan du oppdatere oss på fjolset "Gally"? Legge ut dommen hans, f.eks. i anonymisert form.
"Gally" er jo i seg selv ikke interessant siden han sier seg skyldig i å ha gjort noe galt etc., men rettens vurderinger og bevisførselen kan jo absolutt ha interesse.
"His lawyers say investigators repeatedly approached the older boy at home and school to ask about the Canadian. They allege police wined and dined him, bought him school books and offered other inducements"
Sounds like a case of grooming to me! Lol. People see in others what they have inside of themselves.
Eivind, nice attempt to intergrate your anti-wanker stance with support for a lower age of consent, but surely you can see that feminists will (and do) just turn it against you?
I mean, I've read a thousand times feminists making the claim that the reason the age of consent is higher today than in the 19th century etc, is because sex in the modern world is so much more 'complicated'. Surely you have too?
Of course, (and you forgot to mention this), there is actually far less to consent to in the modern world as regards teens and sex. Today we have contraception, a welfare state, abortion on demand, no prizing of 'virginity', and teens are far better educated (and begin puberty much earlier) etc etc. Oh, and one more thing to add to the list - ubiquitous porn which allows teens to understand sex, nudity and the rest at an earlier age.
What a f****ng paedocrite!!!
Damn right, sex has gotten safer, which means young teen girls are OVERQUALIFIED to consent, because they are adapted to consenting or not under harsh conditions rather than the modern ones, with no welfare state, antibiotics, obstetricians and so on. It is the opposite effect than an evolutionary trap, where they retain their timid, careful sexual mentality in a much safer environment. Men are vulnerable and girls are overqualified, let that sink in!
It’s a powerful realization which I don’t agree feminists can use against us. Remember they need male cooperation in order to oppress us, not just by a sufficient number of enforcers but really they need the social norms which dupe men into thinking they are abusing girls when in fact men are being abused. When a teen girl sends nudes to a man which he uses to wank, she is abusing him. She has lost nothing and the man has lost valuable sexual energy. Because men are maladapted to that worthless temptation, you have suckers like Amos Yee not only wasting years failing to pursue sex, but then being preyed on by the feminist state as an “abuser” as well! Can you think of a more perverse exercise in adding insult to injury?
I want to show that men can take consent seriously too, and it does not lead to the female sex offender charade that feminists are so happy with. It leads to dismissing all their abuse nonsense and replacing it with the idea that if anyone can’t consent in these situations then it is the wanker. You will never realize this when you can’t face up to wanking being a bad thing, which is one reason why the AF’s brand of activism has gotten nowhere, because it isn’t even theoretically suited.
She has lost nothing and the man has lost valuable sexual energy.
But he had a liberating orgasm, and the loss of sexual energy will be temporary (from just ten minutes to a couple of hours depending of his age).
No! That you think an orgasm had by masturbation is “liberating” is precisely the evolutionary trap we are talking about. While searching for pussy, you are not supposed to feel satisfied before you find it! That such fake feelings of satisfaction can be released by anything less than sex is an evolutionary design flaw (mostly harmless before the Internet, but now very sinister for many men). To make it worse, the wanker suffers erectile and other sexual dysfunctions because he conditions his arousal pathways to respond to fake stimuli which entails a poor response to real ones, so it’s not just a temporary loss either.
To be clear, when I say “not supposed to” I mean it is not in YOUR best interest to fool yourself into thinking you have obtained sexual value by masturbation! Men should embrace nofap for entirely selfish reasons, and when you understand this you realize that any similarity to feminist denouncements of porn is highly misleading.
That's why you arguably can't consent to masturbation/porn, because you falsely think it's good for you, and so you consent to something bad. This is a REAL case of inability to consent, unlike the feminist bullshit that girls can't consent to sex when they are in fact highly tuned to it. Men are out of tune with digital porn because it unfortunately didn't exist for most of our evolutionary history; would have been better off having it all along so it wouldn't look like a sexual outlet at all because men would have been hardwired to require more than vision. Vision worked great when all the apparent females you see are in fact real, but that's not the case anymore, so many men find themselves in an evolutionary trap.
Masturbation can only be "liberating" in the same way as suicide. If you have given up on life and don't want to achieve anything, then suicide may be a "solution." If you have given up on sex and don't want to achieve it then you may masturbate, but as you can see, that is only consistent with a value system which values nothing. Or rather, you can't see it because you are in an evolutionary trap... Which is literal, systematic insanity! And since the insanity lies in male evolved psychology, it translates to an inability to consent at a scale which the feminists imagine we need age of consent laws for, except here there is no age where you can properly consent to masturbation, at least not until mating is no longer relevant to you, but then I don't think you would have the desire to masturbate either, so it's an entirely moot point to speak favorably of it in any context.
