Similar posts

Mark of Zorro #fundie jref.com

real problem? And I mean a real psychological/ medical problem, not a moral one. Your morals are yours, and you can keep them at home.

Additional related questions:

1) Two 15 year olds are dating and having sex. They are both below the AOC (age of consent). Are they raping, hurting, traumatizing eachother?

2) A 15 year old and and 20 year old are dating and having sex. The 15 year old is below the AOC and the 20 year old over. Is the 20 year old raping, traumatizing, or hurting the 15 year old? Aside from the law and some people just not liking it, how is this automatically different from 1?

3) An eleven year old has entered and passed puberty. It happens. He or she wants to start having sex. How old of a partner can he or she choose without being raped, traumatized or hurt as a matter of course? Or, is it just impossible for an eleven year old to have sex with anyone without it being rape, trauma and anguish? Is that anything to compare to the trauma and anguish of not being able to have sex despite desiring it both physiologically and mentally?

I ask these because I find all these sex laws based on nothing but age to be completely and utterly preposterous. There is nothing in science or nature to clearly correlate age and sex to be connected to mental trauma or distress.

The AOC was not updated on those grounds. The AOC was orginally formulated to protect girls (not boys) from getting into something they did not understand. The age was set at 6. I kid you not. It was updated in order to protect the purity and value to potential suitors of girls and women (and also morality), which is why the marriage age and the age of consent are often different. It went from 6 to 10, then to 14, then to 16, and in some places now 18. And this trauma idea is not sound and its not the reason. Or prove me wrong and explain how it relates and how the updates came to be. Make my day


Overall I would say someone in their 20s or older should almost never be with someone under 20. It mostly comes down to when the individual develops that sense of handling adult situations but seeing as that would be different with everyone why take the risk of intensely damaging someone's psyche. That number isn't specific really, just a generalization. I don't think it's wrong for a 21 year old to date a 19 year old. That's just dumb.

Such strong opinions. So little to back it up.

Can you name one person who got a damaged psyche from dating? You know, where the reason for the damaged psyche was because one was 21 and if he or she were 19 instead, there would be no damaged psyche?


Mostly the people I know who got a damaged psyche from an age disparate relationship was the older one, as he or she was made to go knock on doors and announce "Hi! I am a pedophile!" and is not allowed to take his own kids to the park anymore. Not to mention the jail time.

Oh, but lets not forget about the younger ones who had to submit to a rape exam so the law could make a case against the man she loves.

God but I hope you don't think I am joking. 20/20 did a special on Frank and Nikki Rodriguez. If you have never seen it, you should watch it. Its enough to make you want to throw up what they did to these people. The only damaged psyches were caused by her parents and the police and courts. The Age of Consent: When Young Love Is a Sex Crime - ABC News

Their case is not unique by a long shot. And its all because distant, disconnected big shots in legislature made some numbers law that some sex negative wankers pulled out of a hat and lobbied them for.

If you use your senses though it's usually obvious what's acceptable and what isn't and if you're not sure than the answer is no.

In other words, give up. Bow down. Throw your love away because some wankers in the world want their power trip over you.

Most people's senses tell them what is acceptable is what the biggest, noisest puritan A-hole in the room will tolerate. I reject that idea totally. We should never let go of love and mutual sexual satisfaction for such poor reasons. We should never submit to "moral" bigotry.

The first rule should be to cause no harm. The second rule should be to leave them better than you found them.

---------- Post added at 13:44 ---------- Previous post was at 13:32 ----------

GaijinGolfer said:
Part of the problem you have when youre younger is that you cant comprehend the consequences of your actions.

Right. Adults never get STDs, accidental pregnancies or find themselves trapped in abusive relationships. I think you are applying a pretty big double standard. I think teens especially are smarter than you think, or would be if not for being stunted by society driving this wedge between them and the rest of the world.

Your hormones are raging and all you can think is how you want to have sex, how everyone else is doing it and how doing so will make you an adult.

In my case, when I was 15, I declined to have sex with a woman because I did not have a condom and I was concerned about her history. She was about 25.

When I was 19, I got drunk at a frat party and went home with a girl I just met and had unprotected sex because she said she was on the pill.

I got dumber in four years didn't I? I made a bad decision because of TIME. TIME is what made me frustrated. I would never have been that dumb if not for years of waiting. After four years my next chance finally came, and I was not about to let it slide.


You cant comprehend the issues that arise with STDs, your reputation, the complexity that sex brings into a relationship and the risks of pregnancy.

Yes you can, just as well as any virgin of any age. By what miracle would you expect a 20 year old with no sexual experience to understand those things better than a 14 year old who has been educated and has experience?

savagesusie #fundie freerepublic.com

[A health instructor at Fresno City College is incorporating religious and anti-gay views in his classes. The ACLU is attempting to force him to teach accurate and unbiased medical information.]

He is not basing anything on religion; it is on Natural Law which is the basis of U.S. law. ACLU should be sued for attacking his freedom to teach fact and Truth. That fascist organization needs to be put out of business. It better not be getting any tax payer funds.

Its very Communist roots tell us how divisive and evil the ACLU truly is. We should post everyone’s name who contributes to that evil communist organization and Alinskyite them. The good things they have done are far outdone by the evil—like representing NAMBLA for free in the rape case of that little boy by the pervert who absorbed all the “how to” info from NAMBLA publication. ACLU has been trying to destroy the Boy Scouts and mainstream homosexuality. Their vision for the US is a bathhouse hellhole with old atheists able to legally bed little boys. That old ACLU alum, Ginsberg, wants to lower the age of consent to 12....all for the frisky, sex-obsessed, youth obsessed, narcissistic, homosexual men.

Alan Vaughn #fundie emmatheemo.wordpress.com

Indeed to most normal men, 14 year old young women are attractive. If you’re implying that any man who perceives (most) such 14 year old young women as attractive is a ‘paedophile’, all you are doing is pushing the agenda of man-hating, sexually jealous, feminist hags

It was only relatively recently, even in our (now highly feminist dominated) society that 14 year olds were LEGALLY married with their own children and such legal marriages were not considered immoral, perverted or indeed as anything related to paedophilia at the time.
Feminists and their bitter, jealousy founded ideologies changed everything related to sex and marriage into the ‘taboo’ that most of our sex-obsessed society believes it is today.

Triweekly Antifeminist #fundie triweeklyantifeminist.wordpress.com

The esteemed commentator Chinzork wrote:

For one of the first posts on this blog, I think you should debunk all of the common talking points against abolishing the AOC. The talking points get repetitive after a while, so an article debunking all of them sounds good.

Alright then, you got it. Herein is a compilation of the 15 most popular Blue Knight arguments, each argument followed by a thorough dissection thereof.

#1: Teenagers only become sexually mature after completing puberty around 16.

This is a wholly metaphysical proposition; a statement of belief. The Blue Knight starts out from the premise that a “completion of puberty” is a prerequisite for this nebulous state known as “sexual maturity,” then makes the circular argument that, because a 13-year-old has not yet completed puberty, he or she are thus sexually immature. “Sexual maturity” is an altogether arbitrary concept, and there isn’t any way to measure it or test it.

The Blue Knight makes it seem like he or she has objectively examined the issue and reached the conclusion that the age of “sexual maturity” just so happens to start when puberty is over; but there has not actually been any such objective examination of the issue – it simply has been assumed (axiomatically) that this is the case, and the whole “argument” proceeds from this unproven, arbitrary, and essentially metaphysical assumption.

The Blue Knight argument posits that 1) without “sexual maturity” sex is harmful and as such should be illegal; 2) a full completion of puberty is a prerequisite for “sexual maturity.” You may well give the following counter-argument, accepting — for the sake of discussion — the former premise, while rejecting the latter, and say thus: “children become sexually mature after completing adrenarche around the age of 9.”

Fundamentally, however, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that a “sexually immature” person is necessarily harmed (or victimized) by sexual relations merely due to being, according to whatever arbitrary definitions one uses, a “sexually immature” person. I suspect that, as a matter of fact, “sexually immature” people often enjoy sex and benefit from it even more than the so-called “sexually mature” folks. And again, the very distinction between “mature” and “immature” is altogether metaphysical in this regard, like the distinction between “pure” and “impure” or “holy” and “unholy.” It is hocus pocus; theology not-so-cleverly disguised as biology.

According to Blue Knight “morality,” an extremely fertile 15-year-old female should be prevented from sex (because “sexually immature”), while a 55-year-old female who has no ovaries left should be free do get fucked however she likes. It is very clear that such a “morality” is really an anti-morality; it is against what is biologically natural, it is against human nature specifically, it is degenerate, and it is detrimental to the interests of civilization and the TFR.

#2: The Age of Consent protects young people from doing things (sex) which they don’t really want to do.

I have seen no evidence that young people “do not really want” to have sex. On the contrary, I have seen, and keep seeing, that young people greatly desire to engage in sexual activities. That is why they engage in them. If 11-year-old Lucy is a horny little slut who enjoys giving blowjobs to all the boys in the neighborhood (many such cases), the Age of Consent does not protect her from something which she is reluctant about doing; it prevents her — by deterring men from approaching her — from doing something which she does in fact desire to do.

The Age of Consent is simply not needed. Think for a moment about young people. Do you not realize that they are just as eccentric, and can be just as wild, as older people? Why is it that when a 19-year-old chick randomly decides to have an orgy with 3 classmates after school, that is okay; but when a 12-year-old chick likewise randomly decides to do just that, oh noes, she is a “victim” of a horrible crime? We accept that each person is unique, independently of age; and we realize that there are children –not to mention young adults — who are very much into X while others are very much into Y. Why, then, should it be so “shocking” when it turns out that some children, and plenty of young teenagers, are very much into sex? Being interested in sex is arguably one of the most natural things there are, on par with being interested in food; certainly it is more natural than being interested in physics and chemistry and mathematics, right? If we accept the existence of child prodigies, children who are naturally driven to pursue all kinds of weird and special callings, why can’t we accept that there are indeed lots of children who pursue the very natural thing which is called “sex”?

Young teenagers have extremely high sex-drives, and the idea that they “do not really want sex” is contradicted every single moment. This is all the more remarkable given that we are living in a puritanical, prudish, sex-hostile, joy-killing, pedo-hysterical, infantilizing society; yet teenagers manage to overcome this intense anti-natural social programming, and do what nature commands them to do. “Child innocence” is a self-perpetuating myth, which society shoves down the throats of everyone all the time since age 0, and then uses this self-perpetuating myth which has been forcefully injected into society’s bloodstream to argue that “oh gee, young people just don’t really want to have sex.”

The entire entertainment establishment is concomitantly brainwashing children to remain in a state of arrested development aka infantilization, while conditioning the consumers of this “entertainment” to only find old women attractive. That’s one reason why I believe that we must create Male Sexualist aesthetics – we must reverse the brainwashing done to us by the entertainment complex. The television box is deliberately hiding from you the beauty and the passion of young teenage women, and is actively engineering your mind to only find older women attractive. And yet, despite there being a conspiracy by the entire society to stifle young sexuality, young sexuality lives on and thrives. Well, not really “thrives” — young sex is in decline, which conservative total dipshits blame on pornography rather than pointing the finger at themselves for propagating a climate that is extremely hostile to young sexuality — but it still goes on, to the consternation of all Puritans and Feminists everywhere.

Blue Knights claim that young teenagers are “peer-pressured into sex.” This assumes that your average teenager is asexual or close to being asexual, and thus would only engage in sexual activities if manipulated into it by his or her environment. The reality, meanwhile, is that those 12-year-old sluts who have orgies after school time (or during school time) are often as horny as a 16-year-old male. They are not being pressured into sex – they are being sexually restrained by a society that is terrified of young sexuality.

#3: Young people who have sex grow up to regret it.

First of all, when the whole of society is determined to portray young sex as a horrid thing, it is no wonder that people — especially women, who possess a herd mentality — arrive at the conclusion that they’ve been harmed by it. If young sexuality were presented in a positive light by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, people would be more inclined to remember it fondly than regretfully.

The second thing is that it doesn’t even matter. People feel regret about doing all kinds of things – so what? Does that mean that for each and every case of such “regret,” society needs to go on a witch-hunt for “victimizers” in order to inflict punishments upon them? It’s time to grow the fuck up and accept the fact that people sometimes do things which later on they regret doing, and that this is an integral part of life, and that the state has no business protecting the civilians from “bad feelings.” That’s literally what this Blue Knight argument boils down to – “the state should punish men because women experience negative feelings due to their own behavior.” No, women should learn to deal with their bad fee-fees without demanding the state to find “abusers” to penalize. We are living in a totalitarian emotocracy (rule by emotions) and I’m sick of it.

Also: what is the difference between feeling regret about fucking at 13 and feeling regret about fucking at 17? Women generally feel bad about promiscuous sex (hence the phenomenon of “regret rape” false accusations), and they feel it at the age of 21 as much as at the age of 11; actually, older women may be even more regretful than young ones about sexual activity, because they’v been longer exposed to Puritan-Feminist brainwashing, and because their biological clock ticks much faster. So, according to the victimization-based morality of Blue Knights, men who sleep with 23-year-olds should also be punished. Again, the Blue Knights want men imprisoned solely due to some vague negative fee-fees felt by some women. This is emotocracy in action. No wonder that testosterone and sperm counts are in sharp decline – society is ruled by catladies, and is structured according to catlady morality.

The state simply should not protect people from the consequences of their own behavior – and here “protect” means “punish men,” and “consequences” means “vague negative fee-fees.” Our society is severely infantilized by the victimization-based morality, and infantilization is degenerate.

#4: Young sexual activity is correlated with many bad things.

That may or may not be so, but what are the implications? Generally, people who are natural risk-takers will do all kinds of things, some of which may be positive, others negative, and still others just neutral. The conservadaddy making the “correlated with bad things” argument implies that punishing men (and women) for young sex would somehow reduce those negative things supposedly correlated with young sex. That, of course, is bullshit. If a risk-taking 12-year-old decides to have an orgy with her classmates, she will remain just as much of a risk-taker whether or not her classmates or other people are punished. Depriving her of the opportunity to take “sexual risks” won’t diminish whatever other risk-taking behaviors she is prone to.

The thing about Blue Knight arguments is that they aren’t arguments at all. There is no logic in stating “young sex is correlated with X, and X is bad” and then using that to support the criminalization of young sex. This is the same logic used by pedagogues to justify pedagoguery, only in reverse: the pedagogues argue that education is correlated with intelligence (as measured by IQ tests), then use that claim to imply that education makes people smarter, and therefore everyone should undergo education. This is a wholly fallacious argument. At the risk of sounding like a spergtastic redditor goon – correlation does not imply causation. The Blue Knight argument is not an argument at all. It’s plainly illogical.

By the way, I’d say that there are plenty of negative things correlated with young sexlessness – such as growing up to be a school shooter, for instance. You’ll never hear Blue Knights discussing that.

#5: Some Statutory Rape legislation allows teenagers to have sex among themselves, and only prohibits older people from predating upon them.

This argument typifies what I call the “victimization-based morality” aka “victimology.” The people making it assume — against all the available evidence — that within any relationship between a young person and an old person, the former is necessarily victimized by the latter.

The individuals making this argument (usually you’ll hear it from women) will often tell you that it is “creepy” for older men to be interested in young women. They will pretend that young women are exclusively attracted to young men, when in reality they are attracted to men of all ages – to men as old as their father as well as to their classmates. My own life experience confirms this, as I personally, in-real-life, know of women who fucked significantly older men when they were aged 14-15. It was all passionate and voluntary and enthusiastic, believe me. And the many accounts you can find on the internet leave no doubt that it’s common for young women, pubescent and even prepubescent, to be sexually attracted to significantly older men.

It is important to stress the point that the women themselves pursue and desire those sexual relationships, because the Blue Knights have created the false impression that the entire argument for abolishing the AOC rests on our attraction to young women, an attraction which according to the Blue Knights is completely unreciprocated; whereas in reality, it is incredibly common for young women to initiate sexual relationships with men as old as their father. It takes two to tango – and the tango is quite lively indeed. Given the sexual dynamics elucidated by Heartiste, wherein women are sexually attracted to “Alphas,” it makes perfect sense that young women would be sexually attracted to older men even more-so than they are sexually attracted to their peers, since older men possess a higher social status than young ones, relatively speaking. Again, life experience confirms this.

Thus, there is no sense in punishing old men who fuck young women, unless, that is, one embraces the whole “taken advantage of” argument, an argument which relies on a denial of the biological and empirical reality on the ground, and simply defines (as an axiom) all relationships in which there is a “power imbalance” as “exploitative.” That is, there is no evidence that any “exploitation” is taking place in such relationships, and Blue Knights assume its existence because they refuse to believe that young women can be horny for older men.

Also, the Blue Knights will bring up argument #1 to “substantiate” argument #5, and argue that due to the “sexual immaturity” of the younger party, the older party must be forbidden from being in a sexual relationship with it altogether – because otherwise there may be “exploitation.” Again, the moment you realize that a 12-year-old female can be as horny as a 16-year-old male (who are, needless to say, extremely horny), the idea that the slut is prone to be “sexually exploited” by a sexual relationship with a man who is statistically likely to be high-status (and thus naturally sexually attractive to her) become absurd. And as we’ve seen, the whole “sexually immature” line is ridiculous – it has never been shown that maturity, for whatever it’s even worth, is reached at 16. In saner, de-infantilized times, 12-year-olds were considered to be mature, were treated as such, and evidently were mature. Hence my saying: “child (and teen) innocence is a self-perpetuating myth.”

#6: You only support abolishing the AOC because you’re a pervert.

A common ad hominem. Now, it is expected that possession of a naturally high sex-drive would be correlated with sexual realism (i.e. being woke about the reality of sex), because a high sex-drive individual would be much likelier than a low sex-drive individual to spend hours upon hours thinking about the subject of sex in its various and manifold aspects. But that only goes to prove that it is us, the “perverts,” who were right all along about sex – and not the catladies and the asexuals who haven’t ever thought about sex in realistic terms because they never had any incentive to do so. Our “bias” is a strength, not a weakness.

There really isn’t anything else to add here. When they accuse you of being a pervert, just agree & amplify humorously: “oh yeah, I jerk off 8 times each and every morning before getting out of bed – problem, puritan?”

#7: You only support abolishing the AOC because you are unattractive and trying to broaden your options.

Also known as “projection.” Well, actually, there also are men who make this argument and not just dried-out wrinkly femihags, so let’s address it as if a man said it. Again, this is an ad hominem that presupposes that your motivation to engage in sexual politics of the Male Sexualist variety is merely your desire to improve your personal situation in life. Now, even if it were true, that 1) wouldn’t matter, because what matters is the arguments made and not the ostensible motivation behind them; 2) there is nothing essentially wrong with trying to improve one’s situation in life – and “there are no rules in war and love.”

By the way, abolishing the AOC, by itself, is not going to get all of the incels laid over-night. There are other measures that must and will be taken to ensure sexual contentment for all of society. Abolishing the AOC is a crucial part of the program, but it’s not the single purpose of Male Sexualism, in my view. What I personally would like to see in society is maximal sexual satisfaction for everyone. There are many ways to try reaching that point.

Anyway, the point is that “you are motivated by a desire to increase your options” is not even true regarding most of the prominent Male Sexualists. Presumably. I won’t speak for anyone else, but I’m married, and very satisfied with my great wife.

14376_7
Big Beautiful Women are not for everyone, but I’m cool with it. In this scene from the Israeli film “Tikkun,” my wife — who is an actress — plays a prostitute. Sorry, Nathan Larson, I’m not sending you her nudes; this one should suffice.
As a matter of fact, as I wrote in one of the last posts on DAF, my own kind of activism would not be mentally possible for me if I were not sexually satisfied. I’m not driven by a personal sexual frustration; on the contrary, as I keep saying, what drives me is essentially a spiritual impulse, which has awoken to the extent it has as a result of getting laid.

#8: If you support the abolition of the AOC, it’s because you’re a libertine who believes in “everything goes.”

Some Male Sexualists are, unmistakably, libertines – and proud if it. However, others are faithful Muslims. The notion that opposition to the AOC must necessarily be tied to libertinism is nonsense. Look at traditional European societies 350-300 years ago – almost none had an AOC at all, yet they were hardly “libertines.”

This Blue Knight line is somewhat related to the “LGBTP” meme – they think that we are Progressives trying to advocate for pedophilia as part of a Progressive worldview. I think that it’s safe to say that no one in Male Sexualism belongs to the Progressive camp, which is the camp where Feminists and SJWs reside. That said, some versions of libertinism (sexual libertarianism?) aren’t so bad, anyway. As TheAntifeminist said in a comment at Holocaust21:

[M]y utopia as a male sexualist would be somewhere like 1970’s Sweden or Holland.

This is a legitimate view within the movement.

#9: If young people are allowed to have sex, their innocence will be ruined; sex is exclusively for adults.

Here we see the Enlightenment-spawned Romantic idealization of “childhood” as a period that, due to whatever values one attaches to it, must be preserved against encroachment and incursion from the “fallen world of adults.” This is the Romantic basis of modern-day infantilism.

It used to be understood that the purpose of “childhood” is growing up into adulthood. The so-callef ‘child’ should be made into an adult, should be given adult tasks, adult responsibilities, and — all the sooner — adult rights. Today, society does just the opposite, and infantilizes people with a historically unparalleled intensity. That’s the result of elevating “childhood” into an ideal form. No wonder that now, it’s not just teenagers who are called “children,” but people in their 20s. That’s the process of infantilization which society goes through.

As usual, conservative dipshits, addicted to their own Romantic conceptions, claim that “actually, children are not nearly infantile enough these days.” They don’t see the pervasive “kid culture” that has completely zombified kids into being basically a bunch of drooling retards; no, what the prudish-types care about is “MOAR INNOCENCE,” as usual.

Fact is, kids today are not shown anything about the real world; a whole culture of idiocy, blindness, silliness, and clownishness has been erected like walls all around them. It is the culture of the TV channels for kids, the culture of Toy-Shops, the culture of child-oriented video games. Muh “birds and bees.”

Look, I get the temptation to indulge in infantilism. In fact, I’m probably a hypocrite, because I haven’t yet begun doing anything to de-infantilize my own 19-month-old son. He, like most toddlers, also watches the stupid TV shows and has all of these damn toys all over the place. It’s not easy resisting the ways of the system. But the real problem is that society is not structured in a way that allows children to be de-infantilized. When people only get a job at 18 or at 21 or they are NEETs, and there is an age-ist Prussian School System that is mandatory and which brainwashes its prisoners to believe that “school is good,” and Feminist careerism is pushed on all potential mothers by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, it’s no wonder that people are very immature nowadays. That only goes to show how radically modern society must be transformed, in my opinion.

To get back on point: “childhood” and “adulthood” are both fictional concepts. These may be useful fictions, but they are still fictions. The telos of childhood is adulthood. It’s a transitional state, and if we must choose an arbitrary age when childhood should be officially and finally over, that age should be 9. That is, if we discover that 10-year-olds behave in an infantile manner nowadays, it’s because their parents — and, crucially, society at large — have not properly de-infantilized them. It’s a wholly artificial state of affairs, rooted in Romantic delusions.

Young people should have sex, because young people should experience real life in order to become functional adults; and an integral part of real life is — and should be — the sex life. Far from constituting a “problem” for young people, sexual intercourse is one effective way for getting young people to see the broader picture of reality. Deprived of sex, ‘kids’ grow up with warped and unrealistic notions about reality, and suffer dysfunction as adults. They don’t get to learn what’s important and what’s unimportant in life when they should learn it – young. Getting laid gives you a mentally clear vision of priorities in life, gives you a clarity of mind which allows you to deeply reflect on what’s actually going on in the world. Sex is necessary for young people, whose one and only task is to — repeat after me — become adults. Sex is a fundamental part of a fulfilled adult life.

#10: Young sex leaves young people traumatized.

