Who wants a staggered age of consent?

Let us consider the idea of a staggered age of consent, which is currently floated in the UK as part of a campaign of hatred against men led by the government and media and a woman who had a relationship to Russell Brand when she was 16 and now fancies herself a victim -- not just of an alleged assault but of the entire relationship in principle because he was 30. Of course the feminists would love to raise it to 18 for all, but a staggered age of consent is suggested as a kind of compromise. But is it really?

Actually it brings discrimination front and center at a time when we are not supposed to discriminate, which is probably why surveys show less support for this concept than raising the age of consent absolutely. Let’s say the law gets staggered so people under 18 are restricted to consenting to 20 and under while anyone older is defined as an abuser if there is any sexual contact. You get two classes of people. The “morally pure” up to 21 who can be trusted with teenage lovers down to 16 and the second-class citizens 21 and over who cannot. The moral class division is inescapable, forcing us to think of what was previously regular adults as morally inferior to not just children but some semi-hallowed class in between.

A, say, 40-year-old normie will not conceptualize it like he is a bad person or worse than a 20-year-old and therefore cannot sleep with 16-year-old girls, but that’s what this scheme says. Having been indoctrinated with feminist antisex bigotry his whole life he will sputter some shibboleth about a “power imbalance” when asked why, but even if true then why does he assume he will use his power for bad? He must think he is a bad person! He is full of self-loathing while also managing to ignore that the teenage girl has tremendous sexual power over most men, so why should she choose to let him boss her around? Why can’t she choose an older man (if she happens to choose an older man) who is both “powerful” and nice? Oh, they don’t exist, do they? Then we are back to the idea that men over the staggered age of consent at something like 21, or the regular age of consent at 16 for that matter, are morally worse persons than below. And what is the evidence for that?

The evidence I know of says people become more considerate with age. People become more altruistic, with the reward system in their brain responding more weakly to self-gains and more strongly to others' gains. It would be astonishing if sex is an exception to this and we all reach maximum sexual benevolence at 16 or 18 or 20, after which we all irredeemably become sexual monsters. It is absurd. There is also an awful lot of sexual aggression by men 20 and under which is hard to reconcile with making them out to be a morally pure class. Real rapists tend to be quite young while accusations against men 40 and older are almost always statutory.

Now a normie would be likely to bring up naiveness -- that it is somehow better for young girls to have their first experiences with naïve boys. Even if there is a grain of truth to the idea that a virgin or timid incel boy would be less likely to mistreat girls, naiveness is not related to age but experience. The boys teenage girls are likely to sleep with of their own age don’t remain inexperienced for long. Realistically we must imagine the 16-year-old Russell Brand-accuser choosing instead (if there had been an enforced staggered age of consent) not some virgin 16-year-old boy but a 16 to 20-year-old version of Russell Brand or similar alpha, who would probably already have had dozens of girls and act similarly already as he did at 30. It is indeed possible that Russell Brand was an inconsiderate lover, but age of consent does not solve the problem. Frankly it does the opposite -- as sexual aggression goes down while compassion goes up -- and I think even he has calmed down over the years and would not now at near 50 do what he is accused of with the 16-year-old if he should get the chance to have another Alice, which by the way is: “'forced his penis down her throat' and 'made her choke', only stopping after she punched him in the stomach.” The problem with older men is not that they tend to act like that, whereas I am not so sure that teenage boys weaned on today’s porn yet know better than to act like that. You see, they are all really not so naïve after all even if they never had sex, and not in a good way.

It is of course true that attractiveness declines with age, but that simply makes age gap relationships less likely rather than more inherently abusive. Attraction isn’t always zero, and whoever remains interested in an older man do not need a law telling them that they can’t consent. It is also entirely possible, even likely, that an older man is a more considerate, empathetic lover and will use whatever power he has over you for good rather than bad. If your view of human nature is that vulnerable equals abuse victim, I don’t see how you can trust any kind of relationship. There are many more profound ways to be vulnerable than to be young, and if you think your partner is only waiting for you to be weak so he can hurt you it would be dangerous to even fall asleep next him at any age, or be frail or incapacitated for any reason. Yet this is what the feminists will have us believe, selectively applied to age gap and sexuality. It may be consistent with their hateful agenda, but not with reality.

A taste of armageddon

When the twenty-third episode of the original Star Trek series first aired on February 23, 1967, little did they know how prophetic it would be. In this episode, the crew of the Enterprise visits a planet engaged in a completely computer-simulated war with a neighboring planet, but the casualties, including the Enterprise's crew, are supposed to be real. Although praised as allegorically powerful, the premise seemed almost too implausible to make a compelling story according to critics at the time. But that was before the Feminist War On Sex in which we are currently mired. Now it is seen as completely normal to lock men up for computer-simulated crimes. This is no longer a metaphor or philosophical speculation about how war could be "sanitized," but our everyday "criminal-justice" reality.