Things have gotten so bad in the United States that studies are showing that 18% of people under 25 are gender dysphoric; 20% of men under 40 have testosterone deficiency and 12% of women 15-35 are clinically infertile. Right now, the US ranks 33rd of 36 OECD nations in infant mortality---just two or three decades ago numbers like these would never have been imaginable. It's been getting worse since the 1990s, when paedohysteria broke out in full force and the 2000s when digital/VR/transhumanist porn started becoming predominant in that industry.
In spite of this, the paedohysteria and anti-heterosexuality in our culture has gotten worse. It seems over here an unwritten social (probably soon to be political) code that no one outside the ages of 25-35 should be allowed to do anything sexual: and even then it's treated as suspicious.
“No one outside the ages of 25-35 should be allowed to do anything sexual” -- LOL, yeah, that’s the impression I get here too from arguing with virgins whose paedohysteria overshadows any sex drive of their own, very much including male ones. The feminist sexual trade union works like that too. Old hags aren’t interested in sex themselves, but to prevent others from having it. And of course extort money off of the idea that 17-year-olds “can’t consent”:
Virginia Giuffre gets $10 million despite having recruited girls for Epstein herself, which should disqualify her under the doctrine of unclean hands if nothing else, but no, victim power trumps that too. I am disappointed in Prince Andrew for settling, but he most likely would have lost anyway because this is seriously the negative value which our society ascribes to sex at 17 and soon to sex in general.
I don't understand. If the AoC is 16 there how did he even get into trouble.
They imported the age of consent from the US to the UK because "trafficking," and then they cheated some more with the statute of limitations in the name of making an exception for "child sex abuse" claims to construct this case because that magic trumps all principles. All you need is sex panic to attack anyone, never mind any consistency or rule of law or reasonable definitions or the "victim" being a "child sex trafficker" herself. Whoever has money becomes prey (including women like Ghislaine Maxwell) and the others victims and the whole system parasitical on that arrangement.
She is an absolute shameless whore. Makes money by selling her body to billionaires and princes at 17, then when she's a fat washed up 40 year old with chicken wings she makes even more money by claiming victim status. So she's getting paid AGAIN for having had sex with Prince Andrew. And the reason she is getting paid AGAIN is because apparently it was so traumatic and abusive being paid before for having sex with Prince Andrew.
Meanwhile, yet another UK pig paedocrite....
T-shirt ads in the UK now being banned as un-Islamic, I mean 'objectifying women'.
"Whoever has money becomes prey (including women like Ghislaine Maxwell) and the others victims and the whole system parasitical on that arrangement."
True, but let's not forget that at any time in History alphas will be alphas. First, the US/UK and Co are not the whole world. In developing and emerging countries, where 80% of the world population resides, drivers can kill someone driving at a pedestrian crossing and get away with it if they are well-connected. You can bet such individuals will get away with any kind of sex they want to have.
Even in the West, there are many other hedge fund managers beside Epstein. They don't go to bed wanking on Porntube every night. And of course there are the Chads and the Staceys. The Chads and the Staceys will find each other anywhere on this Earth while losers like us may risk jail every time we venture out into the sexual market. Unfair but that's how it is.
Jack: I don't think it has anything to do with that kind of Natural Selection, it's more like what comedian George Carlin said about the Elites in general. "What do they want? Simple: They want more for themselves and less for everybody else." With the Scamdemic, they closed everyone's businesses but theirs. They made us quarantine while they held wild parties. They have garbage public schools for our kids and private schools for theirs. They have private planes and limos while we get trash air service and buses. We'll 'own nothing and be happy' while they live in palaces, and so on.
It's the same with their sexual policy. They keep us from normal sexuality so that they can take their pick. We get the homo agenda, sexbots, and VR porn, they get the real thing and get to have families. The "alpha" paradigm you describe works in a state of nature or a free society, but the system we live under is a rigged game where actual 'alphas' are pushed to the margins and degenerates hold all the cards.
Sexual Harassment (Employee training video)
I was on the London tube (metro) last week. They have actually got posters up in ever carriage stating that 'staring' is sexual harassment and should be reported to the police.
Yeah, it's closing in more and more, ever more male behavior to be cracked down on already well into just existing. Unbelievably hateful campaign on the Tube there. The only way men can be tolerated in public is if they keep their head down visibly submissive to feminism. Posters even encourage reporting "if you see" someone staring, which means it's okay to stare at men in order to demonize them just for looking back, complete with an anonymous sexual harassment line to call so men can be picked off with zero inconvenience to any woman.