No, it doesn’t. The ‘trauma’ stems entirely from being repeatedly and incessantly told by Blue Knights (Puritans, Feminists, Conservadaddies, Catladies, etc.) that a horrible crime has been committed against you by a wicked individual, that you have been “taken advantage of,” “deprived of innocence,” “ruined forever,” “sexually exploited,” “abused,” and the rest of the victimological jargon. The sex itself and the relationship itself feel good, and are indeed good biologically and psychologically; they bring fulfillment to one’s life and a satisfaction for one’s fresh and burning biological needs. The whole “trauma,” such as it is, is inflicted by society on the younger party, due to society’s strict adherence to a victimization-based morality.

That’s why I call for a Moral Revolution. This is not a troll. As long as people adhere to a victimization-based morality that sees “power imbalances” as inherently and fundamentally victimizing, people won’t be able to think logically about young sexuality. The current prevailing system of social morality must be replaced with a new one. Once that is achieved, all of this “trauma” — which is inflicted by the Blue Knights on horny young people — will dissipate and evaporate altogether

Young people greatly enjoy sex, and will go to great lengths to achieve it, overcoming the very many mechanisms of sexual oppression established by Blue Knights.

#11: Young people don’t know what’s good for them, and therefore need to be protected from risky situations.

If young people don’t know what’s good for them, it’s because society itself has successfully destroyed their ability to know what’s good for them. I mean, by the age of 10, a person should have a basic idea about what life is all about. If that’s not so for most or all people, something is deeply rotten in society.

And the reason for this indeed being the modern state of affairs is exactly because the protectiveness of parents, combined with wholesale cultural infantilization, has rendered young people incapable of independent thought. Thus, instead of “MOAR PROTECTION,” young people need infinitely less of it – so that they will learn to deal with reality.

And at any rate, sex is not as risky as the Blue Knights claim it is. They scare people about STDs, but then the solutions to that problem are well-known, and are completely independent of age – if instructed properly, and possessing a responsible personality, a 10-year-old can behave just as carefully — if not much more carefully — than many 40-year-olds.

Then there is the issue of pregnancy. First of all, what I wrote in the above paragraph about responsiblity applies here as well – the pregnancy-avoidance methods are well known. Secondly however, there’s a great differences in here: pregnancy is not a disease. It’s not a bad thing, but a good thing. I support young pregnancy and young parenthood. That is the primary “risk” which Blue Knight scare-mongers warn about, and I don’t see it as a risk at all. Instead of being protected from reproduction, people need to be instructed about how to reproduce. I once wrote, trollishly as usual, that if there should be any schools at all, then the “homework” of young females should be getting impregnated. The essence beneath the statement is on-point: pregnancy is good, because reproduction is good; fertility is good, while sterility is bad.

So, in my view, young people should not be protected from the “risk” of pregnancy. They should be instructed about it, made to comprehend the how’s and why’s of it, and then allowed to use their mind-faculties to figure-out what should or should not be done. That’s the gist of any de-infantilization program.

#12: Young people don’t desire to have sex.

Young people do, as a matter of actual fact, very much desire to have sex; much more-so, even, than many old people.

#13: If the AOC is abolished, parents will no longer be able to control their children.

What is the purpose — the very raison d’etre — of parental control over children? To turn children into functional adults, so as to allow them to form families and continue the bloodline. This cannot be achieved by hindering the ability of children (or “children”) to engage in the one thing that marks the arrival of maturity – sexual activity. Sexual activity is the thing that most unequivocally transforms an un-developed person into a developed person. Since the purpose of parenthood is the creation of adults, parenthood should serve to (at the very least) give-way in face of the natural maturation of children, rather than artificially prolonging “childhood” in order to extend the period of parental control. Parental control is only good insofar as it allows parents to facilitate the de-infantilization of their children; when, as in our deplorable times, parental control is used to exacerbate the infantilization of children, it is in the interest of society to tell parents to fuck off.

Since parents these days abuse their parental power and authority by artificially prolonging the infantilization of their own children, the abolition of the anti-natural AOC is exactly a thing that is needed in order to put parental control in check. The power of parents vis-a-vis their children must be drastically reduced when the child reaches the age of 8. That’s usually the age when sex, reproduction, and marriage all become relevant. If you want to argue that 8 is still too young, perhaps (maybe) we can compromise on 10. Point is, between 8 and 10, parental power should be dramatically restricted.

As a 23-year-old father, I can tell you that parents and family in general continue to significantly shape your life long after you cease being under “parental control.” An abolition of the AOC won’t result in all teenagers running away from home never to be seen again. But it will, God willing, result in the establishment of many new young households. That is something that we should strive for – getting teenagers to form families. That is the meaning of creating adults.

#14: Without an AOC, there will be grey-zone situations of child prostitution.

Child prostitution should be legal.

#15: Abolishing the AOC will increase pre-marital sex, which is a bad thing.

First of all, I couldn’t care less about whether or not sex is “pre-marital.” I had fucked my wife and impregnated her before we were married; so what? What matters is the bottom line: the creation of a patriarchal and stable household.

The second thing is, people today marry extremely late, and many forgo marriage altogether. This is related to the war against young sexuality: not reproducing when young, people struggle to reproduce when old; and living in sexlessness until the late teens or early twenies (or until later than that), a total sexual dysfunction takes over society, and people find it difficult to form long-lasting relationships at all. Young love shines the brightest, the younger the love, the brighter it shines; couples who start young last longer than those who start old.

Puritanical Blue Knights have brought about the plummeting of the TFR in Western Society. In my view, pre-marital sex should be accepted, as long as everyone involved understands that the purpose of any “romance” is the formation of a household. Early teenage marriage should be encouraged, and if early teenage sexual intercourse facilitates that, so be it – it’s all the better. It is not sex that is harmful to young people; sex is good for them. It is sexlessness that is the central and overarching problem of our times.

In conclusion
Man, that was exhausting, I gotta say. But hopefully, this post will serve as a guide to answering Blue Knight talking points. All of you must remember this: before you can annihilate Blue Knightism, you must mentally internalize what it is that we Male Sexualists believe in. In moments of uncertainty and doubt, consult this post, and you may find the core idea needed for you in order to formulate your own Male Sexualist position about any given issue.

There is a new revolution on the horizon. I don’t know how long I personally have left in this world. Perhaps the intelligence operatives threatening me will decide against killing me, or maybe they’ll slay me this very night. Who knows. What I want you to do is to take the ideas provided on DAF and now on TAF, understand them, and spread them. This is not a cult of personality or a money-making scheme. This is a political movement that has its own ideas, ideas that may initially appear groundbreaking but which in reality may also be primordial, ideas which we hope will be implemented in reality – be it 30, 80, or 360 years from now. At some point in the future, somewhere on the face of our planet, there will be a Male Sexualist country.

If during the next half-decade we manage to bring into the fold both edgy 4channers and 8channers (“meme lords”), and serious, intelligent, competent, affluent, deep-thinking, and strategizing supporters, we will be able within several decades to achieve our political objective.

APieceOfFemShit #sexist reddit.com

Disclaimer: I already know NAMALT

Do you really believe that the male imperative is sex, and sex alone. That there's nothing else that men want/need from women, besides being a human Fleshlight?

I'm asking because most men want to get married and have families. That differs from the sex imperative, because men can get sex without getting married. Marriage requires relationship building, and every guy knows that, so why go through all that hassle if your only interest is sex? This is a verboten idea on this board, but men want relationships just as much as women do. The process is different, but the goal is the same

Marriage is actually androcentric. Women and girls have been indoctrinated into thinking that marriage, LTRs, etc. is a female/feminine idea "Mr.Right", "obsessions with power", but it is not. It is men that created this through sexism and inferiority complex. Hate to agree with the red pill religion, but the male imperative involves religiosity around women, whether it be sex or relationships - almost impulsively that they cannot help - while the female imperative just revolves around reproduction and protection of offspring, with no interest in males to the extent that males are obsessed with females. Females are just shamed by society and men that their imperative is "unnatural" or immoral - so we have taken on more masculine attitudes and preferences, such as "settling down and getting married". This is ulitmately why The Red Pill clergy women are some of the saddest women in history to look at. In reality, we can select any male in nature we want and reproduce with them and spread genetics easily. This naturally ties males to their offspring, so there is no need to "marry one" for 50 years or be stuck with some man for 50 years. This is why women leave marriages early and remarry a lot less. Men continue to shame women that "divorce" shit men or love claiming "women are incapable of love" just because they aren't brainwashed into male imperatives, and etc for a reason. Like marriage/divorce are some natural thing. Stats continue to report decreased happiness that this causes women, which is not so for the male.

"Prince Charming," Disney, "Damsel in distress" "Provider," , relationships, marriage, etc etc etc was all androcentric and mostly only benefits the male. We can see in history women did not agree with these ideas. They did not agree with marriage. Women have marched since the 1600s way before feminism. These were socially established to compensate for male expendability in nature. The female on the other hand can mate and spread her genes as much as she wants, needs no male for protection nor financial means, and can also function at full cognitive capacity as the male, while also having the ability to reproduce. Males know the potential of women and how useless they are in comparison to the female, which is why they are obsessed with "keeping them somewhere" and indoctrinating them into "needing men" to the point of infantilization and benevolent sexism brainwashing. Most of this stuff is just male projection and envy. Freud was a big one. He made penis envy a thing which is just all projection, envy and jealousy and proven to be insane and made up (like most male things and fake male "academia" that demonstrably made of lies about female anatomy and women for ages), like the rest of his theories that were all projection, such "everyone is obsessed with sex" from birth.

Males worship and obession of women goes back to the very beginning with Goddess religions, and in nature. What we see today is all made up androcentricism. The world is entirely androcentric hiding it as "traditionalism" and laughably false monotheistic/theistic androcentric "religions" and other indoctrination's blaming on "what women want out of men" - so they have some reason to live. Traditionalism is just worship of women by men and this is why it needs sexism/mistreatment of women in it and to be virtue signalled by religions to justify it's stupidity.

jptrigen #fundie sodahead.com

When it comes to sexual orientation, abortion, and childhood sexual exploration, the left demands to arbitrate the rules. The problem for the rest of America is that if one dares express an opinion alien to the guidelines set forth by the left or risks imposing moral standards via a chosen lifestyle, liberals focus like a laser on obliterating the offender.

That’s exactly what Josh Duggar of 19 Kids and Counting is living through right now.

Seems that when Josh was a 14-year-old boy, he admitted that he “inexcusably” fondled five girls in their sleep, two of whom were his younger sisters. Riddled with remorse, Josh confessed to his parents what he’d done, and Michelle and Jim Bob chose to handle it by sending him away for a while and then reporting it to the authorities. Charges were not filed.

No one disagrees that a child molesting a child, let alone a sibling, is inappropriate and harmful behavior, but then again, in today’s society, boys fondling girls and even boys fondling boys are common occurrences.

Insincerity enters the debate via those who ordinarily consider underage sex part of normal human development. After all, it was the government agency Health and Human Services that acknowledged sex-play among kids to be part of what they call small children behaving like “Sexual Beings.”

For Josh Duggar, 12 years after the fact, it’s different.

In his case, the group that normally encourages all manner of sexual experimentation is calling for the father of four’s head on a sexual-predator spike. Sorry to have to be the bearer of bad tidings, but if every individual casting a stone was to have the curtain drawn back on his or her antics during puberty, there’d be a whole lot of scribbling in the sand.

Josh lived in a cloistered, homeschooled family environment, but if the eldest Duggar were in an Arkansas public school system and decided to get busy with a girlfriend in the back of someone’s pickup truck, the ones criticizing him now would have surely provided the lad with a condom-on-a-cucumber tutorial. And if need be, had clumsy Josh failed to use the government-issued condom correctly, if given the go-ahead by a judge, some school administrator would gladly have shuttled the object of Josh’s affection to an abortion clinic, with her parents none the wiser.

Speaking of Arkansas, don’t the Duggars hail from the same state as a former president who, as far as we know, never fondled his alleged half-sister Sharon Lee Blythe but was accused by several women of rape, molestation, exposing himself, and preying upon White House interns?

Yet many of Josh’s critics adore America’s infamous saxophone-playing pervert, because letting someone like Bill get away with using a cigar as a sex toy must somehow subdue the sex-induced self-reproach liberals apparently feel.

For Josh, admitting his indiscretions and actually changing his behavior underscores the message that although our weak carnal natures tend toward wanton depravity, and despite attesting faith in Christ, no one is exempt from the need for God’s forgiveness.

Secular liberals can’t have that!


Unlike those who attempt to assuage the guilt of abortion by downgrading babies to fetal tissue, Duggar did not make excuses for his indefensible behavior. He confessed, and he is now willing to suffer the consequences.

Duggar critics argue that Josh’s victims are injured for life and will never recover from the trauma. Hopefully, with time and counseling, that will not be the case.

However, this concern is mouthed by the very people who largely agree with exposing kindergarteners to homosexual marriage, installing safe-school czars who attend conferences that teach unnatural gay sex techniques to schoolchildren, and excusing ex-presidents for frequenting pedophile vacation destinations.

Isn’t it liberals who believe that teaching masturbation is more important than American history? And now America is supposed to believe that those who sexualize five-year-olds from the second they enter school are suddenly wringing their hands with concern for the girls horny Josh infringed upon?

Moreover, when they’re not demanding that a 27-year-old a man be branded a child predator for engaging in inappropriate hormone-induced sexual activity when he was 14, lefties spend their time egging on a sex-obsessed writer/actress who, after being raised by an artist father renowned for depicting distorted female genitalia, described in her memoir perusing her little sister’s privates for hidden pebbles.

The serious nature of child molestation cannot and should not be dismissed. It’s just hard to buy all the liberal outrage, because many of those censuring Josh Duggar are fans of slaughtering 4,000 babies a day, and when it comes to hurting children, these same people are unconcerned about the message it sends kids when cult heroes are made of men transitioning from penis to vagina.

Henry Makow, #conspiracy thetruthseeker.co.uk

[Title : UNCLE SAM WANTS YOU GAY]

I've said this before but it's more true than ever. A satanic cult (Illuminism) is undermining our family identity to render us isolated, childless, sex-obsessed, dysfunctional, and docile.

I am referring to the Masonic Rothschild-Rockefeller cult-cartel that runs Europe and America and is behind Communism and Feminism. Destroying marriage and family was a plank in their Communist Manifesto (1848) and now is part of their satanic NWO.

We don't recognize that society is becoming gay because we think of homosexuality in terms of same-sex attraction. If we redefine it as "inability to bond with a member of the opposite sex for purposes of procreation," the gay trend is clear.

The American marriage rate has dropped almost 50% since 1970. Thirty seven percent of American children do not live with both biological parents, the highest percentage among Western nations, compared to 9% in 1965.

Almost 40% of children were born out of wedlock in 2005 compared to 8% in 1965.

Only one-in-four households consist of married couples with children, compared to two-in-four in 1960.

"The United States has the weakest families in the Western world because we have the highest divorce rate and the highest rate of solo parenting," says Rutgers Sociology Professor David Popenoe.

A defining characteristic of homosexuality is sexual promiscuity. Since media induced "sexual liberation," society has become obsessed with sex and all human relations have been degraded. (See my "Is this Gay Behavior Sick?" and "Playboy and the (Homo) Sexual Revolution."

Now the educational system is actually promoting sex to children. In Winnipeg where I live, a father complained this week that a public health teacher told his 12-year-old daughter's class to have sex at age 13. They were taught about flavored condoms and shown graphic pictures that appalled the children.

This action exposes the public school system for what it has become: an instrument of mass corruption, indoctrination and child abuse. With 13-year-olds told to have sex, is it any wonder they are inviting adult predators to their homes? (See "NBC Dateline: To Catch a Predator") How long will it be before pedophilia is legalized?

A strong marriage is the foundation of a family. Girls today will reach marital age feeling jaded and abused, and possibly already will have a child. Compare this to just 50-years-ago when sex was consecrated for marriage and family.

Schools are actually teaching children to adopt the gay lifestyle and experiment with gay sex. Courts are upholding the
right of schools to debauch children over their parents' objections.

Miriamthebat #homophobia #kinkshaming deviantart.com


) Multiple reasons I dislike yaoi so much, including but not limited to:

- For one, I find it incredibly disrespectful to real life gays. It's a media that treats gay men like sex-obsessed man whores. It's not helping in the fight for gay rights and equality. What happens if a politician uses the internet to do research on the gay lifestyle in order to influence his decision on a law, and finds all this yaoi and yaoi culture instead? It will give him the wrong impression, a bad one, and set back progress on the freedoms the gays have been fighting for. Hell, even yaoi fangirls disrespect gays by believing them to have the same stereotypes as their gay anime characters. Why is it that yaoi fangirls will ask a gay person "are you a seme or an uke?" and think that it's a perfectly acceptable question? I want my gay friends to be treated as equals, not to be seen as stereotypes who's lives revolve around sex.

- It's unhealthy for young girls to be so obsessed with yaoi. Nothing makes me more angry than seeing yaoi fangirls squeal about rape as if it's a good thing, finding rape "cute", or writing stories where a character gets raped then falls in love with the rapist. That's disgusting and wrong. And shota? If there's sex involved, it's pedophilia. It's not cute in the slightest and it should never be considered cute.

- Yaoi fangirls tend to hate female main characters, drawing hate and slaughter art. It's disheartening to do a search for art on your favorite female character, only to find pictures of her being tortured or dismembered. It's even worse if you do a search on your favorite straight pairing, only to find more pictures of a gay pairing with the female character being slaughtered in the background. My search for Sora/Kairi art brought up stuff like that.

- Many yaoi fangirls are elitists and think that they are better than people like me. They think I'm closed-minded or a homophobe because I don't like yaoi. Some yaoi fans also think they are victims of the same persecution as the gays themselves. To believe they suffer as much as the gays because of their hobby is ridiculous when there are gay people being murdered by their own family members for coming out of the closet.

- There's too much of it. The Kingdom Hearts fandom was nearly ruined for me because of the huge percent of yaoi art. Yaoi fangirls tell people "if you don't like it, don't look at it!" but it's impossible to do, especially when there's yaoi on the front page of deviantart nearly every day! Yaoi fansgirls also seem to find themselves above censorship, posting very racy or pornographic images in places they shouldn't and then getting angry if people complain.

- You saw how people reacted to my "just say no" image. I got a lot of hate mail and threats. And NONE of the hate mail was from people who were actually gay. The image itself was a joke and was not meant to be taken seriously, which is why I drew it with bright colors, chibi characters, and the stupid acronym. Yet people treated me like I was physically hurting gay people. I still see people insulting me in their LiveJournals long after the initial incident. All because of a joke image?

There are a lot more things I hate about yaoi, but I can't remember them all in specific to post them now

Doug Giles #fundie townhall.com

Here’s my last word for the teenager: Nobody on the abstinence side of the sex spectrum is trying to keep you from having fun. We’re just trying to keep you alive so that when you meet the right person and get married you can have a healthy sex life with no regrets, diseases, infertility or untimely death, that’s all. And yes, it’s come down to that. The sexual revolution is over, and we all lost. In this, your day, my young friend, there is a very real pay day for buying the BS our sex-obsessed culture is selling you. This is the hand you’ve been dealt. Be afraid.

Sarah Stites #fundie mrc.org

[On article "Ultra-Lib Lizz Winstead ‘Will Not Cower’ to CMP’s ‘Thuggish Fetus Pornographers’"]

Cosmo loves to highlight women like The Daily Show co-creator Lizz Winstead: sex-obsessed, profane, offensive and unabashedly pro-abortion.

In an article published July 30, the women’s magazine lauded Winstead for potentially sacrificing her career in order to be a “USO of reproductive rights, visiting clinics and boosting the morale of the ‘troops.’” After all, her “vocal advocacy for reproductive rights can make it more difficult to get mainstream work.” Yes, you read that correctly.

Winstead—who grew up in a conservative, Catholic family—has been an avid abortion advocate ever since she had her own teenage pregnancy terminated. But just last year, she created an organization called Lady Parts Justice in order to support abortion workers throughout the U.S. Her “mobile justice unit” travels to many states, replete with food, microphones, cameras and even a singing plush pink uterus puppet named Eunice. I didn’t make that up.

It gets worse. After its creation in 2014, “the group faced immediate backlash from activists who argued that the organization's name and barrage of uterus jokes was transphobic and non-intersectional, or even simply too crass to play well in more conservative states.” Yep, you read that right, too.

In a Slate article, concerned transgender activist Parker Molloy responded that “Lady Parts” was an inappropriate moniker for the group. “Not all women are the owners of a uterus, and not all owners of a uterus are women,” Molloy corrected. “A person should not be defined by what reproductive organs they have or don’t have.” Gosh, being as progressive as she is, how did Winstead ever get away with that transphobic, bigoted, non-intersectional move? She might as well have named the group “Cis-Parts Justice!”

“As for being ‘crass,’ she has no problem with that reputation,” the Cosmo article read. Then, quoting Winstead: “I'm not afraid to say things crassly and in a 'f*ck you' manner, because sometimes this just needs to be said. Sometimes you just need to say, 'This f*cking sucks and it's f*cking outrageous and it's got to stop.” What a gem. Take out those f-bombs, and I wish she’d say that to Planned Parenthood.

But that won’t happen. Throughout the recent scandal, Winstead has tweeted repeatedly #IStandWithAbortionCareProviders.

Moreover, she has continued to inject her crassness into tweets attacking the Center for Medical Progress. On July 28, the date CMP released the third Planned Parenthood video, Winstead tweeted: “I simply will not cower to these thuggish fetus pornographers.”

Other tweets called CMP an “illegal and immoral outfit” and its videos “amateur propaganda.”

And yes, this is the kind of woman that Cosmo likes to highlight.

Jedidiah Van Horn #sexist identitydixie.com

[From "Sexual Utopia in Power"]

It is well known to readers of this journal that white birthrates worldwide have suffered a catastrophic decline in recent decades. During this same period, ours has become assuredly the most sex-obsessed society in the history of the world. Two such massive, concurrent trends are hardly likely to be unrelated. Many well-meaning conservatives agree in deploring the present situation, but do not agree in describing that situation or how it arose. Correct diagnosis is the first precondition for effective strategy.

The well-worn phrase “sexual revolution” ought, I believe, to be taken with more than customary seriousness. Like the French Revolution, the paradigmatic political revolution of modern times, it was an attempt to realize a utopia, but a sexual rather than political utopia. And like the French Revolution, it has gone through three phases: first, a libertarian or anarchic phase in which the utopia was supposed to occur spontaneously once old ways had been swept aside; second, a reign of terror, in which one faction seized power and attempted to realize its schemes dictatorially; and third, a “reaction” in which human nature gradually reasserted itself. We shall follow this order in the present essay.

Two Utopias

Let us consider what a sexual utopia is, and let us begin with men, who are in every respect simpler.

Nature has played a trick on men: production of spermatozoa occurs at a rate several orders of magnitude greater than female ovulation (about 12 million per hour vs. 400 per lifetime). This is a natural, not a moral, fact. Among the lower animals also, the male is grossly oversupplied with something for which the female has only a limited demand. This means that the female has far greater control over mating. The universal law of nature is that males display and females choose. Male peacocks spread their tales, females choose. Male rams butt horns, females choose. Among humans, boys try to impress girls—and the girls choose. Nature dictates that in the mating dance, the male must wait to be chosen.

A man’s sexual utopia is, accordingly, a world in which no such limit to female demand for him exists. It is not necessary to resort to pornography for example. Consider only popular movies aimed at a male audience, such as the James Bond series. Women simply cannot resist James Bond. He does not have to propose marriage, or even request dates. He simply walks into the room and they swoon. The entertainment industry turns out endless images such as this. Why, the male viewer eventually may ask, cannot life actually be so? To some, it is tempting to put the blame on the institution of marriage.