Let us take the most low-tech scenarios first. A sting operation is a simulation, a game, and it is considered plenty justification to lock men up. And then there is online sexual abuse and so-called image-based sexual abuse which is completely virtual but considered fully real crimes of which the metaphysics isn't the least bit suspect to the normies -- exactly like the docile aliens in Star Trek who obediently enter the disintegrator after a computer simulation tells them they are supposed to be dead. They literally believe these norms are reasonable and Kirk is a barbarian for wanting to keep it real.

Simulated sex crimes have recently reached their conceptual limit in AI-generated porn, and the normies dutifully oblige the simulated war with offerings of real casualties. Now there is a rush to criminalize this last bit along with the other fake nonsense if it isn't criminal already. Currently the news is full of titles like "Outcry in Spain as artificial intelligence used to create fake naked images of underage girls" -- and the normies gobble it up as a justification to make more real casualties out of men. The "scientific" journals are likewise full of deference to the simulation game, as one would imagine the corresponding "war studies" to be in Star Trek. Here's a fresh example: "Experiences of Online Sexual Violence: Interviews With Swedish Teenage Girls in Psychiatric Care," reifying this "violence" in a journal called Violence Against Women. The normies are so duped they don't even think about all this "violence" being completely simulated:

The technological development of the internet and smart devices has in many ways been positive, but has also created more arenas where sexual violence can take place. In recent decades, research of sexual violence has expanded and now also consider online arenas (Jonsson et al., 2019; Svedin & Jonsson, 2017; Zetterstrom Dahlqvist & Gillander Gadin, 2018). The modi operandi for online sexual violence include, but are not limited to, repeated requests for nude pictures, dickpics, online publication of nude pictures, and unwanted sexual advances such as unwanted solicitation, online grooming, and online rape.

Sexual violence is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as “any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic, or otherwise directed, against a person's sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting, including but not limited to home and work.” (WHO, 2012). It is regarded as a serious global public health problem, and can be perpetrated in different arenas, and in different modalities. In this article, we have used a broad definition of online sexual violence that includes a range of practices and events that have the common aspects of; being unwanted or perceived in a negative way by the subjected person; of a sexual nature; and perpetrated through some kind of digital media.

The prevalence of online sexual violence depends on how it is conceptualized and the method of measurements. Online sexual harassment, which is defined as being subjected, via electronic means to, for example unwelcome sexual comments, jokes, or gestures, or being asked to do something sexual when one does not want to, is thought to affect around 15% of American teenagers (Copp et al., 2021). A specific kind of online sexual harassment that has become ubiquitous in the present time is receiving unrequested pictures of male genitals, the so-called dickpic (Ringrose et al., 2021). The prevalence of receiving a dickpic among youth is not extensively researched, but some research suggests that for women who had at one time received a consensual dickpic, 90% had also received unwanted dickpics (Marcotte et al., 2021).

Another form of online sexual harassment is unwanted requests or pressure to send nudes, so-called pressurized sexting. This is often tightly interwoven with the practice of consensual sexting (Ringrose et al., 2013, 2022; Thomas, 2018; Thorburn et al., 2021). The prevalence of sexting was around 20% in a Swedish sample of youth from 2014 but this had increased to 37% by 2021 (Jonsson et al., 2014; Svedin et al., 2021). A meta-analysis of four studies from Canada, the US, Europe, and the Czech Republic found a prevalence of having one's sext furthered without consent was 8.4% (Madigan et al., 2018), something that some researchers propose should go under the label of image-based sexual abuse (McGlynn et al., 2017)

There is also the case of more severe forms of online sexual violence, which is often referred to as online sexual abuse, or when the survivor is underaged: online child sexual abuse. The prevalence of online child sexual abuse among youth in a large community school sample in Sweden was around 0,5% (Svedin & Jonsson, 2017).

It is bizarre that all this passes as "violence" -- exactly equivalent to having a simulated war with real casualties. And men who suffer from wanker's delusion dutifully play along, thinking they have gotten sexual value out of nothing.

Captain Kirk is powerfully wise in "A Taste of Armageddon." This type of "sanitized" war is a nightmare horror when you think about it for a while or see it dramatized in this great episode. That interplanetary war has been going on for almost 500 years, with millions of casualties every year. It could only go on for so long because they had found a way to spare the infrastructure and make death painless or hidden like we do with prisons to which men similarly report with little or no fight. People obey an ancient "treaty" which says we roll over without a fight based on a decision made by a simulation. Why the hell should we obey such a treaty or "social contract" as the normies probably would dignify it? The crew of the Enterprise does not hesitate for one second. It is instantly clear what your attitude should be to that treaty, and watching the episode is a powerful lesson not just in rationality but how humans can live morally with our violent natures. Kirk does not deny that we have war in our blood, but the direct way to go about it was not so bad after all when you consider the "woke" alternative. When the horrors of war are on full display, at least it provides an incentive to make peace from time to time.

So, take a hint from Captain Kirk. Men must break the treaty which holds that we accept real punishment for imaginary crimes. If the feminists want war it must be a real war on both sides, not a one-sided one where men are real casualties for simulated crimes.