And men will put up with this too as they do every step of the sexual holocaust. When the man sitting next to you is executed on the spot for doing the exact same thing as you, you will only concentrate harder on looking at the floor if you are a normie.
New song on cancel culture. This anti cancel culture stuff is benefitting us a lot. We aren't getting banned from social media anymore.
More sex laws (of course), but also with new age gap restrictions in play:
The Florida Senate has approved proposed legislation to create the new crime of “indecent battery,” intended to target those who grope people, 16 years and older, in a sexual manner and recognizing unwanted sexual touches as a separate offense, rather than a simple battery, reports the Miami Herald. First-time offenders would face a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in prison. If they are convicted a second time for the same crime, they would face a third-degree felony. A person convicted of indecent battery would not be required to register as a sex offender under the bill.
Meanwhile, the House is moving a similar bill with the same penalties, but some lawmakers, including bill sponsor state Rep. Linda Chaney, are leaning toward making the crime a felony from the start, meaning a convicted offender would face up to five years in prison, even though Senate members won’t budge on increasing the penalties. The House bill would also create another crime targeting people 24 and older who intentionally touch a 16- or 17-year-old in a “lewd or lascivious manner.” That offense would be a third-degree felony and would require a person convicted for that crime to register as a sex offender. In the last three fiscal years combined, 238 people have been arrested for second-degree misdemeanors under the current statutes.
A special antisex law for 24+, wow! Sex being strictly confined to the ages of 25-35 does indeed look like a likely future, as pulling arbitrary numbers out of the air beyond the age of consent and 18 to create sex laws is now apparently already a normal thing.
So powerful men are getting accused, vilified, imprisoned scorched earthed, forced in to suicide (or murdered), almost daily.
But it's them that are the ones responsible for anti-sex laws, trying to limit the sexual opportunities and rights of the plebs?
No matter how obvious it is that it is feminists responsible, it seems impossible for us to accept it. Perhaps it's just too blindingly obvious, and it literally hurts our senses to stare it in the face, like staring directly at the sun. Even Eivind, although he is in some important senses an anti-feminist, agrees with a lot of feminist arguments on things like porn.
Even the men's rights movement accepts feminists are the principle enemy. But we can't. Maybe it's the influence of the MAPs.
Not saying there isn't a lot of paedocricy involved with the elites, especially in the case of 'left-wing' powerful men like Weinstein and Bill Clinton. Paedocrisy is rampant throughout all levels of society.
And admittedly, the incel culture, the only sub-culture to accept the reality of paedohysteria and question the age of consent, is built around this idea that one group of men are taking all the pussy at the expensse of the mass of men.
But we need powerful men to join our cause. Imagine if Epstein had (anonymously) donated a few million to Eivind to help put the message across? Imagine if we could combine the anger of the incels with the resentment and fear of the powerful male elites, who now are being victimized by femninist anti-sex laws as much as ordinary men?
But instead, the likes of Jack hate Epstein for getting the pussy in the first place, rather than us. They are the enemy, men, it's never feminists, and certainly not women.
And personally, I'd like to live in a world in which hard work and the accumulation of wealth allowed you to spend money on getting some ripe teen pussy.
I'm for a free economic market, and I'm for a free sex market. :)
"Sex being strictly confined to the ages of 25-35 does indeed look like a likely future." In my State, the welfare agencies allow parents to claim 'dependent children' up to the age of 22. Obama's national healthcare program states that 'children under the age of 26' are covered under their parents' policies.
The newest Bruce Rind study reviewed by Tom O'Carroll:
Fabulous write-up of a fabulous study, thanks. I will have more to say after I digest it.
When I first heard of the new Finnish study a while back I didn’t realize how significant it was, so thanks to TOC for explaining that this is very hard-hitting stuff indeed! I agree it will probably go down as Rind’s most important paper, more convincing than the infamous one.
Numbers like only 21% of 15-year-old girls who feel positive about sex with an older man don’t look impressive at first sight. But guess what, that’s because they are not well fucked! It has nothing to do with the man being older. When they have real intercourse ten times or more, the proportion who feel positive about it (and continue to many years later) is 85%! Despite society telling them they have been abused! Feminist programming only works to make 15% of true love be subjectively redefined to abuse at most.