Marriage, after all, seems to restrict sex rather drastically. Certain men figure that if sex were permitted both inside and outside of marriage there would have to be twice as much sex as formerly. They imagined there existed a large, untapped reservoir of female desire hitherto repressed by monogamy. To release it, they sought, during the early postwar period, to replace the seventh commandment with an endorsement of all sexual activity between “consenting adults.” Every man could have a harem. Sexual behavior in general, and not merely family life, was henceforward to be regarded as a private matter. Traditionalists who disagreed were said to want to “put a policeman in every bedroom.” This was the age of the Kinsey Reports and the first appearance of Playboy magazine. Idle male daydreams had become a social movement.

This characteristically male sexual utopianism of the early postwar years was a forerunner of the sexual revolution but not the revolution itself. Men are incapable of bringing about revolutionary changes in heterosexual relations without the cooperation—the famed “consent”—of women. But the original male would-be revolutionaries did not understand the nature of the female sex instinct. That is why things have not gone according to their plan.

What is the special character of feminine sexual desire that distinguishes it from that of men?

It is sometimes said that men are polygamous and women monogamous. Such a belief is often implicit in the writings of “conservative” male commentators: Women only want good husbands, but heartless men use and abandon them. Some evidence does appear, prima facie, to support such a view. One 1994 survey found that “while men projected they would ideally like 6 sex partners over the next year, and 8 over the next two years, women responded that their ideal would be to have only one partner over the next year. And over two years? The answer, for women, was still one.”[1] Is this not evidence that women are naturally monogamous?

No, it is not. Women know their own sexual urges are unruly, but traditionally have had enough sense to keep quiet about it. A husband’s belief that his wife is naturally monogamous makes for his own peace of mind. It is not to a wife’s advantage, either, that her husband understand her too well: Knowledge is power. In short, we have here a kind of Platonic “noble lie”—a belief which is salutary, although false.

It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best. By definition, only one man can be the best. These different male and female “sexual orientations” are clearly seen among the lower primates, e.g., in a baboon pack. Females compete to mate at the top, males to get to the top.

Women, in fact, have a distinctive sexual utopia corresponding to their hypergamous instincts. In its purely utopian form, it has two parts: First, she mates with her incubus, the imaginary perfect man; and, second, he “commits,” or ceases mating with all other women. This is the formula of much pulp romance fiction. The fantasy is strictly utopian, partly because no perfect man exists, but partly also because even if he did, it is logically impossible for him to be the exclusive mate of all the women who desire him.

It is possible, however, to enable women to mate hypergamously, i.e., with the most sexually attractive (handsome or socially dominant) men. In the Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes the women of Athens stage a coup d’état. They occupy the legislative assembly and barricade their husbands out. Then they proceed to enact a law by which the most attractive males of the city will be compelled to mate with each female in turn, beginning with the least attractive. That is the female sexual utopia in power. Aristophanes had a better understanding of the female mind than the average husband.

[...]

Fallout of the Revolution: “Date Rape”

A few years into the sexual revolution, shocking reports began to appear of vast numbers of young women—from one quarter to half—being victims of rape. Shock turned to bewilderment when the victims were brought forward to tell their stories. The “rapists,” it turns out, were never lying in wait for them in remote corners, were not armed, did not attack them. Instead, these “date rapes” occur in private places, usually college dormitory rooms, and involve no threats or violence. In fact, they little resemble what most of us think of as rape.

What was going on here?

Take a girl too young to understand what erotic desire is and subject her to several years of propaganda to the effect that she has a right to have things any way she wants them in this domain—with no corresponding duties to God, her parents, or anyone else. Do not give her any guidance as to what it might be good for her to want, how she might try to regulate her own conduct, or what qualities she ought to look for in a young man. Teach her furthermore that the notion of natural differences between the sexes is a laughable superstition that our enlightened age is gradually overcoming—with the implication that men’s sexual desires are no different from or more intense than her own. Meanwhile, as she matures physically, keep her protected in her parents’ house, sheltered from responsibility.

Then, at age seventeen or eighteen, take her suddenly away from her family and all the people she has ever known. She can stay up as late as she wants! She can decide for herself when and how much to study! She’s making new friends all the time, young women and men both. It’s no big deal having them over or going to their rooms; everybody is perfectly casual about it. What difference does it make if it’s a boy she met at a party? He seems like a nice fellow, like others she meets in class.

Now let us consider the young man she is alone with. He is neither a saint nor a criminal, but, like all normal young men of college years, he is intensely interested in sex. There are times he cannot study without getting distracted by the thought of some young woman’s body. He has had little real experience with girls, and most of that unhappy. He has been rejected a few times with little ceremony, and it was more humiliating than he cares to admit. He has the impression that for other young men things are not as difficult: “Everybody knows,” after all, that since the 1960s men get all the sex they like, right? He is bombarded with talk about sex on television, in the words to popular songs, in rumors about friends who supposedly “scored” with this or that girl. He begins to wonder if there isn’t something wrong with him.

Furthermore, he has received the same education about sex as the girl he is now with. He has learned that people have the right to do anything they want. The only exception is rape. But that is hardly even relevant to him; he is obviously incapable of doing something like that.

corpsedoll #sexist reddit.com

This is what I really don't understand. Menstruation and childbirth are painful, exhausting, and occasionally life threatening. And having a uterus is no guarantee that you'll get the ideal procreative outcome. Why would you want something that is so risky, painful, and annoying, especially if you're already set up to procreate in the "fun" manner?

The only explaination I can come up with is that these bodily functions still hold massive amounts of spiritual or subconscious power in the human psyce, despite millenia of patriarchal programming designed to paint them as demonic, evil, and gross. This is the wellspring of women-specific power and no matter how men frame that power, they can't take it from us and they can't get rid of it. For colonization junkies, that's gotta be a real sore spot.

This trans uterus envy seems like a 21st century reversal of Freud's penis envy, which was itself a reversal of men's inherent jealousy of women. So men are back in touch with their most deeply held feelings and are no longer denying them, but sadly their sense of entitlement and their desire to colonize hasn't dissipated. sigh.

various commenters #fundie breitbart.com

(Comments on an article about feminists "triggered" by Jimmy Choo shoes catcalling ad)

(Epynymcles)
I'm guessing the people complaining are the usual husky types?

(Damn Skippy)
As a former 20-30 something...flirty catcalls are natures way of telling you are still hot. What is the harm? People need to LIGHTEN UP!

The ONLY people bothered by this are the feminists who are creepy control fascists. They tolerate NOTHING outside their thinking.
Women can be and do it all or what they want. Like you said Joe, each is unique in their own way!
This ad is fun and flirty.

(gomurr)
Personally, I never found catcalls to be offensive unless they came with a guy following you down the street, muttering dirty things under his breath. I think women have gone too far in the other direction in their quest for "equality" and women's rights. While they're busy destroying any of the intriguing differences between men and women, as well as the mystery of sex being reduced to hook ups, it's seems most of them still don't feel "empowered" enough to tell a man to FO when he's being inappropriate, or simply remove yourself from the situation. Yup, this is now about the male sex as the enemy and the domination of women. Until you can actually stand up for yourselves in an unpleasant situation, ladies, and until you can lose the "victim" status, don't plan on ruling the world. I feel really bad for the young people today. Some of them are seriously screwed up.

(PigressivesSuck)
I can see why the typical ugly as sin fat libtard cow is triggered by an ad like this...LMAO!

(kyrifles)
I can see the next big trend in fashion shoots already - models in burkas. That way, Rosie O'Donnell and Hillary Clinton can both be "it" girls.

(Momster)
They are already “it-girls.” You take one look and ask WTF is it?!?!

(jimhurt)
As a man who works with "normal" women everyday, they have no problem with compliments. I've seen guys get creepy and these women shut them down NOW. This is just a few women with an inferiority complex big enough to drive a semi through. If they didn't get media attention, you would never hear from them again.

(Sola Fide)
From this older woman's perspective, it looks like today's feminists are not seeking equality, they are seeking domination. Frightening.

(Sequitur)
Always been that way, lady. Arrested development types still in the "penis envy" stage as explained by Freud. Serious Daddy issues.

(Sola Fide)
Freud was a fraud and his "penis envy" was a fairytale created to possibly make himself feel better. Nevertheless, it is obvious today's feminists are without question anti-male.

(Sequitur)
Many Freudian theories/constructs are attempts to explain behaviors which are otherwise unexplainable, and they are just theories which have been discussed, debated, refined over a century. But I wouldn't call him a "fraud."

If for nothing else, we still have not answered his lament that, after a lifetime studying the female psyche, he still could not answer the simple question "What does a woman want?"

Seriously, could anything be more au courant? What, exactly, does a woman want? Jimmy Choo shoes in the Oval Office? Showing a lot of leg in the boardroom? "GI Jane" fantasies? Nice guys? Bad boys? What?

Standing by for incoming . . .

(Sola Fide)
While most women would be horrified to admit it to a man, among ourselves and with deep honesty, many of us want security for ourselves and our children.

(anthilltiger)
the Big question to be answered and studied is "What Does A Man Want" I don't think women have an answer for that one ? I am sure they think they know same with men concerning women....life goes on to sweat the petty things.... Men and women a different DNA and that is special.. No Human can change that law. Not even todays mental-Trans illogical agenda can change it. Its permanent done!

Edmund_Kemper #psycho #sexist #pedo incels.co

[Serious] Am I weird for having fantasies about cannibalism?

When a foid on reddit admits to having rape fantasies, people tell her it’s normal. People think BDSM or whatever is okay. But I’m a freak if I fantasize about cannibalism once in a while because I see a young woman’s soft smooth youthful skin? Sure I don’t get into the fantasies too much and hell, sometimes I fantasize about it sarcastically. But sometimes I see a young woman’s soft youthful skin and her soft feminine eyes and I kinda think “is she going to taste good if I eat her for dinner?”. Sometimes I feel a bit hungry if I see a landwhale despite an absence of sexual attraction because their fatness makes them look like they’re yummy food.

Sure, it’s a bit sick, but I won’t act on it, nor do I want to, the fantasy is very temporary. Also, anyone who puked while reading this is a pussy and isn’t a real man.

kinda weird ngl

Up to 9% of men have fantasized about sex with prepubescent children and 33% fantasized about rape, and this is weird?

Yes, its weird.

And what about people here fapping to naked 10 year old anime girls?

yes it's very weird stop coping

Cope. People here fantasize about weirder shit

What's wrong with fapping to 2D girls? They are not real.
People who fap to real 10 year old girls are creepy and weird.

At least cannibalism is a high T manly thing to do

These numbers are probably lower than they actually are because men would not tell the truth when asked a question like that.

The bohemian lifestyle of the average foid would probably make them taste gross. Give me a roast beef over a roastie plz.

66% of men have said in a survey that they’ve fantasized about young girls

There's an interesting video about what human meat tastes like, apparently it's like veal

So a young woman’s soft hairless skin actually would taste good?

I hope you're right.

When I think of evil, I think of a serial killer or a terrorist, not a guy who has consensual sex with jb teens

What makes me mad the most about all that agecucked shit is the hypocrisy. Yes, many actions related to porn and/or sex with underage people are immoral. According to Jesus, even coveting people who are not your husbands/wives sexually is immoral. I agree. But why the focus only on agecucked shit when the world nowadays is pretty much Sodom and Gomorrah but on a global scale?

The answer is feminism.

When I watch supervillain shows and movies, none of the villains are into sex with minors, they just destroy the world and kill people

you think the fraction of men who've had rape fantasies is less than a third? LOL

No they fantasized about PERPETRATING the rape

I think it comes off as a bit weird, but if it remains just a fantasy, I don't see a problem with it, tbh.

Some foids look like food

don't you find the human body fascinating ? i would love to explore it personally, but that would require a body, and im not gonna kill lol.

I think female skin is tasty if I try eating it for dinner

Sputnik #sexist gossiprocks.com

[ on an adult man having sex with a 13 year old girl]

hey, i knew girls in school that started having sex when they were 12, 13... even knew one girl that lost her virginity at 11 to her 16 year-old cousin. it's statutory rape but it's not the same as non-consensual, forced sex. that is rape. not all 13 year-old girls are alike and not all of them are 'little girls'. don't get me wrong, i am not saying that what he did is alright, i'm just saying it's not as clear-cut and black and white as 'he raped a little girl' makes it sound, and which is what the judges were going after him for. yeah, he shouldn't have run, but since he didn't stand a chance at a fair trial given the judge that was in charge of the case, i also understand why he did.

tazdelaney #fundie rawstory.com

The whole 'pedophile' thing has been hysterically blown out of rational proportion... in arkansas 1980s still could mary a 12 year old boy or girl. 1900 england average age of marriage, as with most of human history, girls 13, boys 15. native peoples, unlike the antisexual west since moses, john the baptist and mohammed... lived naked; had sex in public; shamanic-animist rituals included live communal sex to which none were excluded... these largely extremely non-violent societies (direct result of sex-love-affection nurtured as birthright...) had no rape as unnecessary; little violencec; hardly any wars at all. consider that ben & jefferson marveled the natives prior to the rabid white euro-'christians' would wipe them all out had peace by treaty 6-800 years from mississippi east and gulf to the arctic... us? can't have peace for a day evereverever.

the world's greatest historians, will&ariel durant, met when he was 28, she 14 and him her history teach; worked together for 70 years. today? jail for will durant! my dad first had sex w/me mum when he 39, she 17. jail, dad, you pervert! painter georgia o'keefe had the romance of heer life in her late 70s-80s and he was 20 when it began. robbing the cradle?

nature really does not make youth so beautiful so as to entrap elders with eyes and drives. rape is rape and is invariably brutal, obvious. i gave consent, YES I GAVE MY CONSCIOUS CONSENT TO HAVE SEX when i was almost 12 with a boy of 15. when whole small town found out, mom told me she was gonna sue him for statutory rape. i told her i'd neever testify. she said she'd do it anyway and i said i'd runa away. then i told her i'd wanted to do it and that, anyway, was more fun thatn watching another beverly hillbillies rerun.

sex is good. violence is bad. the difference is very clear.

chaosmotor #fundie reddit.com

If you consider 12 "of breeding age," you're sick..

Guess what pal, any girl that has had her first period is capable of having a child. It's not wrong for a boy a few years older than her to take notice of her. You are raging against the natural world and labeling unnatural. You are the one who is wrong here, not human nature.


Plus, the OP has said his sister has not gone through puberty yet. You condoning his cousin's sick actions is deplorable, and frankly scary. The age of consent in most places is around 16, not 12, for a reason

Uhhh... to consent to have sex with someone older than the age of consent. If both are underage, it's not statutory and most places have laws specifying that an of-age teenager and an under-age teenager are not breaking the law if they're within a few years of each other.

The OP has said his sister hasn't gone through puberty yet but at 13 that's very unlikely - certainly she is not post-pubescent but she's almost guaranteed to be pubescent, else it's about two orders of magnitude deviation. The OP has also been doing everything in his power to twist this situation into a worrisome one when its clear that the two parties involved and all the adults who know about it do not have an issue.

Why are you scared of teenagers having sex? Weirdo.

THE DAILY ANTIFEMINIST #sexist dailyantifeminist.wordpress.com

My name is Tom Grauer and here at the Daily Antifeminist I’m going to advocate and propagandize for a genuine pro-sexual worldview. I’ll stake out the most extreme (and most correct) position about the issue of “Pedophilia” and call for the absolute abolition of all “Sex Crime” legislation, including and especially Age-of-Consent / Statutory Rape laws, “Child Pornography” laws, and “Underage Prostitution” laws. I also support the conmplete abolition of schools aka “kid prisons.”

czakal #racist diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.com

There was a strong Semitic element to Freud’s ideas in their obsession with scatology and sexuality, including the perverse ideas of parent-child sex which formed the cornerstone of his theories. Freudian psychology mainstreamed this kind of obscenity in our culture. The pathologisation of normality was another of the sinister effects of the Freudian movement. Normal, functional families were portrayed as afflicted by secret perversions. Those who favoured the maintenance of order and authority over the chaotic social experiments of the Left were seen as somehow “repressed” and dysfunctional. Freudian discourse can be seen as part of a long Jewish tradition, dating at least since the Talmud, which has framed the Goyim as impure, unclean and disease-ridden.

Robert Knight #fundie barbwire.com

A day does not go by without some new outrage. You know what I’m talking about — stories about fresh surges of illegal immigrants over the border despite the American people’s mounting anger that we’re losing our country; the Boy Scouts welcoming openly homosexual men as troop leaders; the federal debt soaring past $18 trillion and counting; Planned Parenthood getting caught dissecting live babies for organs and brains; the White House announcing the first openly transgender staff member; Pentagon officials rushing toward putting women into all combat units, including the Navy SEALs. I have yet to see a reporter ask how this will enhance the SEALs’ ability to conduct and survive dangerous missions.

Meanwhile, under President Obama’s nuclear “executive agreement,” Iran is pursuing an electromagnetic pulse capability that could plunge America into a dark age. Christians in Iraq and Syria are being beheaded, raped and sold as slaves while the Obama administration blocks Christian refugees and puts a welcome mat out for Muslim asylum-seekers. How much more disturbing can the news get?

At the movies, the Motion Picture Association of America gives an inexplicably lax R rating to “The Diary of a Teenage Girl,” about a 15-year-old having an affair with a 35-year-old man, complete with several nude scenes. The film’s director says she hopes to help young girls get over the “taboo” against being sexually active. Just when we thought we’d run out of broken taboos. People like this used to hang around schoolyards in creepy raincoats. Now they have big budgets and sophisticated cameras, and get warm reviews in major newspapers.

This is fifty shades of statutory rape, like former Subway pitchman Jared Fogle’s guilty pleas this past week for crossing state lines to have sex with underage girls and possessing child pornography. The “Diary” filmmaker gets away with it by having a 23-year-old portray the teen girl.

With the political world reeling from crisis to crisis and a media culture more decadent by the day, it’s more imperative than ever that people shed their apathy, get involved and push back the darkness. But in between battles, it’s not a bad thing to unplug and take in a ballgame.

At the very least, it’s good to take a drive in the real America. You can escape the evil media matrix — for a while.

Donald Trump #fundie google.com.au

Trump in 2012 on female teachers accused of statutory rape: 'I don't see a lot of damage done'

Donald Trump once dismissed concerns over female teachers having sex with underage male students, saying in a clip that the boys were "going around bragging about it."

In a June 2012 interview with a reporter from the TV show "Extra", Trump is asked what he thinks about "all these teachers having sex with their students." It's unclear which specific case Trump is referencing in the clip.

"Well, I don't think the male students have been hurt by it," Trump replies. "In fact, they're going around bragging about it as I understand it."

"Wow," the reporter says.

"I don't see a lot of damage done," Trump continues, before adding, "But it's a very unusual situation. I would say her husband cannot be happy."

The Trump campaign did not reply to a request for comment.

firelucid #fundie firelucid.tumblr.com

At the rate trans stuff has been accepted by a relevant portion of the population, I think that pedos will be either helped to deal with their thing (via legalizing computer generated material for their thing) or maybe even legalized.

Personally? I think that age of consent should be lowered to 12 or something like that, makes sense from a biologically point of view. Teens are obsessed with sex and they are dumb, you can’t stop them by law and if you can they will be stressed.

And AoC in Spain is around 13 and we’re really fine with it, I think that it’s not the most responsible age because teenagers are overwhelmingly stupid but it makes biological sense

Brother Nathanael Kapner #fundie realjewnews.com

JEWS LIKE FREUD are our misfortune. Is there a final solution this Jewish menace? Yes there is.

Jews must become Christians. There is not to be any tolerance towards the Jews for they will not reciprocate in kind, as history and current events prove. Jews are obsessed with sex, perversion, and the promotion of the same. Can we not see this in the Jewish-owned Hollywood, Television, and Madison Avenue advertising?

We must insist on the end of Judaism as a racist idea and be relentless in converting them to the Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ. Then we must teach these renegades how to become good and decent Christians.

Parks Curtis #fundie disqus.com

The 1st Amendment is our Law So you are in favor of putting preachers in cages for following there conscience . why aren't you attacking Imams for preaching hate and refusing to do gay marriages ? MORE importantly why is the big issue how terrible it is for Christians to simply follow there religion when islam throws them off roofs hangs and even shoots " gays " in our own land while condoning having sex with prepubescent children and animals ... Why is baking a " GAY CAKE " the biggest priority in the universe while we are sweeping pedophilia under the carpet and child rape is a global crisis ? People are having emotional meltdowns over not being able to have effeminate strippers in pink g strings hoping out of " gay cakes " but say nothing of greatest human trafficking / rape / sale and abduction of U S CHILDREN in the ETIORE HISTORY OF AMERICA a bust that extended to several states and 29 Somalian MUSLIMS DOING the SAME DAMN ( used in true context ) THINGS AS MUHAMMAD DID .=. ... How did this become the " PRIORITY " to " combat the non baking of gay wedding cakes " which is actually protected under " freedom of religion " in our very first Amendment yet you over look HEADHUNTER PEDOPHILE LIAR "prophet "followers RAPING /KIDNAPPING AND SELLING OUR CHILDREN " religiously " in a non peaceful assembly cult .. ... its like Pedophile enabling Killery Clinton saying she will "bring to justice " an out spoken coptic CHRISTIAN film maker practicing his 1st amendment right ... but not going after the MUSLIMS FOLLOWING ISLAM terrorist who killed OUR AMERICAN DEFENDERS ... you place NON ISSUES over REAL ISSUES and in your false focus also sweep the greatest priorities of all under the carpet Quran (26:165-166) - "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing"/ IRONICAL MUHAMMAD CONDONES RAPE OF CHILDREN AND ANIMALS BUT NOT SAME SEX CONVENTUALS

CH #fundie heartiste.wordpress.com

May I humbly suggest some other possible causes for the scalzification of American men?

1. Aggro tankgrrls

When the land fills up with aggressively posturing, careerist feminist shrikes on the divorce court warpath, aided and abetted by Cathedral man-haters, the collective response by society’s testes is to ascend behind the sheltering bony plate of the pubis. You could call it the “Junk Tuck and Shuck” theory of increasing faggotry. How this works on a biochemical level is hard to pinpoint, but it makes some intuitive sense that as women gain more cultural power through their own means or a Big Daddy government check, men rationally respond by becoming either smooth talking cads or mewling beta suck-ups. Do women like this state of affairs? Probably not, but as long as men can get the pussy this way, that’s what they’ll give women. The sexual polarity will find its opposing balance, by whatever means necessary.

2. Estrogen in everything

Soy is in everything. So is the effluvium of the Pill. It seems we can’t go a week without some new study touching down with evidence of increased estrogen in our food and water supplies.

3. Lack of a cleansing war/too many men

A culture’s men get soft in the arms of materialist decadence. Never more so than today with so many hindbrain-targeted pleasure stimulators acquired for a relative pittance. Too many men accumulating from a lack of natural (or unnatural) culling means that, thanks to the cosmic directive of female hypergamy, a lot of dispensable, reproductively useless men are piling up. Combine the softness with the uselessness, and it’s a small leap to infer that the male sex would respond, at least at the margins, with a growing acceptance of testosterone-challenged and sexual marketplace-abstaining gayness, broniness, tranniness, and general supine self-flagellating leftoid-ness.

4. Dem friggin fat cows

Maybe male obesity can’t explain much of the trend toward lower T among men, but perhaps FEMALE obesity can explain it. What’s the point of manning up when all your women have womanned down? After all, you don’t have to be much of a man to jerk it to a digital dreamgirl. Fat chicks and porn everywhere have reduced the pressure to find a sexy babe to love, and testosterone levels have responded in kind. What doesn’t get used, atrophies.

tazdelaney #fundie rawstory.com

"crude, backwards and brutalistic view of the world?" more presumptuous insults from the pseudo-liberals really on the religious-right... can't believe the assaults upon me for expressing a viewpoint that asserts human sexual liberation!

ahem, the opposite. every 10 years since 1970 there's been this group has done videotaped 1-week live-in that includes in-depth interviews of all living in the household. a key focus has always been how much displayed affection, love there is in the average american household. guess what; wanna talk brutality? shows of affection have nearly disappeared here. consequently, as this lack of birthright loving nurture increases, so does youthful & all others frustration, violence, wars, torture and the recruiters find em easier & easier prey.

as i've written til my fingers ache, my 1st granting of ENTIRELY CONSCIOUS CONSENT TO HAVE SEX WAS WHEN I WAS ALMOST 12 AND HE WAS MY CRUSH OF 15. now he'd be put away & have his life ruined for that afternoon in 1966 and i'd likely be hauled off for 'professional help' in some psych-pharma hell! affectioinate sex is plainly that; rape is plainly that.

freud didn't hit the bull's eye when wrote "when sex is suppressed the result is civilization.' no, the opposite. when sex is suppressed (think moses...), love & affection also suffer and the result is that CIVILIZATION BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE AND IS REPLACED BY EVIL EMPIRES OF OPPRESSION AND INCREASINGLY DEALY WARS, dur.

the native world as seen through the pens of the early, pre-colonization native world showed naked, loving people who had open nudity, sex, communal shamanic-animist rituals of orgiastic sorts worldwide, with, of course, exceptions proved the rule. captain cook was indeed eaten by cannibals but he stated that having met many cultures in the pacific, "they are mostly so gentle they flee from even the violence of our european tongues!"

and early studies, of pacific, for example by marchand-marquesas or the later margaret mead, showed upwards of 1500 sexual events by adulthood... compared with just a dozen at age 21 in the US, 20 if not in college. women got it better what with sexual peak 14-28; boys is over by 18... never be that great again and all they got was the love of their own hands! here in new york the insane 'age of consent' is now 18 and kids can & do go to jail for defying this anti-nature, anti-sex laws! no frigging wonder teen suicide has soared 7x since 1950... and still largely a gay problem. most typical suicide note? "can't get any love."

more rage directed at such as michael jackson, none of whose boys turned on him even when money, DA, parents raged at them to, ever testified against him.... while a million iraqi children died w/no such protest in gulfwar, 12-year embargo, iraq war. the ever-more brutal west shouts 'yahooooo, bomb's away on the innocents!'

the intent in suppressing youth's sex or the mingling of the ages has never had anything to do with making life better for anyone but a shriveled up, vile & contemptuous evil religion's and empires dictatorship over the soul, heart, groin.

Various Muslims #fundie themalaymailonline.com

Malaysian actor ‘shocked’ by marriage proposals for his 12-year-old daughter

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 9 — When actor Norman Hakim shared a photograph of his 12-year-old daughter Marissa Dania on social media, the last thing he expected was an inbox full of marriage proposals.

Astonished, the Gerak Khas and Dia Bidadariku actor took to social media to address overly-eager netizens who were keen to wed his pre-teen daughter.

“I hear this little girl @marissadania_ is going viral. Viral for what reason? What is certain is a father’s DM (direct message) that’s full of solid risikan,” he wrote on Instagram.

In the Malay wedding tradition, merisik (asking ceremony) is the pre-wedding custom of asking a woman’s family for her hand in marriage.

“I’d like to tell you that my daughter turns 13 in July. Still a long way to go.”

In the post, which has been viewed over 430,000 times, Norman advised netizens to prioritise their responsibility to God and their parents before exploring marriage.

“In the words of mama @abby_abadi112, prioritise what is important,” he said, quoting Marissa’s mother and his ex-wife Abby Abadi.

Norman was married to Abby from 2002 to 2008 and they share three children together.

He is now married to actress Memey Suhaiza with whom he shares two children.

The father of five also requested that netizens leave positive comments and pray only for good things on Marissa’s Instagram which has 204,000 followers.

Several hours after Norman’s long post, Marissa shared a picture of herself in Istanbul with the caption, “Don’t take in what others say.”

This brings to light the controversial issue of child marriage in the country.

Child marriages are largely frowned upon in Malaysian society but do occur here as the country’s Islamic judicial system — which runs alongside the civil courts — has laws that allow a Muslim girl below the age of 16 to marry, though only with the consent of the Shariah Court. Permission is granted on a case-by-case basis.

This provision under Shariah law however is at odds with Section 376 of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex with a minor as statutory rape.

Under civil law, sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 is a crime, whether or not she consents to it.

Civil laws, particularly the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act — which applies to non-Muslims — allows for marriage between couples aged 18 and above, but exemptions are also made for girls aged 16 and above, whereupon the consent of the state’s chief minister or mentri besar, must be obtained first.


Read more at http://www.themalaymailonline.com/showbiz/article/actor-norman-hakim-says-shocked-after-receiving-marriage-proposals-for-his#hKDkgKiDGcZ4KkgE.99

EL KABONG #fundie forum.myspace.com

Is feminism really a movement created by women to gain "equality" in a patriarchal society or is it really a gender based social manisfestation of Freud's concept of penis envy?

Here are the issues that can be gained as far as equality with men is concerned as I see it in today's social order:

1- Job Equality; Men can get a shitty job in some dead end factory or Home Depot, work like a slave for low pay and no place for advancement, struggling for 40 years; retire and attempt to live off of social security (if it will still be available), and end up dead 6 mos. after retirement from congestive heart failure.

Women are welcome to join their brethern in this noble pursuit. Be my guest.

2- Sex; Men can shake the dew from their lillies, sowing their oats wildly and without concern over pregnancy, child birth, or child rearing.

Women can join their brethern in this noble pursuit. Abortion as birth control has opened the flood gates and their legs. They can now fornicate freely and often, and with wild abandon, and live the simple minded meaningless lives of their sexually obsessed male counterparts.

3- Opportunity; Well, this one is difficult. As I see it, any one with an idea, ability, and some fortitude can make something happen for themselves in this country if they are persistant, commited, and if the perservere, regardless of gender.

4- Abusive relationships; Another tuff gong. I believe that anyone who stays in an abusive relationship is retarded. Separation from the antagonist can be difficult, but the consequence of staying can be deadly. There are many social constructs designed to help women through and out of these types of relationships. If any of you out there are currently struggling with something of this order, feel free to contact me and I will connect you with resources that will aid you in leaving, getting yourself re-established away from the abusive environment, and any medical care or aid you might require. FREE.

5- Social Status; You already vote, work outside of the homes, and abort any babies you don't want. Your stars have risen and you have manipulated a place for yourselves along side of your male counterparts. You are political in nature, have taken over the education system of our country, and have feminized many of the boys and men so that they now conform to your line of thinking (or should I say your life perspective).

Now, here comes the dicy part. Now, after all this, you want men to like you. But you act like one of the guys and you want to be treated as such. Ah: yuk.

How about we just get along, like a bunch of guys will do when they're competing on some kind of playing field. We'll play together, compete, and retreat after the game is over.

Jokestress #fundie en.wikipedia.org

Perhaps it's not clear, but I am saying the non-pedophilic sexual interest in prepubescents is poorly covered here and sitewide. I am not talking about sexual abuse or other acts. I am talking about a larger phenomenon and a term for part of that phenomenon (preferential interest/orientation). This is a big problem, because a lot of people are reading this article, and I believe many are not getting correct information because of how this is covered.

Some older teen or adult who gets tingly thinking about prepubescent children or in response to actual children or media depicting children is not necessarily a pedophile and is not necessarily classifiable as mentally ill. That's not clear at all from this article. We need to make all that very clear for lay readers. The question about history is also important, as historical aspects of this phenomenon have been systematically censored here.

For instance, one significant historical view is that pedophilia is an extreme version of normal masculine sexuality. The question about history got me thinking maybe it's time to revisit this and try to rectify the problem.

Red Baron #fundie stormfront.org

Even Muslims say things that make biological sense sometimes. A young woman such a 12yo marries a older man that has establishes himself is a form of natural selection which helps to pass on genes of the more successful males through a greater likelyhood of him successfully producing one or many children than if he marries an older woman.

(comment right after that)

Age certainly is relevant. how many 16 , 17 or 18 yr old boys have been charged with statutory rape when they had sex with their 14 or 15 yr old girlfriend. So what if a 22 yr guy marries a 12 yr old girl. Its none of anyone's business.

Scrod #sexist #psycho mmo-champion.com

If the girl is conscious, in my opinion it's up to her to say no. Does it mean that if she doesn't say no, it's always ok? No... it's a grey area and might be a really dick move. But at the same time, think about the punishment for rape - it is basically that your life is over. I'd prefer to err on the side of not destroying lives than potentially destroying the life of someone who's innocent.

Was the girl who didn't say no "Asking for it?"... nah. I'm just more of the belief that stuff happens and to convict someone of an incredibly serious crime should require something obviously over the line.

Are you intentionally leveraging their inebriated state for sex? Because, if that's a yes, it's pretty much the same thing as drugging them for sex.

Major, major difference here - "drugging them for sex" usually means it is without their knowledge. Much different from them getting drunk themselves... if they consciously put themselves in a state where they make decisions they wouldn't make when they were sober (even if the guy is the one giving them the drinks) - yeah there's a good chance the guy is an asshole, but again I don't think it warrants ruining the guy's life.

So... If the girl you want to have sex with is wasted, but still vaguely coherent... If 'taking advantage of her' (aka get some when you know you'd have no chance normally) is OK, Is it also OK to take all the money out of her wallet? She normally wouldn't just you have $200, but hey... She didn't say not to.

That's a specious argument. Stealing is always bad. Violence is always bad.

With most crimes, the act itself is the problem - you steal, you commit violence. Sex is usually an enjoyable act, unlike getting punched in the face or having your money stolen. What makes sex complicated is its an act that often people enjoy sharing with each other but sometimes is a crime. You can't compare it to most other crimes because consent matters.

By the way - I'm specifically opposed to charging someone with rape in this instance. Remember - rape means years in jail. It means registering as a sex offender and being unable to live in many areas for the rest of your life. It means never being able to get a job because you have to admit to a felony. It means, basically, your life is utterly destroyed. Does it really make sense to do this to someone who was (probably drunk himself) and unable to infer whether the person was having sex just because she was drunk? I'm ok with sending them to counselling, or requiring they don't drink for a while, community service, whatever. I just think rape needs to be saved for more serious offenders.

Mark of Zorro #fundie jref.com


Children simply lack the maturity to make sexual decisions. Our bodies may have evolved to be sexually mature by age 13, but the average person only lived into his thirties in prehistoric times. Just because the body is ready doesn't mean the mind can make mature decisions in today's world.

But they have the maturity to make traffic decisions as they walk to school or ride a bicycle? As I was suggesting to Brian, you seem to think sex is a dangerous thing. Its a wonder humanity survived if so.

Another strange thing about your point here is that you seem to think its harder to get by in today's world than prehistoric times! Therefore, more maturity is required with regards to sex! How completely preposterous! We can prevent pregnancies with drugs and condoms. Most diseases can be cured with a shot. STD testing can be done to ensure partners are disease free. I scarcely understand how more maturity is needed now than in the past.

I also don't see why sex has be such supreme danger. With an attitude like that, its a wonder you would let a 13 year old cross the road by themself.

Sex has real consequences that can change or end lives -- STDs, pregnancy, and emotional damage are all among them.

Well, I already addressed pregnancy and STDs. (And I still don't think they hold a candle to getting run over on a bicycle). But emotional damage? Where do you get this stuff?

Is it illegal for teens to have sex with eachother? No. So what of the emotional damage? Again, you seem to be saying that sex is extremely dangerous. Pah! You want emotional damage? Divorce. Death in the family. Moving away. Paralysis from a cheerleading accident.

For me, sex and sexual things have always been emotionally soothing. From playing doctor when I was a kid to bonking with my girlfriend today.

I wonder if you ever in your life considered the emotional damage of NOT having sex. I experienced plenty of that before I got out of college. It was a very painful time. I am grateful for every childhood and teen sexual experience I had, but I did not have nearly enough. Both my childhood and teen sexual experiences involved adults (though I wanted but did not have actual sex). The only thing that hurt me was have to wait for months and years before the next experience. Surely I am not alone.

If you ask me teens especially are being harmed emotionally by being cut off from the rest of the humanity in this way. I blame this state of affairs for things like smoking, binge drinking and runaways. Used to be a 13 year old could expect to be married soon. Now they are forced into celibacy essentially. Its inhuman cruelty and no wonder teens are viewed as being unstable when they are treated like this.

Maybe stoning is too harsh, but I'd have no problem seeing pedophiles castrated, if they're more than a few years older than their victims.

This sentence is mixed up 8 ways from Sunday. I have to assume that since you said pedophiles and victim, that you mean the younger party is twelve at the outside, since that is about average for puberty. A few years older would be 15. So you would not only call a 15 year old with a 12 year old partner a pedophile, you would have them castrated?

You also assume the younger party is upset or harmed and is a victim out of hand. And further you don't seem to realize that most age of consent violations are not committed by pedophiles.

Like BrianLewis, your viewpoints are based on unfounded assumptions that are very negative about sex and that have been feed to you by a sex negative society. Your viewpoints are contradictary and you don't seem to have examined anything in much depth at all. Yet it seems you have firmly made up your mind despite those horrible failings.

I had a couple friends, one girl of 14 and a man of 20. They fell in love. Their relationship was approved by her father, a man who is very strict and very protective of his children. Last I heard, they got married. I ask you, would you have my friend castrated?

---------- Post added at 02:37 ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 ----------

RolandtheHeadless said:

Amen. Adults who have sex with children are exploiting them, and they're rapists because children lack the capacity for consent.

Can a child consent to surgery? Can a child consent to eating mashed pototoes? Either could be life threatening. I find it strange where capacity to consent is touted as the end-all-be-all argument for sex issues, but completely ignored for pretty much all other issues.

I was a child once. I consented to a lot of things. I knew who I liked and who I didn't. I was very interested in sex and I knew who I would like to have sex with and who I wouldn't. I did not lack capacity. I lacked experience and knowledge. You don't gain either for doing nothing.

My view of your philosophy is that you first enforce ignorance. Then you say they can't consent because they are ignorant. Its extremely backward thinking.

I also don't like that you would call someone a rapist and exploiter just because of age even though they may well be kind and caring and generous to their sex partner, and would not dream of harming or tricking them. Rape has a real and serious meaning, and you dilute it with ideas like that.

It is preposterous to decide such issues on age alone at the expense of a million other details, including and especially the sentiments of the child or teen in question.

Pedophiles who act on their perversion make me want to punch their lights out.

They said the same of gays 50 years ago.

The only real perversion is asexuality.

Shabudin Yahya #fundie independent.co.uk

Malaysian parliament has passed a new law on child sex crimes, but voted not to amend the Sexual Offences against Children bill to include a ban on child marriages.

The amendment to the bill had been proposed by Kulai-Democratic Action Party (DAP) member Teo Nie Ching.

The law criminalises “grooming” – touching and befriending children as a prelude to abuse. The maximum penalty for possessing, making or distributing child pornography is 30 years in jail and six strokes of the whip, and a special court will be set up to deal with child abuse cases more quickly.

Shabudin Yahaya, a member of the Barisan Nasional coalition said that girls as young as nine are “physically and spiritually” ready for marriage.

Mr Yahaya said “They reach puberty at the age of nine or 12. And at that time, their body is already akin to them being 18 years old. So physically and spiritually, it is not a barrier for the girl to marry”.

He also said there was “nothing wrong” with rape victims marrying their rapist as they would not face a “bleak future”.

In a Facebook post on the subject, Malaysian minister Abdul Rahman Dahlan condemned Mr Yahaya’s comments.

He wrote: I just came across an article about the comments of Tasek Gelugor MP Datuk Shabudin Yahya in Parliament in respect of underage marriages and marriages between victims and rapists with utter shock and disappointment”.

He continued by stating that in accordance with Malaysian Penal Code Section 375 (g) “it is considered statutory rape for a man to have sex with a girl under 16 years of age – with or without her consent”.

Civil law sets the minimum age of marriage at 18, but those above 16 can be married with the permission of their state's chief minister.

Several opposition MPs are calling for Mr Yahaya to resign.

In light of the mounting criticism, he attempted to clarify matters and claimed that his comments were taken out of context, and said that marriage was not a “back door exit to legalise rape”.

Boots, Trewmommy, Aditch,jessileigh180 #fundie whattoexpect.com

@Whatwhatyousatinyouk

What would you do if you found out one of your good friends is a sex offender? I'm talking about doing a serious offense? My husband just found out yesterday that his buddy (they've been friends for a few years now, met through another friend and he's become a good friend over that time) is a registered sex offender. he's one of those guys that you would never have guessed on either. Because we have a baby daughter, I had to ask his wife about it. She played it down as if it was a misunderstanding, but basically he raped a 13 year old girl when he was almost 20. I'm sorry but to me, I do not see any misunderstanding, especially because it wasn't deemed statutory, she did NOT consent. Also, he spent a few years in prison. am very uncomfortable with him now, and will never leave our child with them even though they have 2 daughters. I personally feel like we've been lied to this whole friendship (sex offenders are supposed to tell you they are registered and why) and feel that if we didn't find out from the registry, we would have never found out. They just had their second daughter (his wife's first) so our daughters will be within a few weeks of each other in age, but I do not want to leave her there, EVER, which I won't.

(Trewmommy)
I would say if I was already friends with the person and liked hanging out with them then that would not change,
As far as your friend, It could very well be a misunderstanding of some kind. You never know. He was still rather young and she could have been messing with him and either got mad and told her parents or her parents found out. If she was like 8,9,10 or younger then I would be more worried, but at 13 you just never know, esp these days.


(Boots)
Although you say that he was not charged with statutory rape -- that doesn't mean that the sex wasn't actually consensual. The girl was 13. Her parents could have found out that she had sex with your husbands friend and they may have flipped out. She could have lied to avoid the consequences and said that she had no part in it. I'm not saying that's what happened, but situations like that happen all the time. A guy I graduated high school with is in jail right now because he had consensual sex with a 14 year old. He is 26 years old. She didn't claim he raped her, but he is still serving time in jail. IMO it's still disgusting, but it doesn't mean he's a rapist. Excuse me if I missed something and you are 100% positive that he raped the girl.

(
jessileigh180)


Ages 20 and 13 aren't nearly as far apart as they sound. I would expect a 20 year old man and a 13 year old girl to both be immature at those ages. Either could have lied about their age, I know several girls who look significantly older then they are. I'm also still young enough (22) to remember what I was like at 13.n gereral. If the girl had been younger perhaps 9 or 10 I would agree with your fears for his children but at the age of 13 the girl is really a teenager and her body would reflect that. So even if he did rape a girl who was 13 doesn't have to mean he would attack children.


(Aditch)

I'm not sure I understand your extreme reaction to his presence around your baby. What is the link between him assaulting a teenager to sexually touching your infant? I get that you are unnerved and you want to put up guardrails on the relationship. You may even feel that it is better to cut ties all together. Completely normal reactions. But I think it is important to weigh your response with all the potentials. No, a 13 year old girl can't consent. But unless you know for sure that she didn't play an active role than you can't really deem him a violent sexual predator. My 13 year old has girls in her class who wear more make up than me and wear daisy dukes with heels. My daughter has told me that she knows a girl who is sexually active with her boyfriend. She also has another friend who is 5'8" and weighs 175 pounds. These are not 'children'. They are full on menstruating budding women.

caamib #fundie reddit.com

The idea that a man is a pedophile if he sleeps with a 13 yo girl is based on the notion that he is is sleeping with "underage" girls because that's what the bad laws say.

The thing is - These laws are utterly insane.
Imagine if the age of consent was 30. Would you think a sex with a 29 year-old woman being banned would be crazy?

What if the age of consent was 80? Would you agree that having sex with a 79 year-old woman because she is too young being a crime is crazy?

Well, guess what - that's how a sane man feels in a modern Western world. If you thought that the ideas with 30 or 80 were crazy that's how we feel when we read your batshit ideas.

The idea of "pedophilia" over the age of 12 is the idea of completely insane people and insane laws that are implemented and upheld. It has nothing to do with actual physical and biological reality. It's based on a fundamentally flawed idea on sex being a traumatic, dangerous act and is puritan nonsense liberals are defending staunchly and thus proving the point many realize about them, which is that they're not progressive or actually liberal but small minded followers of what's most popular.

What must, of course, be noted is that liberals want to apply these insane laws only to whites. A liberal would have no problem with a black, Muslim or any other member of some of their sacred groups having sex with their 2 month old baby if they want it. That would be a no problem at all for a liberal. But this is because a liberal sees statutory rape, or any rape, as white men doing anything to get a woman. To a liberal brutally and forcefully fucking a white woman by a member of a sacred group isn't a crime but a white man asking a woman for coffee is a severe crime. When it comes to white women and the "rapes" liberals claim they might commit, statutory or otherwise, that's another story for another post.

tyrindor #fundie mmo-champion.com

Some people need to remember many 13 year olds nowadays look 18 with the way they dress and do their makeup. I agree with his sentencing to some extent... Yes, 41 and 13 is beyond sick, but hear me out. This happens a lot... young teenagers wanting sex with someone older, more experienced, or just for bragging rights. They egg them on and many men cave under the pressure. Yes, they are adults and should know between right and wrong however everyone has moments of weakness especially when it comes to sex. However, no matter how you put it they simply didn't rape them.

Why is it that someone get the same sentence for:
1) 41 year old flat out raping a 13 year old.
2) 41 year old having sex with a 13 year old that wanted too.

Your talking about 2 totally different animals here. Both should be punished, I fully agree, but no where near the same. The first should be 10+ years in a maximum security prison, the second should be more around 1-2 years in a minimum security correctional facility... and if/when they do it again charge them with some jail time.

As for girls that are 16-17 and totally lie to older men about their age, I feel the guy should get off with a warning at most. They aren't kids, they knew what they were doing. 16-17 is old enough to be charged as an adult so why is it considered a kid when it comes to sex? The law shouldn't be gray like this, either 16-17 is an adult or it isn't.

She's a minor. She can't consent. Its statutory rape.
]
How can a minor not consent to something? Do you really think people under 18 have the brains of a new born baby? Even a pet can consent to something. 16-17 year olds are charged as adults for murder, even 15 in some rare cases, yet if you have mutual sex with one you go to jail for statutory rape because "they couldn't consent".

The law is totally wrong here. It contradicts itself. Not to mention legal age is much lower in some other countries, and no one seems to have problems with it there. It was also much lower in America hundreds of years ago. It wasn't uncommon for a 13-14 year old to have kid(s), and raise them. It still isn't uncommon in some countries. Yet.. some people believe nowadays a 13 year old can't even consent to something?


May I remind people that some developed nations such as Japan has the age of consent of 13?

Yeah, and it's still freaking creepy. Unless you are saying you want the age of consent changed in UK, which I think I read you don't, is really a moot point.

The age of consent is pretty high in America. When I was 15 I started dating a 12 year old, and no it wasn't a sexual relationship at that age. It was my first girlfriend ever and we were friends for 2 years before that. Shortly after I turned 16, making our age gap 4 years, but then she'd turn 13 about a month later. No one had any problems with it, not even her parents because they knew I was a good guy.

Then 2 years went by and we were still seeing each other. The day I turned 18 she was 14, turning 15 in a month. A few days after my 18th birthday her parents all a sudden did not approve of the relationship because it was now illegal according to law. We broke up, I haven't seen her in 8 years.. and it still depresses me to this day.

Why does a once legal relationship become illegal simply because we BOTH got older? Not only was she my GF, but she was my best friend. I cared greatly for her, but according to society the relationship was all a sudden wrong over night. After my experience I will never support the current age of consent laws.

Representative-Way39 #sexist #crackpot #dunning-kruger i.redd.it

Advice to foids on how to take care of their vagina because they’re too dumb to figure it out on their own therefore require men to teach them

modern vaginas are just as repulsive as their bearers.. all historically depicted pussies are neat and tucked, they didn't have massive dildos or have sex with countless men. and no pedo but young prepubescent girls have roast beef, this shit only happens after they start jamming shit up there.