So, if you want to make a teen girl happy, have a proper relationship with her. The more intimate, the better -- which is exactly opposite of the feminist view that sex itself is traumatizing. And teen girls not enjoying casual sex very much is really not surprising because women in general don’t enjoy casual sex. This has nothing to do with age gap either, and doesn’t mean they are “abused” if they consent to it anyway.
I still need to digest the fulltext article. So many gems in there against antisex bigotry, for example:
Within twin pairs, the twin delaying first sex had the greater likelihood of later delinquency. In other words, they concluded, earlier sex had a protective effect, when taking into account a fuller range of relevant controls.
Again not surprising! Sex is great, only society has forgotten. And it does an amazing job to counteract the female sex offender charade too, with hard figure showing up to 99% resistance to brainwashing. It is very hard to make a lucky boy feel otherwise.
If we want to talk about real abuse, it would be something like this, as TOC says:
A minor under age 12 with a male relative older by 20 or more years, who uses coercion to achieve sexual touching, in a one-off incident in recent times. The chance of the minor reacting positively is 1% for both boys and girls. This scenario, says Rind, illustrates the incest model, which was built on the rape model (involving men with women) in the 1970s, and which soon became the standard model for understanding all minor-older sex. “The near-zero likelihood of reacting positively,” he says, “is consistent with the trauma view, where negative reactions are expected in nearly all cases.”
Yeah, that would be abuse. It is not what feminists mean most of the time or what we male sexualists are trying to normalize.
A quite sympathetic and open-minded article on Rind's new study.
Well, "open-minded and sympathetic" is a bit of a stretch since he (Mark Regnerus) also says:
As a social scientist of sexual behavior who is surprised by very little, I’m willing to admit that it is possible for this to be the case, while holding firmly to the assertion that such events remain diabolical and an unequivocal abuse of power.
But I appreciate his honesty in accepting credible data! You may not approve of teen sex with adults, but cannot with scientific backing argue for inherent harm, and bravo for not doing that.
This is surprisingly reasonable too:
If Rind is right, the clergy sexual abuse scandal that rocked the Catholic Church and scandalized the world should be reinterpreted as a moral panic, at the bottom of which is no big deal, since the data suggest there are “no differences” in how such adolescent boys (and girls) have fared. Apparently, it is our contemporary lenses—and our penchant for stigmatizing—that are the problem.
Indeed, Rind claims, poor outcomes “could arise because the anxiety, hostility, and suicidality associated with (child sexual abuse) compromise perceptions, decision making, and behavior.” In other words, negative consequences of first sex between a teenager and an adult may just be a social construction. A definition of sexual abuse, he plainly asserts, ought to be rooted in science rather than morality.
I have a hunch that Society now focuses on pseudo-pedophilia (ie ephebofilia) to divest attention from hard-core pedophilia, which mainly takes place within families. Before today's witch-hunt, you read many stories of children who suffered at the hands of relatives. Such stories have become rare.
'Creepy' man shamed for simply striking up a conversation with an 18 year old woman in Starbucks, who needed to be 'rescued' by a white knight barrista.
It was actually her mother who went to the newspapers with the 'story'. No doubt jealous of her 18 year old daughter's ability to attract attention from strangers.
@Jack - yes, I argued that many times on my blog if you remember. I also wrote many times that the MRAs (with the father's rights influence) were so eager to reject us and embrace 'equality of injustice' was for the very same reason - it takes the heat off of the fact that most real sexual abuse of children is committed by the child's father (or step-father).
However, the real crux of the matter is that 'pseudo-paedophilia' (ie normale male sexual attraction to teens) is what femnists/women feel threatened by. They began by conflating hardcore (real) paedophilia with teen sex, but now it's become so firmly entrenched in the hive mind that they no longer even need real paedophilia, which is why you so rarely even hear about it anymore. Epstein was the final watershed moment. A man who at 'worst' might have paid the occcasional 14 year old girl to massage him along with many older girls and women, is now the archetypal 'paedophile'. Feminists no longer have any need of real paedophilia. A paedophile is now somebody who openly is attracted to girls and women aged 14-18 (or even above now).
Women are not and never were sexually threatened by real paedophilia. They are threatened by normal male sexuality (ie. 'psuedo-paedophilia'). All real paedophiia served for feminists was to conflate it with normal male sexuality.
That is a good point, that the archetypal pedophile isn't a pedophile anymore. It is us. The hate is already maxed out against someone like Epstein and all his associates and supporters (who don't even exist beyond us). It is useless to explain the difference because even when it is widely publicized that it only concerns a 17-year-old girl (as with Prince Andrew), the hate is just as strong.