GIRLS when you put your tampons in do it delicately, too many of you pull the vagina to the side too roughly, OF COURSE doing that is going to cause the flaps to become worn and become loose and dangle. you fucking stupid repulsive cunts, god damn yous are so stupid, you can't even handle taking care of your vagina without men having to tell you what to do. fucking idiots.

Vox Day #fundie voxday.blogspot.com

[Title of the post is "Physiognomy is more than real"]

It is science. And Martin Luther King's dream remains just that, a dream that is not based on reality:

Unless it involves mocking President Trump’s supposedly “small hands,” there is nothing that horrifies our multiculturalist masters more than judging by appearances.

It is impossible, they claim, to infer anything about how someone is likely to behave by their gender or because they are from a particular ethnic group. Everyone is unique (but also, somehow, equal). Judging by appearances is not just superficial but plain evil.

It will be fascinating to see what they’ll make of the recently-published book by British academic Dr. Edward Dutton titled How To Judge People By What They Look Like, which argues that even within races and sexes you can, with a fair degree of accuracy, infer people’s personalities from appearances. You may even get an inside track on how smart they are by taking a good look at their physical characteristics, according to Dutton.

“You can’t judge people by what they look like! It’s drummed into us as children,” writes Dutton, an adjunct professor of anthropology at Oulu University in northern Finland. “It is utterly false.”

But Dutton makes a provocative case for resurrecting the ancient art of physiognomy—judging character from the face. He argues it should never have been dismissed as pseudo-science. Indeed, his research goes way beyond making inferences from the face. He writes:

We are evolved to judge people’s psychology from what they look like; we can accurately work out people’s personality and intelligence from how they look, and (quite often) we have to if we want to survive. Body shape, hairiness, eye width, finger length, even how big a woman’s breasts are . . . these and much else are windows into personality, intelligence or both.

So many people fail to understand that when I say the Alt-Right is inevitable, I am not merely engaging in rhetoric. I mean that quite literally and I am speaking in unvarnished dialectic. Just as communism is unviable because it denies economics and feminism is unviable because it denies biology, conservatism is unviable because it denies inequality. All of these unviable political identities have set themselves against science, history, and observable reality.

Remember, the red pill is reality.

As Dutton says in his book, the relevant research has been published in top psychology journals, such as Intelligence, Personality and Individual Differences and Evolutionary Psychological Science, as has his own research. This includes a study asserting that atheists tend to be less physically attractive and more likely to be left-handed than religious people and that they have objectively worse skin. Dutton, ever the evolutionist, opines that this is because we have been selected to be religious over thousands of years of evolution. Hence, those who are atheists reflect mutant genes in the brain and people with mental mutations are more likely to have physical ones. This explains their asymmetrical features and asymmetrical brains, leading to left-handedness.

You may recall that I was among the first to observe that atheists are neurologically atypical and that atheism is essentially a particular characteristic of being on the autism spectrum. It's not a coincidence that you can often pick out an atheist by his appearance.

However, the link between psychology, personality, and intelligence on the one hand and appearance on the other involves considerably more than our genes, it also involves our choices and behavior. When we see a man who is slender and clear-eyed at 60, we can safely conclude that he is both intelligent and self-disciplined, just as we can reliably reach the opposite conclusion of a child who is obese at the age of 12.

Quintus Sertorius #racist #conspiracy #wingnut renegadetribune.com

The jews are a species that is utterly and irreconcilably alien to the White race. No matter how the jews disingenuously try to convince us that they are “fellow White people,” they are really nothing more than subversives attempting to dismantle our natural defenses against malignant foreign influences at both the individual and societal levels. One can easily see the jews for that they are despite the shrill, kosher sanctimony and lies so blatant they border on bad comedy, simply by turning off the talmudvision and trusting in your own observations. Fiat currency and debt slavery, Frankfurt school pseudo-science, communism, the justification and promotion of perversion from Freud to Al Goldstein, the unending flood of non-White invaders into White homelands championed by the likes of HIAS and the odious Barbara Spectre, the insanity of equalitarianism, and the soul-deadening, nation-killing jewish religion of Christianity: all these poisonous ideas and ideologies were maliciously foisted on unsuspecting and ill-prepared White communities by jews wearing inhuman predatory grins and purporting to have our best interests in their black hearts.

It is the jews who tell us that they are a “chosen” people, a race that was selected by “g*d” to be his extra-special favorites and to rule over all the other races – while telling us, depending on what is most expedient at the moment for the jews, that races are just social constructs, that the White race doesn’t exist, or that the entire White race is evil because we are allegedly “supremacists” of the type the jews celebrate themselves to be. Nevertheless, by absurd rabbinical chicanery, we are told that our supposedly non-existent White race should feel guilty because of our “privilege” and so we must immiserate and impoverish ourselves by ever increasing the numbers of non-Whites in our homelands.

The jews are expert liars and deceivers, and are exceptionally creative in concocting frauds and fantasies intentionally designed to damage Whites and White communities. The creativity of the jews is the opposite of that possessed by Whites: the jews are unrivaled in their capacity to create, promote, and profit from degeneracy and depravity – while being singularly unable create anything of true beauty. As a parasitic race that thrives on manipulation and dishonesty, the jews are capable of mimicking the aesthetic achievements of other races but their own, original artistic expressions are hideous and monstrous – true reflections of the jewish race-soul. A quick glance at any of the Guggenheim museums (and the “art” they contain), or the eyesore architecture of every holohoax museum, will reveal the jewish aesthetics of ugliness polluting spaces in White countries that should instead be used to beautify our communities and celebrate our national achievements.

Our public spaces and public discourse have been soiled by jewish influence and control. Jewish corruption has reduced our intellectual and academic institutions to non-religious parodies of talmudic law academies in which fanatical, self-congratulatory blowhards learn nonsense in 6 million different ways. But perhaps the most damaging of all these jewish subversions has been the ease with which our implacable racial enemies repeatedly rise to positions of leadership within any organized group of White people. From putative Nationalist organizations, to Libertarians, to the Alt-Right, and even organizations pretending to be National Socialist – in the Weimerican failed state, the leadership of many of these groups resembles a junior-varsity version of the Federal Reserve as they are infested with overt jews, covert jews, and spouses of jews.

Like so many of the jewish-caused problems afflicting our homelands, this subversion is nothing new, and if more White people knew their history, it would be painfully obvious that the jews are simply using the same tactics they have arrayed against us for centuries. Aside from the common-sense observation that it’s ill-advised to allow an insular, hostile, fanatical cartel of racial aliens who refer to you and everyone you love as “cattle” to rule over us, the distressing fact of the matter is that the jews have repeatedly used the same exact methods to subvert and destroy White institutions. It should be increasingly clear, as our once-prosperous White communities become incrementally more poverty-stricken and dangerous with each passing day, that jews have no place in a White society that wishes to survive. We can either have a future for the White race by ridding our living spaces of the jewish pestilence in all its forms, or condemn the dwindling numbers of our progeny to live as hated minorities in our own homelands, preyed upon by spiteful, unaccountable jews and feral, opportunistic brown morons. We must learn from history, and realize that the best examples of our race have long fought to stop the jewish-orchestrated White genocide.

mikepence #sexist incels.co

How can a 16 year old girl not consent? Their bodies are pretty much developed at that point. I've said it before, I'll say it again: statutory rape, at least at 16, is a non-crime promoted by con artist females and enforced by beta males to get ugly older men locked up(i.e; away from them).

Endersblade #fundie mmo-champion.com

Male Rape Victim forced to pay Child Support to Rapist.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-owes-more-than-15000-in-child-support-for-daughter-he-fathered-at-14/


Long story short. 20 year old woman has sex with a 14 year old boy. (Which is in Arizona classed as Statutory Rape). 6 years later, the woman sues for Child Support, and wins, during this time he was unaware that he had a child.

Funny enough, he is willing to pay, and is willing to take part in the kids life. His problem is that they also demand backpay for the past 6 years, which he is having a hard time meeting.

And this is not the first time this happens.


This actually happened to my roommate, although both were of age. They went to court over it, and they basically just blew it off like it couldn't happen. She moved states, had the kid unbeknownst to him, and a year later, filed for child support. He's been paying it ever since. He loves the kid, has zero custodial rights, even though the mom is letting the daughter turn into a fucking watermelon. She's 9 and weighs almost 120 lbs.

On subject but different issue, I cannot put into words how absolutely fucking stupid it is to say that a woman raped a male just because he was underage. Because, you know, you don't know jack shit about sex until you turn 18, and then suddenly poof, you're an expert. In that article, it was extremely obvious they were both consenting to what they were doing. To automatically make it rape just because he was 14? We have some seriously stupid fucking laws.

North American Man/Boy Love Association.

Basically, they say that a relationship between a full grown man and a young boy is perfectly fine, as long as there is no coercion..

Considering many cultures around the world already do this, I see nothing wrong with it. Although in their situation it may not always be consensual, at least here (from what little I've read up on the subject) NAMBLA requires consent on both sides for it to be ok.

Many of you seem to forget that even within the past 100 years, it was OK for someone 14, 15, 16 to be married and have kids, usually with an adult. It's something humans have been doing for thousands of years. Then suddenly, a...specific, will leave unnamed...group decided it's just ewwy gross and against their beliefs to be doing things with young, innocent kids who are completely innocent and don't know anything about sex, because they're innocent, you know? So somehow this got ingrained in our society, and now everyone gets up in arms if, even if 17 and almost 18, someone does something naughty with someone under the age of 18. Because 18 has suddenly become this magic number that turns kids into adults, even though, again, not more than 100 years ago people under the age of 18 were having families and holding jobs, contributing to their society.

AngelRho #fundie wrongplanet.net

Statutory rape exists as a legal reality because children are incapable of consent, regardless of what they think they're capable of.

Not buying it. Sounds too much like a rationalization to me. Children consent to all sorts of things all the time. Depending on what mood the wife and I are in, like if we're both ambivalent towards doing one activity or another, or maybe we just couldn't care any less, we'll call the oldest into the room, present him with two choices, and let him decide. Now, sure, little kids typically choose the second option, so we'll ask twice and reverse the options. If he still makes the same choice, we know it's because it's something he wants and not something he's just going along with.

Or maybe mom is making a quick trip to the store. Who wants to go? Who wants to watch a movie with daddy? And one or both of the bipeds will go along with mommy.

They get choices, and they get the option to consent to some activities. Why? Because they're capable of consenting, and to my recollection we haven't made them choose among options in which there was at least one that could harm them.

I object to child sex for completely different reasons, but I should point out that preteens do explore their sexuality and even engage in sexual intercourse. From what I gather, that is becoming less frequent than it was when I was that age, but things do happen that seem to be out of the reach of the law, like when a 12 year old has sex with a 9 year old. Of course, it could be that I'm an adult and like most adults I'm not a part of that circle anymore and thus unaware of how often it really does go on. However, I know of some former neighbors of ours who had a 12 year old boy lose his virginity to a 16 year old babysitter... Anyway, like it or not, sex is a pleasurable activity for most people and kids younger than 9 can even figure out how to masturbate. So if they know it feels good and have no problems engaging in it, they certainly can give a partner the "go ahead" while they're playing doctor.

The same kid who can consent to that can consent to sex with an adult that he or she likes and/or feels sexually attracted to.

"Cannot consent" is bs. It's a rationale, an assumption and a compromise that legislatures are forced to accept. It's a "line in the sand" because an exact age at which ALL children are able to say "yea" or "nay" doesn't exist. So an AOC of, like 14, 16, or 18 is drawn up to err on the side of safety. It's the kind of language you hear from conservative, evangelical Christians to legislate morality and keep kids sexually pure. If we suspend antiquated Biblical values in our culture and society, we might find and accept that kids are capable of consent at much lower ages than we're willing to admit.

Much of foundational western law is formalized Christian morality straight from the Bible. The "can't consent" argument is a poor one that only really works for kids less than 3 years old. "It causes physical harm" is a better argument. But past a certain age the "physical harm" argument doesn't work because it doesn't physically harm everyone. Same thing with the "psychological harm." It doesn't affect all children equally. So why even put an age on it and enforce the laws? Because it's wrong, Christians already accept that it's wrong, and the AOC is just a way to keep children sexually pure for a longer period of time and provide legal recourse against immoral people willing to violate them. Of COURSE kids can consent. It's the job of parents to make sure that they don't consent and keep them out of situations in which they would. All the rationalizations in the western world can't get around the fact that the non-religious "borrow" their values from Biblical morality. Setting the AOC at 14 or 16 is just a compromise--a pitiful one at that, but better than nothing at all.

CrackPr0n-EET- #fundie archive.li

Okay You guys need to realize that Lolicon does not mean lust after people that are underage. It does not mean lust after those who are prepubescent(this is where wolfen fucked up). It is no different than having a preference in women(i forgot whos aid that).

I am easilly described as a Lolicon. I like young looking, underdeveloped women. Is this wrong? Some might think so. But some people think getting circumsized is incredibly wrong to do as well.

Hell, my girlfriend is tiny as hell. She's 5'4 105 lbs, has a small chest, and over all just looks like she's about 14. I love her for this. She looks like a little girl. She's older than me though(wow, scary). Is this wrong of me to like a girls appearance that looks under 14?

My friend Kimmie looks like she's about 12. 5'0 90 some odd lbs... virtually little chest. Is it wrong for someone to find her attractive? She's 19 now btw.

We don't care about the age of the girl. If you are shown a picture of a girl and are asked "is she hot?"... does it matter how old she is to find her attractive or not? I've seen some 14 yo's that look like they're 24. 5'8 D cups(US standard), very very attractive looking to most people. Hell I have friends like that. 16 or so and look in their mid 20's. Guys ask me "who's your friend, she's fucking gorgeous"... then I tell them that she's only 16 and they're like "fuck...". Is it wrong to find her attractive just because she's underage? Is it wrong for me to find my girlfriend attractive because SHE LOOKS UNDERAGE?

This is ONLY pertaining to real people at the moment too, let alone fucking drawings. "this girl is young and cute and is sexually attractive to me"... "Fuck she's only 13? Oh well, she's still hawt".

The big difference is action. If I find a 13 year old girl sexually attractive... will I act upon it(and despite the joking that goes on between me and my friends, I wouldn't)? This is no different than ANY AGE though. "I find this 23 yr. old girl attractive... I'm going to rape her" other than what may be considered the morallity of raping a child, it is no different than raping a girl of age... except maybe worse since she might get pregnant.

So those of you saying "OMG lolicon is bad, you should all go to hell" Fuck you. Fuck you and fuck everything you think. Fuck you for thinking you can persecute us just because we find something attractive that you don't. It's like saying "you people like black women? you should all die for liking black women you sick fucks!" or somthing to that scale. I find this amusing since how many people find Asian women attractive on these forums. AND MANY of them have very child like bodies(cough cough... Aya MATSUDA>>> Maki Gotoh, etc. etc. etc.)

Again, fuck you all for prosecuting us for something we merely find attractive.

Geez Crack, that reads like NAMBLA propaganda. Maybe you should like, reword that a bit? X_X Cause it's a little extreme. o_O


No, because I hate idiotic persecution.

How would you feel if people started going off on Homosexuals? If you're a homosexual, you're a sick fuck and I hope you die. All homosexual shit on TV shouldn't be showed! I hope that fucker that was running for president and all people like him die. That's not freedom of expression, that's being a sick fuck.

How the fuck is that any different?

Ellis Washington #fundie wnd.com

The French Revolution (1789-99) was an overt war by liberal intellectuals in France against Christianity, the church, the clergy, and came at the end of the Age of Enlightenment (1650-1800) and before the later romantic movements of Darwinian evolution, Marxist socialism and Nietzsche's relativism and atheism which all led directly to the decline of Western civilization. The previous intellectual trinity of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, was replaced with the imposter trinity: Marx, Darwin and Nietzsche (with Sigmund Freud thrown in for good measure).

Long before the Pilgrims, the Puritans and the founding of America in 1607, liberalism in all of its myriad of permutations, shadows and disguises infected the history of humanity – from Nimrod's Tower of Babel (precursor to the United Nations), Baal worship, idolatry, materialism, paganism, witchcraft, doctrine of Jezebel (pagan worship of god through sex), doctrine of Molech (child sacrifice [i.e., abortion]), to slavery, secular humanism, democracy, Darwinism, communism, socialism, unionism, progressivism and living constitutionalism – it's all liberal fascism, it's all anti-God, anti-intellectual and Obama is using these pernicious ideas to purposely destroy America and deconstruct the U.S. Constitution so that he, the Democratic Party and its globalist allies can rule into perpetuity.

Dr. Thorne #fundie freerepublic.com

Methinks the ladies doth protest too much. Youth is the predominant theme in gay porn. These guys are full of sh!t when they try to separate homosexuality from pedophilia. Gay Pride parades around the nation regularly feature NAMBLA members.

Homosexual organizations constantly lobby for the lowering of Age of Consent laws. Why? They want to have sex with boys without the fear of arrest for pedophilia or statutory rape.

CH #sexist web.archive.org

["Hey ladies, if you're so equal why are you mad about getting raped? Checkmate feminists."]

One of the reasons I brought up the naughty teacher in LA and the contradictions in the law is that something that’s been on my mind is this idea that there is equal responsibility for sex. It’s something feminists will never fail to bring up when one suggests that it isn’t fair that a guy is on the hook for 18 years when he slept with a woman without intending to have a child. What they consider a rock-solid, ironclad justification for demanding the support is “he didn’t have to sleep with her.” Well, no, he didn’t. But take a 17-year-old boy and a mature woman of, say, 29, and who has more control over the sex act? Who is the gatekeeper? If the woman isn’t in any position of authority over the boy, it’s a legal sex act in most states, so she is free to sleep with him if she wants. However, realistically speaking, the woman has far more control over whether sex will actually happen. A boy of 17 has very little self-control over sex.

So why is it that the law puts the burden of child support on the boy when the responsibility for pregnancy lies overwhelmingly with the woman? It’s another one of those contradictions that characterizes feminist thinking.

Another thing that highlights this is the feminist claims of mass rape throughout society. If as many rapes happen as they claim, chances are someone on your street has been raped recently. There must be multiple simultaneous rapes occurring at any given time within your zip code. Can you hear the silence screaming around you? (this is probably what goes through the minds of feminists). Anyway, the point is that if men are so irrepressibly prone to rape and so sexually voracious, and women so prone to being unwilling, then who really is most responsible when consensual sex does happen?

One of the most sacred and cherished rights of feminists is the right to say “no” — that is, the right to deny sex. Do men value the ability to deny sex as much as women? Perhaps when it comes to forced sodomy, but that isn’t a common issue. One rarely sees men marching down the street with placards declaring that “NO MEANS NO,” and when they do, they are generally just holding signs for women. So, if women actually like denying sex, and are more likely to exercise that power, who has more choice when it comes to whether or not a given sex act will occur?

When a woman gets pregnant as a result of consensual sex, who bears the bulk of the responsibility?

Let’s break it down:

Men have a higher sex drive than women
Men have less control over their sexual impulses
Women value the ability to deny sex
Women are far more likely and able to deny sex than men

If the above are true, then barring outright rape, surely women are more to blame for pregnancy than men. So why does the law treat males and females as equal participants in the sex act, and why does policy hold the man to be more responsible? Clearly, the female has more control.

Additionally, it creates a double standard where statutory rape is concerned. If women have more control over whether a sex act will occur, then older women who sleep with with adolescent boys are guilty of a more serious crime than older men who sleep with adolescent females. The adolescent female has more control over whether she will have sex than the adolescent male, who is hopelessly overwhelmed by surging hormones. However, men who sleep with underage females are generally punished more severely than women who do so with boys.

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing over the disintegration of the American family and marriage, but few people dare to point out the obvious reason America is fast becoming a nation of bastards. It’s actually fairly clear: women are not being held to the appropriate level of responsibility where their sexual choices are concerned. In the old days, it was understood that, barring rape, women were more responsible for who they slept with than men, and if they screwed up they had to deal with it. This is why the rate of illegitimacy was so low for so long. However, today, women can get pregnant and receive guaranteed support from not only the government, but whatever random man they permitted to have sex with them.

Holding men more responsible than women for sex has been an abysmal failure, yet the policy remains in place despite thousands of years of received wisdom that lets us know it is a bad idea. Holding men and women equally responsible would be inappropriate as well, but we’ve gone past even that. Without some change in policy soon, the majority of all births in the United States will be illegitimate in a decade or so. The current system, which absolves women of responsibility for a choice that is largely in their hands, and for which they have even more options and tools at their disposal to deal with the consequences than ever, is unsustainable.

W. F. Price #sexist web.archive.org

["Hey ladies, if you're so equal why are you mad about getting raped? Checkmate feminists."]

One of the reasons I brought up the naughty teacher in LA and the contradictions in the law is that something that’s been on my mind is this idea that there is equal responsibility for sex. It’s something feminists will never fail to bring up when one suggests that it isn’t fair that a guy is on the hook for 18 years when he slept with a woman without intending to have a child. What they consider a rock-solid, ironclad justification for demanding the support is “he didn’t have to sleep with her.” Well, no, he didn’t. But take a 17-year-old boy and a mature woman of, say, 29, and who has more control over the sex act? Who is the gatekeeper? If the woman isn’t in any position of authority over the boy, it’s a legal sex act in most states, so she is free to sleep with him if she wants. However, realistically speaking, the woman has far more control over whether sex will actually happen. A boy of 17 has very little self-control over sex.

So why is it that the law puts the burden of child support on the boy when the responsibility for pregnancy lies overwhelmingly with the woman? It’s another one of those contradictions that characterizes feminist thinking.

Another thing that highlights this is the feminist claims of mass rape throughout society. If as many rapes happen as they claim, chances are someone on your street has been raped recently. There must be multiple simultaneous rapes occurring at any given time within your zip code. Can you hear the silence screaming around you? (this is probably what goes through the minds of feminists). Anyway, the point is that if men are so irrepressibly prone to rape and so sexually voracious, and women so prone to being unwilling, then who really is most responsible when consensual sex does happen?

One of the most sacred and cherished rights of feminists is the right to say “no” — that is, the right to deny sex. Do men value the ability to deny sex as much as women? Perhaps when it comes to forced sodomy, but that isn’t a common issue. One rarely sees men marching down the street with placards declaring that “NO MEANS NO,” and when they do, they are generally just holding signs for women. So, if women actually like denying sex, and are more likely to exercise that power, who has more choice when it comes to whether or not a given sex act will occur?

When a woman gets pregnant as a result of consensual sex, who bears the bulk of the responsibility?

Let’s break it down:

Men have a higher sex drive than women
Men have less control over their sexual impulses
Women value the ability to deny sex
Women are far more likely and able to deny sex than men

If the above are true, then barring outright rape, surely women are more to blame for pregnancy than men. So why does the law treat males and females as equal participants in the sex act, and why does policy hold the man to be more responsible? Clearly, the female has more control.

Additionally, it creates a double standard where statutory rape is concerned. If women have more control over whether a sex act will occur, then older women who sleep with with adolescent boys are guilty of a more serious crime than older men who sleep with adolescent females. The adolescent female has more control over whether she will have sex than the adolescent male, who is hopelessly overwhelmed by surging hormones. However, men who sleep with underage females are generally punished more severely than women who do so with boys.

There’s been a lot of hand-wringing over the disintegration of the American family and marriage, but few people dare to point out the obvious reason America is fast becoming a nation of bastards. It’s actually fairly clear: women are not being held to the appropriate level of responsibility where their sexual choices are concerned. In the old days, it was understood that, barring rape, women were more responsible for who they slept with than men, and if they screwed up they had to deal with it. This is why the rate of illegitimacy was so low for so long. However, today, women can get pregnant and receive guaranteed support from not only the government, but whatever random man they permitted to have sex with them.

Holding men more responsible than women for sex has been an abysmal failure, yet the policy remains in place despite thousands of years of received wisdom that lets us know it is a bad idea. Holding men and women equally responsible would be inappropriate as well, but we’ve gone past even that. Without some change in policy soon, the majority of all births in the United States will be illegitimate in a decade or so. The current system, which absolves women of responsibility for a choice that is largely in their hands, and for which they have even more options and tools at their disposal to deal with the consequences than ever, is unsustainable.

David R. Usher #fundie renewamerica.com

[This is only a sample of the stupidity in the article]

In its ruling the Supreme Court unjustly and erroneously created three classes of marriage with vastly different reproductive, social, political, economic rights, and liabilities – depending solely on an individual's ability to naturally bear a child.

Class 1: Mother-mother marriages: The class of marriages having most advantageous rights is marriages between two women. When two women marry, it is a three-way contract among two women and the government. Most women will bear children by men outside the marriage – often by pretending they are using birth control when they are not. Entrapped men become economically-conscripted third parties to these marriages, but get nothing in return.

This is a significant advantage compelling women who would otherwise become (or are) single mothers to choose to marry a woman instead of a man. They can combine incomes, double-up on tax-free child support and welfare benefits, decrease costs, and double the human resources available to raise children and run their household. They are sexually liberated with boyfriends often cohabiting with them to provide additional undeclared income and human resources without worrying about what happens when they break up with their boyfriends.

Today, approximately 25% of single mothers cohabit with an undocumented boyfriend. Same-sex marriage allows women to double-up on everything, establishing sub-rosa polyandrous marriage as a common legal institution with men as peripheral servants without a stake in marriage or society.

The welfare state is an automatic statutory third party economically supporting these marriage contracts via welfare entitlements, some of which are "advances on child support collections."

The Supreme Court cannot explain away the unconstitutionality of same-sex marriage when the welfare state becomes a predatory, automatic, and unnatural statutory third-party-provider to a class of often structurally-polyandrous marriages, extracting substantial income from taxpayers and entrapped men, that other marriages do not qualify for.

Class 2: Heterosexual marriages. The second class of marriages is traditional marriages between men and women. Children of these marriages are almost always borne of the marriage and supported by husband and wife without governmental involvement. In these marriages, men and women have natural parental and economic rights, standing in society, and equal "gender power" before the law. Traditional marriages will be economically-disadvantaged compared to mother-mother marriages because they cannot draw large incomes from the welfare state and they will be taxed to support other marriages. They are treated in discriminatory fashion having to subsidize Class-1 and perhaps Class-3 entitlements (including ObamaCare) in their taxes.

Class 3: Male-Male marriages. Marriages between two men are destined to be the marital underclass. In most cases, these men will become un-consenting "fathers" by reproductive entrapment. Men in male-male marriages who become fathers by deceptive means will be forced to pay child support to women in bi-maternal marriages, and become economically enslaved to Class-1 marriages. The taxpayers will be guarantors of child support collections for low-income fathers who cannot afford to pay (as occurs in the existing welfare state).

Same-sex marriage is a multi-dimensional violation of 14th Amendment protections against sex discrimination. The 5th Amendment protection for life, liberty, and property without due process of law is structurally violated in cases of reproductive deception by women, regardless of marital status of the men involved.

Same-sex marriage takes welfare systems intended to be used in the absence of marriage and makes it a structural part of marriage. This is a massive restructuring of the relationship among government, the people, the Constitution, and the institution of marriage.

Men's Rights EXTREMIST #sexist rationalwiki.org

Power imbalance

One of the arguments for statutory rape laws is that there's a power imbalance between an underage minor and an adult. In a scenario where a 13-year-old is approaching an adult online, volunteering his address, and inviting the guy to travel across the U.S. to have sex with him, is there a power imbalance? What is preventing the teen from fending the predator off by saying, "No thanks" and blocking him, as opposed to saying "Here's where I live; don't forget to bring the condoms, and remember, I like strawberry peach-flavored wine coolers"? To me, that sounds like it's the teen who's really calling the shots and getting the adult to do what he wants.
The son of a friend of my mine used to brag to his mom about how he could easily find gay men who would pay him several hundred dollars a night for sex. In that way, he was able to afford a lifestyle where he wasn't financially dependent on his mom, and she couldn't tell him any longer, "As long as you're under my roof, you obey my rules." (His mom was a lesbian who had him by some random guy she got to fuck her so she could have a kid, which adds further support for my argument that dads are NOT as dispensable as feminists would have people believe.)
At what point do we have to conclude that it's really the teens who are in the driver's seat, and behaving in a way that borders on exploitation of horny adults who have no choice but to obey their instructions and pay exorbitant prices if they want to fulfill their fantasies?
People often say it's adults who are able to prey on teens' desire for affection, approval, etc. How is that a stronger drive, that renders people more susceptible to manipulation, than adults' sexual urges? It's one thing to bring up teens' physical dependence on adults for the necessities of life, but once we get into the territory of factors that make people susceptible to psychological coercion, it gets really iffy because some adults have as little self-control as teenagers.

behind7proxies123 #fundie reddit.com


However, that would be applying in a traditional sense of what "rape" actually is. I would like to add that if it was legal to have an affair with a minor, and if she consented (even if legally they aren't 'capable' of consenting, so it would be statutory rape) then I was be all for proceeding.

I mean, personally I believe that if you're old enough to be responsible for a crime you commit, then you are able to consent, which I'd say (if legal) I'd do it with a 12 year old. Personally, when I was 12 I was extremely mature for my age, and due to puberty causing me to be extremely horny, I'd want to be able to have sex with anyone I wanted to (as long as they started puberty or older). Still, I know my opinion varies widely from those of others.

In case that hasn't convinced you to think that I'm a scum of the earth, if I were in Thailand and if I were offered to have sex with a child prostitute between 4 - 12, I would gladly do the business transaction. In fact, I've had a fantasy about it as well... about how I acquire said child from the clutches of the pimp renting her out, making sure she is well fed and taken care of, yet I would still obviously have sex with her as I saw fit. More like, rescuing from something considered 'evil' and putting her in a 'less evil' environment. So, I suppose you could call me a potential child molester for taking party of such transactions. Morally, yes I realize that it is considered 'wrong' to do so, but the 'wrongness' of it all is what makes me want to do it so badly. The stigma of pedophilia and child molestation, the potential jail time, it petrifies and yet exhilarates me at the very same time, strangely enough. You may be asking, "If he's willing to molest a 4 - 12 year old child, he'd do the same here! He needs to be castrated! He needs to be shanked in prison! He needs help" While I would gladly anonymously do the last part, I see child prostitution different from just going about in a van and kidnapping children because I see the former as his/her consent and a money transaction, and the latter as plain rape. I know the fact that they're that young does change things, and if I weren't a pedophile myself, I'd probably be apart of the hunt to kill me as well, especially if I was a parent, but to me I see it as regular prostitution.

Paying for sex with an adult woman at a brothel wouldn't be considered rape, and if so, I sure as hell don't see it as such. Yes, I realize these children are in majority of cases being forced to do these things, but I have the mindset of "If I don't do it, someone else will so I may as well". If I ever did have sex with a child prostitute, I would never harm her any more than penetration, and that'd be it.

AngelRho #fundie wrongplanet.net

The thing I get hung up on more is the whole "consent" bs. You summarized my position on it well. The way AOC is implemented is as a safety-net compromise. If kids can have sex with each other and CONSENT to sex with each other, then they can consent to have sex with anyone they want to have sex with. If it really is true that kids CANNOT consent, which is nonsense because they consent all the time, then they all need to be picked up by the cops and hauled off to the D.C. every time they get caught, or DHS needs to come out to their homes and place them in "protective custody" (although they'll just end up getting sexually abused in foster care, but whatever). Lock up the parents for reckless endangerment for not knowing what their kids are doing. And stop freakin' holding kids to different legal standards!! ! If all we want to do is scare the hell out of them before they turn 18, fine. But if you want to start acting like an adult, make adult mistakes, you should suffer adult consequences, even if all you do is give the kids just enough to make them want to stop doing what gets them in trouble.

"Can't consent" is just downright absurd. If they cannot consent, then they never would consent. What we're really saying is they can't give LEGAL consent. But why? Because GROWNUPS made up laws to that effect. So really this just amounts to appeal to law and perhaps even circular reasoning. It's illogical. Or maybe we mean "can't give INFORMED consent." Maybe so, but not always. 12 year olds know more than some of us are willing to admit. They're having sex, they're aware of the risks, and they still like it anyway. Tell a nicotine addict that tobacco smoke can kill him and see just how much that deters him from lighting up.

Come on, I knew what was what by the time I was 12. And I knew girls younger than that who knew what was what a lot more than I did. We'd sneak out behind my grandfather's tool shed and make out until someone called for us. And I've even mentioned someone who lived close to us who had a sexual encounter at 12 years old with a messed-up babysitter. Can't consent...please! Utter nonsense.

Concrete example? Just do a quick google. Here's one:
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/10/11/teacher-falsely-accused-having-sex-student
Fortunately, this is an example of a teacher using GOOD judgment and actually NOT going to jail over accusations. But the police did come to her classroom and read her her rights, if I understand correctly, with children present. It's really disrupted her family, endangered her career, and negatively impacted the school and district as a whole.

Here's another, in fact, ACTUALLY INVOLVING a girl who was 12 years old at the time:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/falsely-accused-virginia-teacher-sean-lanigan-attempts-reclaim/story

SchrodingersDick #sexist #pedo incels.co

Re: [News] Peter Cook, age 60, engaged to a 21 year old foid. Women all pissed off online, most of them old

These people don’t realize pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children, not a 21 year old

Their beef is not about some arbitrary age threshold like 18. Their beef is about men the same age as them, at the height of their sexual attractiveness/SMV, wanting to fuck younger women. Their beef is basically with age having a huge bearing on female SMV. Old roastie want 60 year old rich chad. They don’t want the younger girls ot have him. They fucking seethe when they see this. They would rather female SMV be based in factors they CAN control. Like a college degree and a career. They would rather “experience” and “maturity” be sexy, than youth, chastity, and innocence.

dcm #fundie mens-rights.net

Freud is occasionally valid. Asserting that men rape because they are men is classic penis envy. Those women only wish they could rape good looking boys because they are probably too ugly or their personalities are too vile to be able to seduce even a kid. But they can't because they either know they are too weak or afraid they might be.

Zyzz #racist altright.com

Anytime I ever meet a woman who admits to having with sex with a black guy, being attracted to one, or anything similar I pretty much infer they are absolute trash. Especially if I am out on a date with them.

I was on a date with a girl and it was going really good and then I nudged it towards race etc. she admitted there were differences between races and it's best to be with someone who is the same race as us. And the I was like oh that's great you're not a mud shark. She didn't know what that means so I told her. She then admits to having a one night stand with a black guy. I end it pretty quickly from there. I let her know that what she did was disgusting and unacceptable. The best part of it all was she was into me. And I rejected her simply because she had sex with a black guy.

Bernhard Guenther, Dr. William Baldwin, Peter Michael, Barbara Marciniak, Eve Lorgen & Lisa Chase Patterson #fundie howtoexitthematrix.com

Beware Of Sexually Transmitted Demons

The following information was compiled by Bernhard Guenther and describes how entities can attach to you through sexual intercourse and other sexual exchanges. Bernhard will be a guest on In5d’s Cosmic Awakening Show on August 13 to discuss his personal experience with hyperdimenisonal attacks. It is important to let go of the fear of such attacks by gaining an understanding and awareness of how these attacks occur and what we can do about it.

1. “The openness and surrender during sexual intercourse can allow the exchange of attached entities between two people. The thoughts, desires and behaviors of an attached entity are experienced as the person’s own thoughts, desires and behaviors. The thoughts, feelings, habits and desires do not seem foreign if they have been present for a long time, even from childhood. This is a major factor in the widespread denial of the concept and lack of acceptance of the phenomena of discarnate interference and spirit attachment, obsession or possession.”

– Dr. William Baldwin, Spirit Releasement Therapy

——

2. “People also pick up entity attachments through sex. Sex is much more than a physical interaction, it is an energetic exchange, and opening into another person on an energetic and spiritual level. The act of sex creates a connection between your energy field (aura) and the energy field of the person you are having sex with. When this connection is made you will pick up or absorb whatever is attached within the other person’s energy field.

If you have sex with someone that has a entity or demon, you will absorb that entity into yourself. You will basically be making a choice to allow or invite anything within the person’s energy field you are having sex to come into you. It is important to understand what sex actually is and what it creates beyond physical pleasure, and to choose the correct people who you want to open yourself to on that level.”

– Peter Michael, entityattachment.com

——

3. “Vast beings, living for thousands of years in your terms, make their living ruling and parenting you, seeking their value from you because you have considered yourselves valueless and purposeless. Those who would rule you on the physical and multidimensional planes understand the power of your genitals to create life, pleasure, pain, and death. They use your genitals as doorways without you even realizing it.

You are re-gridding Earth and changing the frequency so that one-by-one lights go on and fields of energy are established. You must learn how to stop feeding those vampires who suck your energies, from the astral planes, from the dimensions, and from on and under the Earth herself. Your sexuality and how it is used are the key elements.

It is in this very deep part of your regenerative self, your sexual organs, the core of your being, that many of the main problems lie, problems so dark, so secret that no one would dare speak of them. Yet they must be revealed. To relinquish power over your sexual organs is truly to abdicate the power of living.

By power we mean a sense of connectedness and accountability, the maturity to know when to express yourself sexually and when not to…..First you must make peace with the sexual organs of your being because it is here that life springs forth….And most of all, seek to understand the power of your sexuality, to infuse its expression only with love, for sex without love is truly not worth experiencing.

Within the sexual frequency, you exchange with one another. So if you are bonding yourself and chemically exchanging with a person who is not of your likeness, you are taking on their garbage because you are exchanging energy quite intimately. Even if you don’t want to be with this person, the sexual experience stays with you because you have had an electromagnetic exchange.”

– Barbara Marciniak, Bringers of the Dawn/Family of Light

——

4. “Sexual chemistry and sexual intercourse itself is also a preferred method of creating a powerful link for psychic feeding.

It is very important to not participate in the normalization of sexual behaviors that are not based in mutual respect and deep reverence. This may sound prudish but I do think human sexuality is powerful and threatening to the dark forces and they use normalizing sexual deviance and loose sexual behaviors to destroy people and to prevent the true spiritual potential of human sexually from being realized and enjoyed. There is no comparison when sacred sexuality is honored, realized and or known. Lower forms of sexuality are then obviously repulsive, low and degrading to every person involved.

Having the good sense to set appropriate boundaries, finding and addressing our blind spots and past traumas that create unconscious reactions and developing the capacity for highly evolved skills of discernment is of extraordinary importance. If we have not addressed our own blind spots and unconscious triggers or do not have a clear sense of what is really going on, this can be one of the easiest ways that narcissists and entities can use to take and misuse our energy.”

– Eve Lorgen, The Dark Side of Cupid

——

5. “Pay attention to whom you share your intimate energy with. Intimacy at this level intertwines your aural energy with the aural energy of the other person. These powerful connections, regardless of how insignificant you think they are, leave spiritual debris, particularly within people who do not practice any type of cleansing, physical, emotional or otherwise.

The more you interact intimately with someone, the deeper the connection and the more of their aura is intertwined with yours.

Imagine the confused aura of someone who sleeps with multiple people and carries around these multiple energies? What they may not realize is that others can feel that energy which can repel positive energy and attract negative energy into your life.”

– Lisa Chase Patterson

CH #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

The relevancy of this post will probably be moot by the time it’s published, but I’ve made some points about our current climate of anti-sex prudishness that deserve consideration, so here ya go.

I’m glad Trump came out in support of Roy Moore. The man’s travails — stoked to an incomprehensibly vitriolic froth by Nasty Womanhood, Inc and the Jewish Interest Media — are emblematic of the man-hating culture that suffuses us. Do I think it’s a leetle weird for a 30 year old man to actively seek to date late teenage girls? Sure, but it’s not criminal (not as long as AOC varies state-to-state from age 14 to 17….I can’t take a statutory crime seriously if all it requires is a hop across the state border to decriminalize the charge), and certainly not worthy of national coverage knowing that it would hardly have made the local news in the 1970s (which really could have been a millennia ago given how much American culture has changed since then).

30-year-old Roy Moore’s preference for teenage love isn’t a radical aberration or departure from the spectrum of normal male sexuality. It’s out on the tails of normal male sexuality, but not off the curve into abnormality where actual paraphilias (e.g., pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality) exist. NEWSFLASH: Men prefer young women, at minimum younger women than themselves, and men with power and social status that are naturally attractive to women will be better able and willing to fulfill their desire. At the margins, this means there will be HSMV older men who will date 17 year old Southern Roses, and some of those men will be actively pursuing a marriageable young woman with plenty of residual reproductive value to provide him with the large family he wants.

Roy Moore has four children with his wife of forty years. As far as we know, he has been faithful to her the whole time, and she adores him. His wife is fourteen years younger than him. This indicates that his youthful exuberance pursuing teen girls was part of a conscious desire he had at the time to find his One True Girl and marry her.

As long as there are teenage women with shapely figures telegraphing the opening of their prime fertility windows….

...

…there will be men of all ages ogling them. Some of those men will have the mate value and the immunity to social expectation to win one over as his own. Roy Moore’s preferences were within the sphere of normal, naturally evolved male sexuality. To dumbly conflate his dating history with that of pedophiles and pervert potted plant masturbators cajoling actress whores with a bit of the ol’ quim pro quo, is a slanderous joke and reveals a deep-seated discomfort with and spite toward the Darwinian contours of male sexuality and male romantic longing.

FYI it’s not all that unusual or uncommon for an adult man to get tripped up by the apparent age of an especially voluptuous teen woman. Unless a man is in the habit of asking all 0.7 waist-hip ratio women for their IDs, there’s a chance one of them might conceal being a barely legal vixen.

Related, some men (maybe Moore) either physically age more slowly or retain a light-heartedness of spirit that belies their age, which both makes them more attractive to and more attracted to younger women. It’s not the rule, but it’s a fairly notable exception.

Say what you will about Roy Moore, at least his girls agreed to date him (even if they retconned a discomfort 40 years later). The Synagogue of Seediness doesn’t bother with the formality of mutual agreement, they just passive-aggressively jam tongues down throats “to rehearse our lines”.

In sum, if you believe every recollected detail of the ancient allegations, only one woman at the time was underage (barely) when Moore asked her out on a date, shared consensual 2nd base foreplay with her, and drove her home when she wanted to leave. The rest of his “accusers” — aka bitter aged cows who regret not being the woman Moore married, all of whom with shitty personal relationship histories and connections to thecunt’s #SheMenstruated cat lady symposium, retconning their bloom of youth trysts with Moore into criminal acts — were legal age at the time of the alleged May-December violation of the feminist code of acceptable intersexual conduct.

You may think it’s icky for a grown man to consensually date barely legal teen girls, but that doesn’t make it criminal. There was a time when, while not quite the social norm, such couples weren’t all that unusual and nobody much blinked an eye when they encountered one. We all know of our own or someone else’s great-grandparents with big age gaps who started popping out kids when great-grandmama was seventeen.

I doubt Moore’s janey-come-lately accusers really were all that scandalized by his come-ons in 1977. Here’s a rule of thumb I use to determine the validity of a woman’s sexual misconduct accusation: If she waits more than ten years to tell anyone about it, she wasn’t all that bothered by the infraction when it occurred. If she waits forty years, it’s a political hit job exploiting a radically changed anti-sex feminist cunt climate.

But it is fair to ask why Moore would, if reports based on memories of contemporaries from forty years ago are accurate to the tiniest detail (they’re not), pursue questionable if mutually consensual age-disparate relationships with teenagers to the exclusion of older women, and risk the specter of social ostracism. Some say it’s because Moore was emotionally stunted and socially awkward — a 1970s proto-sperg — who wanted a deferential and awestruck teenage woman for company unlikely to challenge his self-conception or strain his capacity for mature adult banter.

Maybe, but probably not. I think he just liked ’em ripely hot, and didn’t much care about “relationship complementarity” as de-sexed ür-bugman Will Wilkinson might put it. This notion, held dear by both white knights and feminists, that men who date younger women are secretly intimidated by strong, independent, empowered older women is why I say betacels and bitterbitches have a lot more in common than they’d willingly admit.

Psychologically emasculated white knights who gripe about “power imbalances” in the workplace between male bosses and female subordinates, or in society between older high status men and younger inexperienced women, can’t seem to fathom or accept the reality that female sexual desire is different than male sexual desire, and women are typically attracted to powerful men. Two to tango, chumps. Men are aroused to provide for and protect vulnerable, deferential women, and women are aroused by strong men to whom they can safely and happily defer. Even to whom they can submit. Perfectly equal relationships are also perfectly passionless relationships. Sexual polarity is the lube of love. Male power and female admiration provide the sexual frisson that magnifies feelings of love and creates a solid foundation up;on which to build up a lifelong commitment.

Other theories for Moore’s focus on finding a teen fiancee that I’ve read hold more weight for me.

...

Character matters, and it looks to me that Moore’s accusers have the lowest of character, which rightly calls into question their veracity. Their low character doesn’t disprove their allegations, but it certainly is a leading indicator that they’re telling lies, or at best telling politically embroidered quasi-truths.

...

Well, you know, (((comedians))) get a special dispensation. (For the record, I have no problem with Jerry Seinfeld dating a legal 17 year old hottie. Men work hard to acquire status, fame and power FOR JUST THIS SORT OF OPPORTUNITY.)

...

That’s one of the better analyses of Moore I’ve read. He had an epic case of blue balls, and he wanted that feeling of young love that was denied him for so long. Are we going to lynch the man for that? If so, then you may as well criminalize men and castrate us all, because our dicks and our hearts aren’t going to cooperate with the anhedonic low T androgynarchic shrewtopia the hag collective wants to impose on society.

The next #resistance narrative is taking shape. Already I have shitlib acquaintances telling me, “How is it Ok that Trump can get away with groping women but no one else can?” You knew this was coming. Frankenwinestein was the sacrificial lamb to the gods of NeverTrump.

I’m near certain that Dem leaders and Cuckryans sat down with Frankenstien and said “Look Al, the photo is bad, you’re gonna have to resign, but look at it this way, you’ll go down a martyr, we’ll use your sacrifice to take down Moore and Trump. This is how you can do the most good.”

It’s pretty clear to me that the leftoid fuggernaut, caught off-guard by Pedowood, scrambled to segue from Chosen perversion to smearing the good names of Gentile anti-establishmentarians. Jizz up the waters enough and people forget who the worst perps are.

That’s why I have been consistent in my assessment of these decades-old sexual harassment allegations: mostly a bunch of Regret Fling griping from post-Wall women with a few genuine victims sprinkled in to give the moral panic a veneer of legitimacy. NeverForget that the overwhelming majority of these sex abuse accusations have been leveled against male feminist shitlibs, so what we are seeing is a moral panic started by shitlibs and feminists that they are DESPERATE to enlarge beyond the scope of the ghetto of male shitlib perverts.

Libs trying to tie Trump to #MeToo should be made aware of their telling silence and support when Hillary was running smear campaigns against Bill Clinton’s accusers. And in Bill’s case, one of the women, Juanita Broadderick, has been saying since day one he raped her.

It would be funny if, after every GOP establishment eel turned on Moore and the combined force of the jewish interest media lobbed their artillery at him, he still won. Biggest middle finger to the Globohomo Uniparty and to Schoolmarm Feminism this side of Trump’s election.

...

When you accept that the GOPe cuck elite really truly hate the heartland Americans they pretend to represent, you’ll understand their behavior and be able to predict their future actions. The Uniparty is real, and they are feeling the heat. Moore, please.

Mark of Zorro #fundie jref.com

To answer the question of whether pedophilia is a sickness or a crime, it is neither. It is popular and common to use the word to mean both or either, but that is complete and total misuse of the concept and the word, and that misuse has a major effect in ensuring the very separate topics are not handled correctly or fairly in the slightest. And I have no hope that the knot of stupidity will ever be untied in my lifetime, because the topics are valued by so many people as topics where they can feel free to rant and not dedicate one ounce of critical thought. The whole thing is dominated by witch hunters and I have been attacked numerous times for daring to address related topics with fairness, justice and logic.