They don't hate concepts, they hate groups and all it takes to be classified is the label. "Pedophile" is the current word for "the bugaboo of the times," and with feminism regnant, they get to define it. Yes, it is convenient for them to crack down on sexual competition, so that's how they will use it. The rest is brainwashing, and this is where it gets complicated, how so many men can go along with the hate against ourselves. On the most coarsegrained level it can be understood as groupthink. It is "us" versus "them," the normies versus the "pedophiles." Picking sides is no more morally reflected than supporting a football team and isn't open to moral reconsideration no matter how much senseless persecution their team is responsible for. Normies are psychopaths who care nothing about witch-hunts as long as it doesn't target them, and the way to ensure that one isn't targeted is to double down on the hate against whoever is hunted, never question the basis for the hunt, which is extremely dangerous when labels are applied so loosely.
The most unhinged efforts to hunt "pedophiles" don't even target pedophiles in theory. All they do is pretend to be teen girls so they can apply the label of the bugaboo of the times to normal men. Real pedophile trials hardly even make the news, which is a hundred times more about Epstein and Andrew and whoever vigilantes can entrap.
Even a totally respectful approach to an 18-year-old girl is more newsworthy now... wow:
'My 18 year-old daughter was at Starbucks, alone, the other night. A man came up to her and started talking to her.
That is literally all it takes to be the bugaboo.
Roberson told WKYC that her daughter, who went to Starbucks to study, didn't believe she was in any danger.
'She was sitting at her table alone studying and this man came by and noticed what she was studying and wanted to talk to her about it,' Roberson said.
At least some of the comments are good:
voice 12, somewhere, Antarctica
What a manipulative headline! "... girl who was being pestered by stranger - " I feel sorry for that girl. She might be unhappy that this story was shared with the world - and countless strangers - by her attention-seeking mother. And I feel sorry for that man who might not understand what he did wrong. Fortunately this girl was nice and honest and didn`t get him into real trouble. Next headline: WHO PESTERED THAT GIRL SO ELEGANTLY THAT SHE DIDN`T EVEN NOTICE IT?
Barstoolpundit, Newcastle Co Down, United Kingdom
What he did wrong? Maybe he was being nice? What if all he said was Hey, you cramming for exams? Good luck kid. What's wrong with that?! There's not a single confirmation of what the 'creepy' guy actually said to her!! Fs.
Fly Falcon, St. Louis, United States
This non-story is pure gagfest.
aghast again, Manchester, United States
Wow. People are getting the exact OPPOSITE take home on this article than me. What I am reading is, "Completely innocent and nonthreatening male is wrongfully stereotyped, and openly subjected to gender prejudice by workers at a shop, who are then thanked by the non threatened, completely safe, non victim." I'm getting a bit tired of it. 99.5% of males... probably more... want nothing to do with abusing a woman. Get over yourselves and your wrongful blatant gender biases.
Re: Daily Mail story Starbucks-barista-wrote-secret-message-cup-girl-18-pestered-stranger.
I've noticed in the new over the last few years that 18 year old women are usually referred to as "girls" nowadays. Obviously this makes it easier to campaign for an AOC of higher than 18.
The number of comments criticizing the man and likes for those comments isn't very encouraging. However, I do question how genuine the comments section really is. The top two comments are predictably against, but the third is positive-1097, 703, and 559. After that, the comments are about 50/50, if anything a bit in favour of the man. It's like the Fail has to have the first couple of comments follow the editorial line. A bit of fakery must be going on.
Re: Eivind's comment aout the Rind study
If the 85% of girls reported positively about sex with older men are "well fucked", that would suggest it's something to be ENCOURAGED, not discouraged. As for the remaining 15%, how negatively and why? I don't believe they should be compelled to have sex with older men, only that an awful lot of nuance is lost in hastily-quoted statistics and society is fine will all sorts of experiences that don't have an 85% positive reaction.
At least here's a form of child abuse we would agree on:
While I don't agree with mutilating kids, criminalizing those who "don't report abuse" is appalling (including members of the public, not just professionals involved in transitions!). Same tactics they use for "sex abuse" and evidently a final solution to make children property of the government. Texas is not looking good here.
Paperback: Diseases caused by masturbation
Looks like a wholesome book! If not the details then certainly the sentiment. And I would add that semen retention is not a goal in itself. As long as you avoid masturbation you can ejaculate all you want and still be healthy (perhaps it's not literally impossible to overdo it, but I've never heard of a man who had too much vaginal sex for his own good -- all these sort of problems arise from masturbation and other paraphilias).