I will explain why it is neither a sickness or a crime. First, it is not a sickness because the only reason it causes mental distress is because of societal intolerance. The only kind of pedophilia I would call a sickness would be where its compulsive and the person just can't help themselves but to molest or rape children practically on sight. But that sort of pedophile is exceedingly rare, pretty much like serial rapists.

Your average run-of-the-mill pedophile, someone who simply prefers pre-pubescents as sex partners, would be perfectly happy if society left them free to date and have sex with who they wanted (as in Polynesian society before the Europeans came, or even American and British societies where the age of consent was ten for hundreds of years). So while some might call their desires sick, it does not mean they are sick. They are no more sick than homosexuals, and it took society and psychology a long time to conclude that homosexuals were not sick, and that delay was simply the product of societal taboo, same as with pedophilia today.

But it has to be said that a pedophile is best defined as someone who PREFERS prepubescents. Just finding yourself attracted to prepubescents does not make one a pedophile, because if that were true, 25 percent to 33 percent of all males would be pedophiles, and the word would lose all meaning.

Next, pedophilia is not a crime because pedophilia is not an act. Only acts can be crimes. Pedophilia is sexual preference, not an act. That is why I use the term "age of consent violation" rather than lump words like pedophilia, statutory rape and rape into one confusing jumble of overlapping concepts. Its just crazy to say that, for example, Mary Kay LeTourneau raped Villi Fualau. She didn't. They had consensual sex and they loved one another. In fact, they are now legally married. Its also crazy to say that Mary Kay is a pedophile. That is for many reasons. First, when they began sexual relations, Villi was not a prepubescent. So there is zero reason to think Mary Kay prefers prepubescents since she is not accused of ever sleeping with one. Next, she never even repeated her "crime" with another person underage, so she is certainly not compulsive in that sense.

Clearly what happened with Mary Kay is that she was in love. But some segments of society don't want to accept that and all others are too weak to speak against it. So Mary Kay gets labeled a pedophile out of hand and zero rational thought behind it.

All that said, I freely admit that Mary Kay is a bit off. I think she is compulsive, but just not toward underage boys. I believe her love is genuine, but allowing herself to get knocked up by a 13 year old, particularly when she has other children to care for, indicates someone without much foresight or self-control. The woman needed mental help for that. Instead, society gave her jail, all because witch hunters have contol of this topic.

So anyway, pedophilia is a sexual preference. A sickness would be compulsive pedophilia marked by a lack of self-control over the urge. A crime would be an age of consent violation, as that would be an act, as much as I think the label of crime is over-blown. Rape is just rape, hardly matters the age of the victim. The term statutory rape is absolute garbage and should be erased from the vernacular. And age of consent violations should be called precisely that, because calling consensual sex between a 15 year old and her 18 year old boyfriend as rape, pedophilia, sexual assault, or statutory rape is grossly and seriously unfair, injust and misleading to the point of me wanting to punch people's lights out.


The concept behind statutory rape is the general consensus from scientists that the brain is not developed enough to know the consequences of your actions at that age.

For starters, no, the concept of statutory rape began in the middle ages and no related legistlation, even modern, is based on any scientific study. Frankly, you just made that up.

Next, how does brain development translate into understanding the consequence of your actions? You cannot induce a baby into a coma, wake him up when he is 25, and expect him to understand the consequences of sticking his finger into a light socket even though his brain has fully developed.

My son is two years old. He understands the consequences of touching a hot stove.

In short, that whole brain development thing is complete red herring. The brain develops yes, but no one knows what effect that has on the decision making process. They only have guesses, and those guesses tend to conform toward agenda.

Further to that, if a child was refused a bicycle on the grounds of safety, how many people would say their parents are over-reacting? Kids ride around on bicycles all the time! Do you think they understand all the consequences, such as being hit by a car? Do you think they understand the dynamics of vehicular traffic well enough to truly be safe? Please! And a bicycle is more dangerous than sex.

How many 16 year olds are driving cars?! They could kill you. You could kill them. But if you loved them and had sex with them, there is some sort of massive danger??

That's subjective, of course, however I tend to believe that the law is more towards the younger end. Just out of personal experience, I have not met too many developed minds under 25.

The age of consent has only risen, and its now well beyond puberty, which is insane and unfair, as sex becomes an imperative after puberty.

I find it preposterous that anyone would consider an early teen to be mentally sound enough for sex with an adult.

So you are saying they are mentally sound enough for sex with eachother? Or are you saying they are raping, traumatizing and manipulating eachother? What do you mean by "mentally sound" anyway? What does it have to do with sex??


It's far too likely that such relationships are ones of manipulation.

Why? Why would you assume that any person's desire for a sexual relationship with a teen is based on manipulation? Do you think the human race is generally bent on manipulation? Do you know of any relationship based on manipulation?

For centuries teens were free to marry and age disparate couples were common. Many of our grandparents and great grandparents were in such a relationship. Now suddenly its wrong and all about manipulation?


I would question the ego of any adult that needs a relationship of manipulation.
So would I. But more than that I question your lack of faith in humanity. I do not believe that most people are out to manipulate the people they are attracted to, at least not maliciously. I do not believe that being minor attracted lends itself to a desire to manipulate maliciously.

In fact, if anything, I would say the tendency would be more toward a desire to protect and care for. But its usually the bad apples that get all the press isn't it? The news is rarely about people in love. So people who read the news tend to think people are evil at heart.

Lefrog #fundie mmo-champion.com


It is. But you can't treat people in a way that is criminal, regardless of how they act. Therein lies the the fault with victim blaming. I know you said devil's advocate but this ought to be intuitively obvious? You can perhaps rightfully call a child a slut (but you won't be a nice person for doing so), but that's about as far as you can go. You can't rape her and then justify it as "well she acted like a slut so I treated her like one".
It's illegal to rape women for being promiscuous.

There in lies the problem with modern society. Because girls who act and dress promiscuously, sometimes also engage in sexual activity with older men. It's also illegal to have consensual sex, and the responsibility is thrown entirely on the adult. Controlling sexual urges during a consensual encounter is a lot harder than people think. It's not only in our genes, but also embedded in our society. There is a reason why so many people cheat when they are in a relationship. But there is a fundamental difference between wanting that ultimate please with someone and willing to break the law/relationship over it and going as far as knowingly hurting them for it.

Sometimes the adult may not know the true age, sometimes the adult will give in to temptation. But the thought process going through a man's brain is entirely different from a "I'm going to rape her" situation. Yet the punishment and branding stays the same, especially in cases involving minors.

200 years ago it wasn't uncommon to get with someone younger than 18. In fact, nature itself makes girls ready in the 10-13 age. Now I do agree, that in this day in age, getting pregnant or even engaging in sexual activity before 17-18 can be damaging, because so much of our future rides on our ability to focus on learning during our teen years and our ability to grow up with a healthy mental state. But we are fighting against our nature in doing this, and the fact that society has deemed it ok to punish those who break this rule but at the same time deemed it ok to leave all the temptation in there is wrong. It's similar to bringing alcohol to an AA meeting. In either case you have to be very strong willed to go against your natural instincts when being tempted, and some people just aren't.


No, girls that young giving birth are risking a whole host of medical issues. Nature makes girls capable by 13, it does not make them ready.

I'd have to research this more to find any kind of correlation between a healthy 14 y/o and a healthy 18 y/o as far as risks to giving birth. Again though you are right here and what I meant by ready was capable. But it would be wrong to state that all girls under 18 are unfit to become parents, or are at larger risk than if they were 18+. Those girls whose bodies develop and mature faster are also those who seem to favor promiscuous clothing as well, and as also more like to want to consensually engage in sexual activity. Therefore it also seems plausible that men's natural attraction to females happen when they think that female is ready to give birth regardless of age.

Honestly, I don't really see this happen all that often. Most cases of pedophiles (in the news at least) seem to be of either people who abused positions of trust (might as well be forcible rape) or predators who groomed little girls for sex (pretty much is forcible rape). But I acknowledge that could well just be my perspective. My position though, is that there's no reason why you can't wait a couple of years with an underage partner. Err on the side of caution when it comes to people who are potentially not ready.

I agree here, but I do occasionally read about a case of statutory rape that just doesn't seem to make sense. There is also a huge difference in being attracted to someone underaged that looks, talks, acts, dresses like an adult and an attraction to the looks, talks, and acts of someone who is clearly still a kid.

Edit: this is why I think society is partly to blame. We should keep children as children, so that people are less likely to be attracted to them even if they somewhat look old enough. Nothing more offputting to me than a girl who acts like a child with her mannerisms, despite how old she is.

Well the law does have to make up some number, but it's sad to see people automatically branded as pedophiles and rapist (not the legal definition, but that of purely forceful sex) when the parties involved can be one of the numerous cases when the sexual act in question is not damaging to either party. Especially when both parties are wired perfectly normal and subject to society's teens' provocative displays and their own sexual impulses.
I take issue with trying to blame it on provocative displays. Really, human adults in general aren't such hopeless creatures who can't control their base desires.

Don't agree with this at all. Just look at how many people commit crimes of passion, and how many people are addicted to drugs, alcohol, or smoking. Look at how many people eat without control, or spend way too much time on entertainment to their own detriment. Human adults in general have a very hard time struggling with control, specially when having that control isn't specifically rewarded in any way.
I don't think any of the other little vices that you mentioned compares to sexually assaulting a minor.

Oh they don't! I was referring to being able to say no to sex with a minor who looks,acts, talks, and dresses like an adult who is the one wanting to initiate the sexual act in the first place.
Sexual activity in men in my opinion is almost equivalent to a drug. It is why the porn industry is so damn huge. Sex is not one of those things men can just shrug off and be 100% in control about, because on some level sex is a primal instinct embedded in all of us. Look at how hard it is to become a celibate priest or monk, and they already remove themselves from situations where they can give in.

Barry - Pole Choking Faggot #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Here's why Bull-Queers & Jews are a Dangerous Combination...

""
The Nazi party was founded by homosexuals. The Bratwurstgloeckl, a tavern frequented by homosexual roughnecks, is where Rohm joined the handful of sexual deviants (and occultists).

It was no coincidence that homosexuals were among those who founded the Nazi Party. In fact, the party grew out of a number of groups in Germany which were centers of homosexual activity and activism.
""

But it was not just the Nazi party Homosexuals...

Bull-Queer - Churchill met with Hitler as a young man and allegedly had Butt-Sex with him?

[link to i.imgur.com]

They were Bull-Queer, homosexual Pals.

Field Marshal Montgomery was a Homosexual.

Hitler was the Bastard Spawn of Jew-Banksters...

Hitlers Mother worked as a "Housekeeper" for a German-Jew Banker.

References to follow...

Thread: Hitler - A different perspective - Catholic Church - "Hitler Youth" = Diddle Little Boys

""
There are at least four women, including his own niece, with whom Hitler had sexual relationships, although these relationships were not normal. Both Waite and Langer suggest that his sexual encounters with women included expressions of his coprophilic perversion as well as other extremely degrading forms of masochism.

It is interesting to note that all four women attempted suicide after becoming sexually involved with Hitler.

Two succeeded.

Jewish historian by the name of Samuel Igra...

claims that Hitler:
"had been a male prostetute in Vienna at the time of his sojourn there, from 1907 to 1912, and that he practiced the same calling in Munich from 1912 to 1914"

Desmond Seward
says Hitler is listed as a homosexual in Viennese police records.

Walter Langer, that during several of those years Hitler chose to live in a Vienna flophouse known to be

inhabited by many homosexuals.

Frank Rector writes that, as a young man, Hitler was often called der schoen Adolf (the handsome Adolf) and later his looks were also to some extent helpful in gaining big-money support from Ernst Rohms circle of wealthy JEW gay friends.

A psychological profile of Hitler. His report, kept under wraps for 29 years...

Langer writes that Hitler was certainly a coprophile (a person who is sexually aroused by human excrement) and may have practiced homosexuality as an adult.

He cites the testimony of Hermann Rauschning, a former Hitler confidant who, reports that he has met two boys who claimed that they were Hitlers homosexual partners.

Hitler calls Foerster Bubi, which is a common nickname employed by homosexuals in addressing their partners [back then].

Hitler derives sexual pleasure from looking at mens bodies and associating with homosexuals.

A well-known fact is that Hitlers greatest hero was Frederick the Great, a well-known homosexual.

Hitler was closely associated with Ernst Rohm and Rudolf Hess, two homosexuals who were among the very few people with whom he used the familiar "du" in speaking.

Hitler left the prison he fretted about his friend who languished there, and spoke of him tenderly, using Austrian diminutives: Ach mein Rudy, mein Hesserl

Whenever Hitler got a present he liked or drew an architectural sketch that particularly pleased him, he would run to Hess who was known in homosexual circles as Frauline Anna as a little boy would run to his mother to show his prize to her.

One of Hitlers prized possessions was a handwritten love letter which King Ludwig II had written to a manservant.

Hitler seemed to prefer homosexual companions and coworkers. In addition to Rohm and Hess, two of his closest friends, Hitler filled key positions with known or suspected homosexuals.

Reportedly, Hitler Youth leader, Baldur Von Schirach was bisexual; Hitlers private attorney, Reich Legal Director, Minister of Justice.

Governor-General of Poland, and public gay-hater Hans Frank was said to be a homosexual;

Hitlers adjutant Wilhelm Bruckner was said to be bisexual;

Walter Funk, Reich minister of Economics [and Hitlers personal financial advisor] has frequently been called a notorious homosexual or as a jealous predessesor in Funks post, Hjalmar Schacht, contemptuously claimed, Funk was a harmless homosexual and alchoholic;

[Hitlers second in command] Hermann Goering liked to dress up in drag and wear campy make-up;

SS Chief Heinrich Himmlers pederastic proclivities [were] captured on film by Nazi film maker Walter Frenze.

Igra, states that Hitlers chauffeur and one-time personal secretary, Emile Maurice, was a homosexual.

Moreover, even more interesting is this, Julius Streicher, the notorious Jew-baiter, was originally a school teacher, but was dismissed by the Nuremberg School Authorities, following numerous charges of pederasty brought against him.

Reinhard Heydrich, was homosexual.

Richard Grunberger tells of a party given by Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, which degenerated into a homosexual orgy.

A recent biography of Albert Speer by Gitta Sereny speaks of a homo-erotic relationship.

Hitlers personal bodygaurds were almost always 100 percent homosexuals.

The Nazi party was founded by homosexuals. The Bratwurstgloeckl, a tavern frequented by homosexual roughnecks, is where Rohm joined the handful of sexual deviants (and occultists).

It was no coincidence that homosexuals were among those who founded the Nazi Party. In fact, the party grew out of a number of groups in Germany which were centers of homosexual activity and activism.

Nietzsche was dubbed the Father of National Socialism.

Nietzsche is probably more deserving of this distinction, being so labeled by Nazi luminaries Dr. Alfred Rosenberg and Dr. Frank. Others have called him the Father of Fascism. Rabidly

anti-Christian and a homosexual, Nietzsche founded the God is dead movement and contributed to the development of existentialist philosophy.

Nietzsches publisher, Peter Gast, called Nietzsche one of the fiercest anti-Christians and atheists.

Nietzsche never married, and had no known female sex partners, but went insane at age 44 from syphilis and eventually died of it. According to Sigmund Freud

and Carl Jung, Nietzsche had caught the disease at a homosexual brothel in Genoa, Italy.

The extended-arm Seig Heil salute, for example, was a ritual of the Wandervoegel (Wandering Birds or Rovers), a male youth society that became the German equivalent of the Boy Scouts.

The Wandervoegel was started in the late 1800s by a group of homosexual teenagers. Its first adult leader, Karl Fischer, called himself der Fuehrer (the Leader).

Hans Blueher, a homosexual Nazi philosopher and important early member of the Wandervoegel, incited a sensation in 1912 with the publication of The German Wandervoegel Movement as an Erotic

Phenomenon, which told how the movement had become one in which young boys could be introduced into the homosexual lifestyle.

The Wandervoegel and other youth organizations were later merged into the Hitler Youth, which itself became known among the populace as the Homo Youth because of rampant homosexuality.

Sturmabteilung (Storm Troopers, the SA) were largely the creation of another homosexual, Gerhard Rossbach.

Rossbach, who historian Gruber says was a open homosexual, formed the Rossbachbund (Rossbach Brotherhood), a homosexual unit of the Freikorps (Free Corps).

Rossbach also formed a youth organization under the Rossbuchbund, calling it the SchilljugendSchill Youth).

Rossbachs staff assistant, Lieutenant Edmund Heines, a pederast and murderer, was put in charge of the Schilljugend.

Eisenhower...Churchill...Hitler...Stalin...

All played on the same team...

Jews & Bull-Queers - Verses - The World

Working together to exterminate the Christian, Protestant, Puritan, Separatist...

"
Winston Churchill was a member of the Freemasons, and a member of the Loyal Waterloo Lodge of the National Independent Order of Odd Fellows.
"

"Freemasons" a Jew controlled organization...

"Order of Odd Fellows" = Bull-Queer, Pederast...

Leg End #psycho #pedo escapistmagazine.com


Joe Mc'techdude is a technician who has never missed a day of work, is bright, works hard, and never asks for a raise. You don't personally know Joe, but you've heard a -lot- of good things about them.

One day, Joe gets arrested for sexually assaulting a child. You do not know the age of the child, how he feels on the matter, if it's actually true, etc. ALL YOU KNOW is that he was arrested for sexually assaulting a child.
Many years later, after being released from prison, he has been filed in the system for his crime, and everyone on your block has been informed of what he is.

For some reason, you are an owner of a local electronics/general tech-goods store.
....
You are now given a choice, you may not ask any questions to Joe regarding his past. You must choose if you hire him on the spot, or if you don't hire him at all. Do you hire him?

Yes. Hired then and there. His past has no meaning as to whether or not he can fix what needs fixin. He served his time. Though, I'll look into the details later.

If a customer comes in and doesn't like it, then they can kindly get the hell out of my fucking store, because they are probably not going to be a very nice customer.

Everyone deserves a second chance. And, if it is a case of "Statutory Rape", then I have no ill, because that charge is bullshit.

Though, if I find out he had sex with say... a 7 year old girl, well... it had better been consensual, not full on rape.

If rape, I'm not going to like him much at first. But, if the alleged victim forgives him, no hard feelings in my book.

Seriously, have you ever met an actual 7 year old? There's no way they have anything like the maturity level to consent, and claiming so is a common justification child abusers use for their crimes (not saying that you would).

Actually, many seven year olds actually do have such maturity. Hell, I know a 5 year old with more maturity than one of my 35 year old friends. Yes, he indeed needs to stop making dick jokes.

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Ufology and Science

[...]

The essence of science is to analyze the data and observations. Why do scientists not do it? Because they are afraid of ridicule, and for their careers. Why? Because it is a field of investigation that the secret services have made theirs, while conducting massive smear campaigns to discourage scientists to care. Again, the snake biting its tail!

Yet this is the cross-analysis of the data that allows a synthesized image of faculties and characteristics of UFOs and aliens. By listing all these features through a composite sketch we can establish what are genuine ships, and genuine aliens, and deduce that the physical laws, as accepted today, are incomplete, because these features must be scientifically explained!

In doing so, we seek ways, responses beyond (not outside) the classic patterns of science. In doing so, it necessarily puts into question the theories to have a broader picture of the reality.

This is exactly what the Fractal Time does.

What secret services want is ufologists confined to mere collectors of catalogs of observations, that many people suggest them to be precisely! What should you expect after these catalogs of detailed observations are full like an egg? Simply continue until exhaustion?

This is exactly what happens to ufology!

The ships and aliens to be studied are exempt from public view to avoid panic. The system is more important than the truth.

Many people believe that time and space are an illusion while this may be the exact opposite: the matter is an illusion, and we just observe expressions of different space-times that cross each other.

General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics begin defaulting each other. That is why it must be changed. We face deceits in mathematical expressions of the models.

It is not that some equations must be changed, it is a new epistemologically point of view that must be observed. The equations are only expressions of the representation of ideas that experiments and observations approve (or not) partially or completely. Since science can not explain paranormal phenomena among which is the bizarre behavior of UFOs , then science is incomplete.

The vision, often prevalent among ufologists, according to which the ETs who would come to us to change our scientific point of view, is truly delusional, especially anthropocentric. When they come it will not be to upset our scientific knowledge, since they are already doing it for thousands of years, especially since the nuclear age, through the inspiration.

When they come it will be to upset the whole civilization and destroy it for the Elect can settle on the earth in the New Jerusalem. There will be no technical progress or scientific debate on new equations to write. It’s too late, thanks to people like the majority of scientists who put the head in the sand and did not recognize their presence while there was still time.

What this blog is doing, is to give inputs that can satisfy intellectual curiosity of everyone. But it is mainly to raise awareness of the very short time available before the rescue of the Elect who have so little time to become one. When Jesus comes for the rapture it will be too late. So there is no question, when Jesus will come, to change the minds of some people.

Besides, it’s probably the opposite that will happen. Christ will be booed and will be taken as an alien invader by some people for not having read the Apocalypse and some passages of the Bible. Remember what happened to him 2,000 years ago, while he was Son of God!

The ETs have nothing to tell us or show us right now. They have done it since thousands of years. And even through the ‘Do You Wish That We Show Up‘ world referendum. But we took them for ‘angels’ and ‘God’. They have continued to do miracles, and stand in the sky continuously.

They have not stopped to alert and prevent. But we have not stopped taking their messengers as mere nuts. Since society has to be changed, they will not come and give evidence to the skeptics to destroy them next. The Secret Services, they know things. But you have to see or know who they work for …

Science is broad and undefined. There is just scientists who are making science since many do not agree from each other. In science, there are those who admit and those who do not confess, or greatly minimize mysteries and puzzles speaking up when it comes to claim certainties, ignoring the assumptions sometimes untenable, that these claims hide.

The history of science has shown that no theory is ever complete. Everyone contributes more or less critically. But what matters is to instill to a scientific community a new perspective.

A secret is no longer measured as the number of people who share it. To share it must be seen, read or heard. In the mass of information available on the Net, how will you know whether information is secret or not? You can have 1,000 people who know for 7 billion who do not know. So secret is relative. The Anglo-Saxons have a very eloquent expression: a cover up in plain sight!

That’s what this blog is!

Many want evidence. More evidence. But, for example, UFO pictures are blurred DUE TO the technology used in the ETs vessels. They are surrounded by a temporal field that makes them look like a fast moving object. There is also clearer photos. But do not expect that the ETs offer a vessel to study it. They will not shoot themselves in the foot either. They do not seek to satisfy our curiosity, but to fulfill God’s plan.

Therefore, in terms of ufology, it is recommended to know the techniques of the anti-UFO propaganda which will deny the precautions and advices that this blog brings about the End Times, in particular the Rescue of the Great Multitude in white robes.

Here is an excellent summary of the means used to bring us into the ranks … to destroy us when the time comes:

Gargle with abstract theoretical arguments to avoid considering the facts.

Make believe that the scientific world is opposed to beliefs.

Use the prestige of an authority to distort the truth.

Despise the evidence that is presented in underestimating it.

Reduce the unknown from the known to the price of denial of a significant part of a fact.

Indicate that common sense is the best advisor. What is historically false.

Use and abuse the principle of parsimony or Occam’s razor, of ignoring scientific proven contradictions.

Say that the evidence, even very numerous, are irrelevant while scientific experiments are either testimonials.

Say that the truth is in existent phenomena while it is scientifically impossible to prove the non-existence of a thing.

Make systematic amalgams between doubtful cases and others that are not.

Ask questions based on unfounded truths and from simplistic beliefs.

Attack the entourage of a proponent of the paranormal if he is unassailable.

Attack a person instead of responding to the relevance of its arguments.