On the Diseases Caused by Masturbation: Or, Onanaism, which Samuel-Auguste Tissot originally published in 1760 under the French title, L’Onanism. Dissertation sur les maladies produites par la masturbation, is a medical treatise on the ill effects of masturbation on both the mind and the body. The book recounts stories from his own patients and from the patients of other renowned European doctors to support his claim that masturbation is deleterious to a person’s body and mind. Tissot also uses quotes from the ancient physicians, such as Galen and Celsus, as well as the most noted doctors of his day, such as Herman Boerhaave, to further strengthen his claim.
One of the physicians whom Tissot quotes claims, for example, that masturbation causes “young persons [to] assume the air and the diseases of the aged; they become pale, stupid, effeminate, idle, weak, and even void of understanding; their bodies bend forward, their legs are weak, they have a disgust for every thing, become fit for nothing, and many are affected with paralysis”; and another, that “the too great loss of semen produces weakness, debility, immobility, convulsions, emaciation, dryness, pains in the membranes of the brain, impairs the senses, particularly that of sight, gives rise to dorsal consumption, indolence, and to the several diseases connected with them.” And Tissot himself writes of one of his own patients, “A young man, not sixteen years old, became addicted to masturbation to so great a degree, that finally, instead of semen there was an emission of blood, which was followed by excessive pain and inflammation of all the genital organs.” However, the reader should not mistake this piece as an out-moded medicinal work; Tissot also summarizes the beliefs of some ancient philosophers on masturbation and its effects on the mind. “Epicurus,” he writes, “regarded the semen as a part of the soul and body and prescribed rules for carefully preserving it.”
Tissot himself was born in Grancy, Switzerland in 1728, but practiced for most of his life in the Swiss city of Lausanne. He was one of the most notable physicians of his day. He was appointed Vatican medical advisor and once even received a letter of praise from Napoleon Bonaparte.... He continued to practice in Lausanne until his death in 1797 at the age of 69.
Nice analogy on the evolutionary trap of porn to sea turtle moonlight attraction. Less so on gambling and drugs because you consent to the first time that you do them. Porn is literally forced on you from all angles of society immediately, except if you lived with the Taliban.
Likewise, however, women naturally cannot consent to sex; it is an artificial construct given to them by the feminist state. Without the state, women have no power to deny sex if a man wants it. And if we're being honest, women like it that way far more than having the artificial ability to say no, or even more unattractive for them, a man who "respects" their "decision" when they say no.
The gynocentric mumbo jumbo about developing brains only makes sense when viewed from their prostitute-consent paradigm. To a feminist prostitute, what matters is how much she can get from the man for her pussy, and her price is never advertised to increase her negotiating leverage. Antifeminist prostitutes are the traditional type who published their prices and occupied the windows of Amsterdam for example. Obviously, an older woman will have more experience with men and life in general, and thus a better understanding of how much she can get, and how to negotiate more shrewdly with the artificial tools given to her by the feminist state. This is what the gynocentric psychopaths mean when they talk about "brain development".
Some great comments in this thread. Note Florida and Texas, supposed "Conservative" states, are the sources of the most hysterical feminist faggot stories this week.
"the clown of planet Earth"
Insulting people from afar is an American speciality even among those who think they are oppressed in their "land of freedom".
In WWII it was "The only Good german is a dead german"...
Now one of your senators thinks the war is too tame, he wants something bloodier. So he's calling for Putin's assassination...
Considering the seriousness of the senator's statements, the reaction from Russia has been rational and contained:
(the site above is what is left of Russia Today, after EU's "democratically" managed to obscure RT from the satellites HotBird and Astra).
War and collapse are the only realistic ways to stop feminism, so we shouldn’t feel too bad. It needs to get at least as ugly as in Ukraine now before feminism is substantially reduced. Elsewhere they are still quietly working on making more hateful sex laws, but due to less propaganda against masculinity I feel better already. War is cathartic that way. It makes society focused on, well, killing men instead of neutering us as they do in peacetime. Ukraine has taken cannon fodder to a new level. Instead of at least putting recruits through basic training (which takes three months) they just hand them a gun and send them to front lines, and society now thinks this is normal for some bizarre reason, as if feminist indifference to men has consumed the military too. So far the enemy hasn’t been focused on maximal killing, but that may change as we go along as this really looks like the early stages of World War 3. Russians have almost taken over from sex offenders as the new pariahs, yeah. Sanctions are truly devastating and this situation is not reversible with Putin in power. So the only question is how much trouble he can cause first, with admittedly a coup the most benign way to end it. But trying to assassinate him from outside is a very bad idea, as we need someone to negotiate with when the nukes are flying. I expect most of them to not work due to poor maintenance, but even 1% functional nuclear bombs can do a lot of damage when they supposedly have over 4000 of them.
"War and collapse are the only realistic ways to stop feminism"
No cutting your nose to spite your face, please !
RT and Sputnik are useful to get a balanced view of the war.
Otherwise it's the same moralistic crap as elsewhere aimed at proving the depravity of the West (Epstein etc...)
Another woman getting a stiff sentence for "trafficking":
I just got another anti banned on twitter. I think twitter is on our side. They aren't banning us. They are banning the people threatening us. I was trolling some anti, and he started sending pictures of dead human body parts, bullets, etc, and twitter took him down in 8 minutes. Meanwhile I haven't even gotten one single warning. Could it be because of all the anti cancel culture stuff? or maybe we have allies as twitter mods?
Another victory for feminism:
Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has signed into law a bill that raises the minimum age of sexual consent from 12 to 16, his office said on Monday, in a bid to protect minors from rape and sexual abuse.
Until now, the Philippines has had one of the world's lowest minimum ages of sexual consent, behind Nigeria's age of 11, according to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).
And they got the female sex offender charade too, as well as some of the narrowest Romeo and Juliet exemptions in the world:
Under the bill endorsed by Duterte, which is gender neutral, any adult engaging in sexual contact with anyone 16 or under would be committing statutory rape, unless the age difference between them was three years or less and sex was proven to be consensual, and neither abusive nor exploitative.
The exemption does not apply if the one of those involved was under 13.
to protect minors from rape and sexual abuse.
Was rape allowed under the old age of consent?
unless the age difference between them was three years or less
Interesting enough, according to the newest study by Rind (2022), sexual involvement with older-aged minors compared to adults was not associated with any kind of more favorable reaction. In half the analyses, relations with adults were significantly more favorable:
It was of interest to assess whether minors involved with older minors reacted more favorably (i.e., less negatively, more positively) than minors involved with adults. For reactions at the time, boys having an adult partner reacted more favorably than boys having an older minor partner, χ2 (2)=6.69, p < 0.05. In post hoc analysis, boys with adults reacted negatively at the time (9.8%) significantly less often than boys with older minors (28.6%). They also reacted positively at the time more often than boys with older minors (83.0% vs. 66.7%), although this difference was not significant. For reactions in retrospect for boys, no association occurred between older partner age group (minor under 18 vs. adult 18 and over) and reactions, χ2 (2)=0.00.
For girls for reactions at the time, no association occurred between older partner age group and reactions, χ2 (2)=3.39, p>0.10. On the other hand, for reactions in retrospect, a marginally significant association did occur, χ2 (2)=5.51, p=0.06, in which girls involved with adults reacted negatively significantly less often (34.0%) than girls involved with older minors (52.8%) in post hoc analysis. They also reacted positively more often (42.4% vs. 27.8%, respectively), although this difference did not reach significance.
They don’t care about research, except to use scientific-sounding words like “informed consent” and “cognitive development.” That way they get to tap into the folk-belief that science is on their side while ignoring the evidence. None of the feminist studies are conducted in a falsifiable way where they could possibly discover that the sex is harmless, because what constitutes “abuse” is dogma rather than a research question to them.
With boys and older women, Rind even turns the “undeveloped brain” argument around and throws it as a boomerang back at the feminists, arguing excellently well that sex with women is especially wholesome to young boys because they are immature. So if they want to play that game and be honest about it, it leads in the other direction at least for boys:
Felson et al. provided a detailed review backing why boys would be expected to react differently to CSA—as well as to sex with same-aged peers—given that both theory and evidence indicate that males and females in general, and boys and girls in particular (starting prior to puberty), differ in both their sexuality and proneness to deviance. For example, males (including boys, especially in adolescence) are less discriminate and have a stronger sex drive, greater desire for sexual variety, and greater willingness to engage in casual sex. Boys fantasize about sex at younger ages and with greater frequency, and their fantasies are more intense, sexually explicit, and positive, while those of girls are more likely to occur in the context of romantic relationships, real or imagined...
Across the primate order, it is common for immature males in late juvenescence through early adolescence to eagerly attempt coitus with adult females, which a number of primatologists have attempted to explain with the “needing-to-learn” hypothesis... Notably, in various other cultures, boy-woman sex was associated with learning, where it was the practice to introduce pubescent boys to coitus with an experienced older woman, which prepared them to be sexually competent afterwards with peer-aged girls...
Anderson and Bielert reviewed the sexual behavior of immature males (i.e., commonly late juvenile, early adolescent) across nonhuman primate species, concluding that “sexual interaction between adult females and immature males is universal.” In species after species, primatologists conducting the primary studies have noted the eagerness and initiative by which immature males commonly attempt coitus with adult females, which they have attributed to immature males’ need to learn copulation effectively in service of later reproductive success. This attribution stems from general knowledge of primate social development and how sexual practice may fit into it for males. For example, immature males deprived of social and sexual experience during development later evidence sexual incompetency (which does not apply to juvenile females), pointing to an essential need for early sexual experience. Gunst et al. formally examined this “needing to-learn hypothesis” in sexual behavior by observing a troop of Japanese macaques... these males incrementally increased mounting behavior, but mostly and preferentially directed at adult females. This special targeting was efficient, it was argued, in that it provided immature males with the kind of sexual practice most useful to maximizing later reproductive success.
In short, the nonhuman primate data suggest functionality for immature male-adult female sexual interactions across the primate order, a functionality that appears to be reflected in proximal mechanisms such as immature males taking the initiative and exhibiting eagerness, implying that the behavior is appetitive for them. Because boys are primates, too, it can be speculated that maturing boys may likewise be biologically prepared, as a conserved adaptive trait, to find sex with nubile women appetitive, prompting initiatory behavior, context permitting, and a clear eagerness. The Finnish, Kinsey, and other data reviewed previously support this speculation.
It makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? This is yet another reason why the female sex offender charade is intuitively such a profound travesty. Rind is more based than me in attacking it, as I hadn’t even thought of this in that purely evolutionary way -- the need for boys to learn sex before they are fertile in order to have the best chances when it gets serious, unlike girls who might as well be virgins as far as conception is concerned (well, not really, since there are also studies indicating they benefit from getting used to semen (including oral sex) so their bodies don’t reject it, but we have to admit it’s a huge gender difference). And obviously getting this practice is best done with adult women rather than equally inexperienced prepubescent girls, LOL! How is it even possible to think something so retarded as the idea that a skill should be learned from others who don’t know it?!? And even a supposedly dangerous activity too? The more “vulnerable” you are, the greater need to have a clueless teacher according to normie wisdom.
This might be of interest to Eivind and others:
Dette er så absurd at det blir gøy
All hail the men of South Korea.
I wonder if they are the Paul Elam mangina sort of castrated MRAs that we have in the West, or whether they discuss issues such as the feminist age of consent?
I know that laws against porn (South Korea has the strictest in the 'Western world') are a big issue for anti-feminists there. Eivind wont like that.
Freedom of speech in the Netherlands
Even Russian cats have been banned from competing in overseas shows:
And so it begins :
As I predicted. No doubt within another week or two, there will be calls for Ukrainian refugees to stay in the Ukraine, or isolated in refugee camps, to 'protect them from sex traffickers'. In any case it will be used as a reason to 'strengthen' existing anti-prositution and anti-sex trafficking laws in Europe.
Has any prediction I have ever made failed to come true?
Right, feminists will turn every crisis into an opportunity to "strengthen" the sex laws right up until disaster affects them personally. That's why I said the situation needs to get as bad on the ground here. It does not help to see death and destruction on the news; sex will still be the greatest imagined evil. Perhaps if their own house is shelled they will get their priorities straight? I say that only because I don't really believe their sex hysteria, because by the sound of it they would rather stay in bombed-out ruins for fear of traffickers and groomers and sexual harassers who stare at them on the train and we all have to die before the feminist nightmare ends.
Russian chess master speaks about Western "democracy":
Here it is folks, right in the midst of WWIII:
Yeah, they are still harping the sex and incel panic, but we are getting there. We are not in Kansas anymore. This is where we are historically:
The financial devastation alone will mess up feminist power even without a greater hot war, which is likely coming too, at least 50/50 it seems to me now.
The Russian propaganda machine will love reports of impending human trafficking in the West. Fems doing a great job as usual. Which makes you wonder which of both worlds is better, the feminist West or the reactionary East. I don't want to bring grist to the mill of the Putin troll who has been posting on and off here, just asking fundamental questions.
As long as uncontrolled immigration only brought males (coran-retards from the deserts) they were to be welcomed with open arms and invited to help themselves to our social security and benefits. Now that the refugee crisis brings mostly children and females into Europe, nothing is more urgent than to prevent them from putting out. Disgusting.
I wonder why nobody spoke about sanctioning the US when they illegally invaded Iraq in 2003? Removing the US from the SWIFT system? Hiding American television channels? Banning American athletes from participating in sport events?
Post a Comment