Eivind Berge #fundie eivindberge.blogspot.com.au

The insidious power of metaphors

Thanks to the hateful campaign to demonize Brock Turner as a rapist, I think I better understand how sexual hysterias work. Firstly, it needs to be pointed out that Brock Turner is not actually a rapist, even by the legal definition in California:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/stanford-rape-case-brock-turner-victims-statement-a7074246.html

He is guilty of digital penetration, and not even a violent one at that; just taking advantage of the woman's intoxicated state. So why are people so absurdly hysterical about this minor sexual assault? Why do they demand to punish it as if it were rape? I disagree that it should be criminal at all, since the woman got drunk willingly and went along with it, but even if you agree with the law, it was far removed from rape.

I think people react to the metaphor rather than reality. Feminist propaganda has been so successful that "sexual assault" is now synonymous with "rape" in the mind of the mob, and so rape is all they can see in their imagination. It was recently shown that the meaning of words are stored in the same place in the brain across individuals:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v532/n7600/abs/nature17637.html

Feminists have managed to hijack the semantic mapping of "rape" and meld it with "sexual assault," so now all it takes to create mass hysteria is to accuse sexual assault. This is also how statutory rape works, and how feminists have even managed the absurd feat of creating the concept of female rapists and female sex offenders. These are all about metaphors, and metaphors are all you need to create lynch mobs and criminal convictions alike, after legal reforms which are also based on metaphors rather than reality.

Because the meanings of words have so extreme consequences when they are enshrined in criminal law, and even when they aren't, it is important not to let the metaphors get out of hand. One thing we need to make absolutely clear is that rape can only be performed with a penis. A real penis. Brock Turner didn't use his penis -- just his fingers -- and women by definition don't have penises so they can't be rapists. If you don't see this, then you are in thrall of metaphors rather than reality and need to break the spell. And we need to turn back the feminist legal reforms which have already so unreasonably expanded the definition of rape in many jurisdiction.

Four Teen #racist #wingnut youtube.com

RE: Ocasio Cortez Could Be VOTED OUT On Tuesday, A Centrist Democrat MAY Actually Win

Here's hoping she, Tlaib, and Omar all get voted out.

LOL! Not happening. The less white the democrat party becomes, the more people like that will be voted in, not out. This is the future "die-versity" gets us.

when the other Latina woman wins Aoc will claim racism and sexism was the reason

Well, first off, she won't lose. Her district is 80% non-white, and non-white voters are immovable and are the foundation of unaccountable government. Also neither of them are "Latin," they're mestizo. Latin people are a Southern European people. I'm sick of rootless mestizo's claiming European heritage that doesn't belong to them, or having it attributed to them, when it's not theirs.

AOC is a celebrity outside her district, but she's been a terrible representative for her district. She scuttled the Amazon deal and cost her people a lot of good jobs.

Lol. You say that like non-white voters care. Look at Detroit and Chicago and other dumps of that sort. They'll vote her back in, watch.

Willhem #fundie holocaust21.wordpress.com

I hate this shitty cultural marxist world. I’ve always said the same with neo-fascism and neo-Nazism, in which the end is another trap, but no other cure for this disease? Leftists are a group of slags without any sense of nation, race, creed, ideals or decency. In an fascism they would be dead. The problem is that we also surely dead too. Maybe we should give up with prepubescents boys and girls, and just settle to watch them, I’m happy with it. Maybe hopefully they leave us with teen sex and teen marriage, men and women at least, but boylovers can engage in a type of platonic pederasty in an SA style. Please fascism to win, but not nut protestant or catholic right, pure satanistic or orthodox fascism! Dark Enlightenment! Death to the Left!

savagesusie #fundie freerepublic.com

Condition children into thinking the abnormal is normal. You destroy the Bible and idea of God as you encourage destructive, nihilistic ideas that create dysfunctional people who put emotions above intellect.

Surest way to destroy the intellect of children and redirect it into narcissistic destruction. Sexual impulses are powerful and when you are controlled by passion, you are a slave to it. Intellect needs to control the passions to create a rational civil society. Homosexuals want to indoctrinate and seduce children into their lifestyle because they believe in pederasty even if they deny it. It is the foundation of homosexuality since it is learned behavior and sexual identity has to be twisted while a child is forming their sexual identity. This is understood even by Freud who knew that it is necessary in societies to repress sexual instinct. Marcuse wants to UNLEASH all restraints and have man/boy sex....because that is what happens when you have no sexual morals which is what you get with homosexuality.

Destroy the morality and virtue of a culture and you destroy it completely. Founders knew this and of course, Herbert Marcuse and those who control and write textbooks. They are all cultural Marxists.

dailyantifeminist #sexist dailyantifeminist.wordpress.com

Women become horny for sex with men at 8 or 9, and become very horny for sex with men at 11 or 12. But men often miss on the former stage (8-9) of female horniness, and only notice the latter stage of it (11-12), because by the latter stage the women have developed the SSC needed to attract most men. (and are also hornier than at the earlier stage)

And the AOC in Delaware in 1880 was 7, because “adulthood” or lack thereof have to do with whether or not what one should have sex. This idea that sex must necessarily be tied to “adulthood” is a very modern idea, and the very sharp distinction that people in the modern age make between “children” and “adults” is traced back to the Enlightenment period; before that, the issue of child/adult was much less prominent in the public mind, as people viewed other categories — not age, which is an arbitrary notion — as really important.

R. Michael Hands #fundie home.earthlink.net

PSYCHOLOGY IS A SATANIC RELIGION

In the face of truth Shrinks maintain a psychological foundation for their fraud on myths devoid of empirical data.

Their claim that mental differences (mostly sexual) come from ancient Greek and Roman gods are bogas. These “gods” that have never existed or seen are supposed to mirror contemporary human mental problems.

Some of psychologies pagan delusions to name a few are, Demeter, Persephone, Athena, Artemis, Hades, Psyche, Eros, Pleasure, Cupid, Aphrodite, and Zeus.

Shrinks claim the New Testament of the Bible is a fabrication of sick minds even though thousands of years of confirmed signs and wonders from God have proved their assumptions to be wrong.

Shrinks refuse to accept the creators God and Jesus to have the answers for mans mental problems.

Shrinks have a propensity to denigrate God, Jesus and the Bible, so it only fair to as have others sully Sigmund Freud MD, Neurologist, and Psychiatrist/Psychologist, Mrs. Melinie Reizes Klein Psychologist and other devotees of psychological mind control and their contribution to keeping mankind in sins darkness by skimming the surface of man's bent.

I do not condemn the Hebrew or Gentile Shrink, in reality within this treatise are facts to educate the biblically unlearned layman and intellectuals caught in the satanic snare of doubt by the fowler of Psychology.

As a supplement to Freud’s list of sexual psychological classifications Shrinks have added contemporary ideas of mental illness,(schizophrenia, bi-polar, neurotic, phobias, etc.) to confuse the spiritually lost.

To maintain a monitary base Shrinks teach having a life of mental wellness and self serving harmony filled with sexual escapades are the sinners due and acceptable in all.

1 COR 2:11 What man knows the things of a man, save the spirit (natural mind) of man which is in him? Man understands the workings of the human mind but without the Holy Ghost cannot see the workings of God in man.

You can be a psychologist without years of university brainwashing by heathen women professors if you just convert to Jesus and pay attention to the minuscule detail in peoples lives.

The Holy Ghost knows the day by day working of God in people while secular Shrinks can only guess.

PSA 14:1 The fool has said in his mind, there is no God; Freud taught this to his cronies and patients.

Fools effortlessly become societies Psychologists because of their propensity to be corrupt, immoral, depraved, decayed, sex crazed and Jesus hating liars.

bengangmo #fundie boards.straightdope.com

1. Of course for violent / forced rape father's rights are terminated (going by layman's terms of forced / violent - I know that by definition, rape is forced)
2. If the lady is found to have raped the man, her rights should be terminated
3. If it is not so clear cut (statutory rape of a 17yr old for example) then it needs to be taken on a case by case basis
4. If it is (non violent) date rape or rape of a drunk (but not comatose) woman, there is nothing that would automatically make me assume the father is not fit to be a daddy (although the cards would be stacked against him, and he would need to prove himself fit)

U Mirin' Braahhhh? #fundie ibsurvival.com

Gay people are growing. Not because they now have the freedom to assume themselves as gay but because of other aspects. We've actually reverted what is the basis of democracy: we've turned the minorities more powerful than the majorities. You see, all the politicians want, is to have votes. Thus, they give freedom of speech and freedom of sex. But what are the repercussions to the society?

Not to begin with the whole religious part of it and to mention all that has been said, it definitely corrupts the society. Usually, gay couples that adopt a child will almost force their adopted child to be gay as well. So, where is the freedom of choice here? A child is constantly given the opportunity to experience something that corrupts their mind with thoughts that most of the times are not real. Gay people say that we are all gay, it's just the society that has been telling us that is wrong. And to prove this, they use Freud's method (which btw, has been considered to not be valid for most of the psychological problems...). Where is ethics here? They are disturbing a person's mind.

Now look at this in a more small world. Imagine two best friends. Doesn't matter their sex. One thinks that he's having feelings for the other. As all of you must've experienced, when a person starts to like the other (in opposite sex) it always gives either the wrong way or they end up dating. Now, as the other one is not gay, what will happen is an obsession to turn the other one gay because gay people cannot accept the fact that others are not gay (AND if you actually analyse their attitude, gay people turn out to be the most aggressive despite the fact that they seem to be fragile at a first glance). For gay people, there is no such thing as friendship. Friendship is just a beginning to a relationship. This is another reason to a problem they have: Gay people cannot maintain a relationship stable because they are not capable of being with the same person forever (which does not happen in real marriage - if the marriage is properly held and husband and wife are committed). No matter what happens, they will not stay together if another gay comes. Gay people tend to have (and sorry for using the word) orgies. Hence, I ask, where is the concept of matrimony?? There is no such thing for them.

Eivind Berge #sexist eivindberge.blogspot.no

You are obviously making up bullshit in order to attack evolutionary psychology. It is not credible that a boy would want to kill himself simply because he was touched by his mother. Women cannot commit sexual abuse per se, but they can of course commit emotional and physical abuse, which is at least as bad:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141008131200.htm

"Children who are emotionally abused and neglected face similar and sometimes worse mental health problems as children who are physically or sexually abused, yet psychological abuse is rarely addressed in prevention programs or in treating victims, according to a new study published by the American Psychological Association."

It is even indubitable that some of the emotional and physical abuse that women commit is sexual in nature, but that does not mean the category of sexual abuse committed by women deserves to be taken seriously, because that would presuppose harm due to the sexual aspect itself, independent of the emotional and physical aspects, which is what evolutionary psychology denies. There are no such adaptations -- no theoretical reason for them and none observed empirically. Indeed, the evidence suggests that even with regard to prepubescent girls, "sexual abuse" is largely a projection created by adults, with no basis in factual harm above and beyond emotional and physical abuse.

The sex-abuse adaptations that do exist are women's rape-avoidance adaptations, and they kick in at puberty. Females of reproductive age can indeed be traumatized by the sexual aspect of rape far beyond what the violence involved would otherwise suggest. Ironically, feminists deny that these adaptations exist, and instead confabulate about this specious concept of gender-neutrally applicable "sexual abuse" that in your twisted imagination is more harmful to children than adult women even though the evidence suggests exactly the opposite and excludes female perpetrators.

Some incels #sexist reddit.com

stacy grooming a 13 year old chad.. still has millions of followers on youtube and insta validating her

image

(POOP_BLASTER)
Raping children and men in general is ok if youre a woman.

Patriarchy

(_MiscLegend)
LOL. With all of this so-called "male privilege" you hear from feminists, you'd think the exact opposite of this would be the reality.

Waiting for the day an 18 year old normie guy can do this and get away scot-free thanks to the supposed "male privilege" or "white privilege" or some other bullshit like that.

(UnkleReagan)
I disagree with the double standard and all, but can anyone seriously say that he's a victim here?? And to be honest I would actually apply this to both genders. Female high schoolers literally try to fuck their hot teachers all the time and I literally could not give a shit about that either. 13 year olds are not innocent prepubescent children. I was at least mostly done with puberty by that age, and wouldn't have minded the attention from a hot model. Plus the aoc in most countries is around 14 anyway so morally idgaf (I do think, however that she should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law just like a man would be tho)

(depressedshortteen)
Society is extremely pro-female.

They can do no wrong as a group.

Its perfectly acceptable to be critical of men as a group, but very frowned upon to do the same to women as a group.

When women have issues their problems are heard out, men are shamed and seen as weak.

Most people (all women and manginas) want to see women succeed more than men.

Most teachers in elementary school are female and likely favor girls and the way they learn best.

Boys face more corporal punishment.

Men are 80% of the victims of violent crime.

The criminal justice system obviously favors women, gives them lighter sentences than men for the same crimes.

Men walk around wearing clothes saying the "future is female".

80% of all suicides are males.

80% of homeless are men.

Women are always valued as human beings. Men are mostly valued and respected on the basis of our perceived convenience to women.

Sleel #fundie boards.straightdope.com

The current mess of consent laws in the US stems from the varied success of turn of the century morality pushes. The initial arguments were geared toward protecting innocent young women from the predations of older men. Then, as now, legal solutions to social phenomena were largely prompted by prejudice and an overwhelming need to get involved in someone else's business.
predations

There are probably 12 year olds who do want to have sex. Some of them, I'm sure, will want to or will actually have sex with older people. I don't see a problem with that situation, as long as both participants are willing. The problem comes in when coercion and force are involved. Neither coercion nor force should be tolerated in any relationship, much less a sexual one. Fortunately, pretty much all societies have both laws and social repercussions to deal with those situations. Currently, I think the US sometimes goes too far.

We now have sexual harassment laws that put a big damper on people meeting at work and starting a relationship, partly because many people view the balance of power to be problematic (possibility of coercion). I have quite a few friends whose parents would never have met under these circumstances since they met at work and even flirting is discouraged at many workplaces. We're now seeing a huge surge in social networking solutions to the problem created by it being socially unacceptable to find someone to date at work, where people spend an increasing amount of their waking hours.

My parents met when my mother was 16 and my father was 24. California law now, and then I believe, would have treated their relationship as statutory rape. My two younger sisters and I would not exist if my parents had had to deal with the same social conditions as now. Nor would another one of my friends, who is also the oldest of three, and whose father is 10 years older than his mother. My first few sexual experiences were technically illegal, since I was underage and doing it with people who were much older than I. The current attitude, that only people 18 years old or older are responsible enough to have sex, is frankly ridiculous in my opinion.

When you get into the position of legislating morality, you often get into the difficulty of judging where to draw the line. In debates about this very subject, the age of consent, you rarely see a consensus. Some people even think the age should be set higher than when they themselves first had sex. I think that it's actually much easier to figure this out on a case by case basis since the cases are self-screening. If there's a complaint, there exists a possible case of coercion or force being used. Both force and coercion are much easier to objectively determine than the age at which everyone should be able to have sex. Most rape laws would work for charging a perpetrator regardless of the age of the victim; consent laws are almost superfluous.

Nathan Larson #fundie larsonfordelegate.com

Legalization of marital rape sends an important message, which is that frigidity is not a behavior that a husband need tolerate from his wife. The point is not that he should actually rape her, but that he has a right to if he wants to, since she is his property, given (or sold) to him by her father. This can help instill a proper attitude of submission, which will ultimately benefit her, since women like to be dominated. Not only that, but women will probably have an easier time getting men to want to marry them if they say, "Look honey, once we get married, you won't have to worry that I'll deny you sex, because you can just rape me whenever you want, and the law will allow it."

Men want to own women. But this isn't bad for women, because good men tend to feel a strong sense of moral obligation toward their wives. A typical man, especially after he has had kids with his wife, will not want to divorce her, even if she is refusing sex after she promised she wouldn't do that.

So the typical feminist argument, "If she's not having sex with you, you can just divorce her," falls flat. Feminists who say that are putting themselves in men's shoes and thinking of what they would do if their needs weren't being met in a marriage, but men's sense of love and loyalty is typically less opportunistic than women's and their integrity is more to principles than to feelings. He will generally feel duty-bound to stay, even if he has other options. These days, men are realizing that marriage imposes obligations on them without offering them much in the way of benefits, so they are opting not to marry, with the result being that now there are bastard children running around everywhere.

One hypothesis (mentioned in A Natural History of Rape) for why rape evolved as a method of mating is that it helps ensure that women only reproduce with the strongest men, i.e. those who are capable of raping them. Therefore, women have been biologically programmed to sometimes often token resistance to sex (much like a shit test) as a way of seeing whether the man is strong enough to persist. If the man fails or is deterred by her cries of "No," "Stop," etc., this of course leads to her feeling frustrated at the man's weakness, and she then craves a real man who will dominate her the way she wants and expects. Rape is flattering to women, because it tells them that there is a man who wants her badly enough to force himself upon her if need be.

To quote Illimitable Men Maxim #122, "Women loathe being sexual objectified by lesser men, crafting their disgust for the unworthy into a veneer of moral superiority. Yet hidden within this guise of upright disgust is a depraved desire to be objectified by powerful men. Weak men get nothing, powerful men get perversions." Or as Sanchit Garg writes:

Even if we criminalize rapes, unlike normal criminal cases, marital rapes will be the most difficult cases to prove the alleged charges. It will be the word of the wife against the word of the husband. Naturally, there will be no eye witnesses or even medical proof of the same. The factum of sex between the two can never be denied, the semen samples or the pubic hair or the factum of any other medico-legal evidence can be naturally inferred to. Even, if the wife pleads injury to her private parts, the defence can attribute it to a wild intimate night.
In my opinion, the prosecution of marital rapes will be the most difficult of cases to prove and most of them will end in an acquittal. The prospects of Marital Rapes being used as a sword by disgruntled wives are also quite likely happen.

Rape legalization could even lead to better sex, as being raped provokes an emotional response in women, causing chemicals to flow that produce arousal and, ultimately, orgasm (which could explain the popularity of rape fantasy fiction such as Fifty Shades of Grey). It has been noted, "First of all, orgasms in women being raped are not frequent, but they are not uncommon either. In the study you cite, about 5% to 21% of women interviewed in the studies surveyed reported having an orgasm when they were raped. Researchers have hypothesized that the actual figure is probably a bit higher in reality due to victims being understandably embarrassed both by the rape and by having achieved an orgasm during unwanted, forced sexual relations. Around 20% seems to be a likely, real-word figure."

This is unsurprising, since it has often been noted that the use of male strength in the bedroom can give women vaginal tingles.[1] Tingles generally tend to be caused when a man behaves in a way that shows masculinity and causes a woman to feel a range of emotions. A woman's experience of being raped by her husband might meet that description. It's certainly unlikely to be boring.

As we all know, a young woman will often prefer to open her legs to an exciting badboy rather than a boring niceguy. Women will even watch horror films because they love to feel the roller coaster of emotions of fear, relief, surprise, etc. Novels like The Fountainhead feature heroines who deliberately put themselves in situations that invite rape, and then at the moment when it's about to happen, they hope desperately that the man won't weaken and ask permission. Tuthmosis Sonofra notes, with regard to his pickups, "I'm shocked at how consistently girls will comment on the 'danger' of going home 'with a stranger.' It's like they're reading from a script. I had, literally, three girls over the course of the past 10 days say the same, identical shit. Of course, girls love 'dangerous situations' so play on that."

TheMythof_Feminism #sexist reddit.com

image

While I STRONGLY disagree with her being allowed anywhere near a teaching position again , and I do think she should have been punished by being forced on a sex offender registry.... her crime is not the same as when a man does it.

Men and women are not interchangeable. Tabula rasa is bullshit and anyone implying it is a propagandist of the highest order. This is one of the biggest contentions I have with many people on this subreddit, they want to play along with the commie bullshit of tabula rasa despite us knowing that it's bullshit.....

Don't play that game. Not saying that's what OP did, but often times people will respond with what I have mentioned and I am pre-emptively striking.

Yes it is,

When a woman has sex with someone under-age, it is rape!

When a man has sex with someone under-age, it is rape!

Having sex with someone under-age is rape! I don't give a fuck who had sex with who!!

No.

No.

No.

Rape by etymological hard-lock definition means force and violence. A breach of age restrictive protocol does not qualify. The grossly misnamed "Statutory rape" is not actual rape unless the target is 12 or younger, in which case I will concede that point.

In simple terms, not all so-called "rape" is equal and to suggest otherwise is pure unadulterated idiocy.

Fantastic opinion you got there. Should I (40 year old male) be able to go out looking for a 14 year old girl to have sex with? As long as she consents, it's all good, right? You are one sick individual for this opinion

Fantastic strawman argument you got there.

Try again, little one.

It's considered a straw man if all he did was switch genders of the situation? I'm not sure you know what a straw man is. Your IQ may be under 18 and like to get fucked but that doesn't apply to children.

He grossly misrepresented my argument, and you are doing the same, what a joke.

You tabula rasa loonies are beneath the level of a child.

I think victim impact should be part of any sentencing.

I work with male survivors and don't know the research, so maybe you could enlighten us.

Half the survivors I work with had female perpetrators. They would disagree with your last sentence. They found their sexual assault by a woman crippling.

Don't be a joke.

her crime is not the same as when a man does it.

It's exactly the same, because it's about age, and position of authority. She raped a minor, while in a position of authority.

Nope.

Men and women are not interchangeable. You can try to pretend otherwise, little tabula rasa acolyte, but reality does not bend to your emotion.

I had sex with a (at least) 24 year old when I was 14.

She was my sisters friend & offered to help me study. She never did & instead we spent a month fucking.

I thought it was cool at the time, it was not. She was gross, a loser, and a predator.

It normalized some things in my mind that were not good. It also let me think some things I did in the future were okay, they weren’t.

I hurt people I care about, and one reason is because this event and others taught me the wrong lessons about what is okay and what isn’t.

Adults should not have sex with children, it’s that simple.

Strawman argument, yawn.

Kathy30 #fundie freeconservatives.com

*why teenagers in religious areas have more babies*

Lets see. These kids are exposed to the same over sexualized pop culture as any other kids in any other region. They have more babies which indicates ONLY that they do not abort their children at the same rate as teens in other regions.

The inference the writer wants to make is that more sexualization leads to fewer teen pregnancies. No. More sexualization leads only to more abortions at younger ages not to teens forgoing sex entirely.

underverse, broods #fundie mmo-champion.com

Drug for pedophiles to be tested in Swedish trial
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/swedish-trial-examine-drug-men-pedophilic-impulses


Underverse: "This is a testosterone lowering drug. You're not just reducing pedophilic behavior. You're reducing sex drive across the board. This is parallel to chemical castration. Immoral, borderline depraved.

If someone actively agrees to it, it's hardly immoral.

Consent does not determine morality, especially considering that individuals often lack complete information or can be indoctrinated to perceive information in a certain way. For example; if someone consents to be sacrificed to the gods the that they will bring the rain, that individual's slaying is still immoral.

Why is chemical castration immoral?The pedophile deserves no sympathy. When you sympathize, you get people who want to protect and even enable pedophiles.

Do you not see how disgustingly immoral this is? What you're advocating for is something worse than a witch hunt. There is zero evidence to suggest that sexual interactions between older and younger individuals are inherently harmful. In fact, there are logical arguments to suggest the opposite. So without evidence that this activity is inherently destructive, you want to go around killing people simply because you disagree with them. That is the worst kind of vigilante justice; it's barbaric and unfounded.

You are the racist of the new generation. "

Broods:"This is a god damn OUTRAGE.

It's almost impossible to get testosterone replacement therapy in Sweden and there is very little research done in regards to the effects of testosterone yet the hormone is integral to the well being of men and low Testosterone levels and hypergonadism has shown to adversely effect the quality of life and mental well being in men. I surely hope if this catches on it will be on a strictly voluntary basis and never offered as a part of a plea deal to get a lesser sentence.
Maybe they should offer this to homosexuals too? If you say homosexuals are born that way then you are obligated to extend the same courtesy to pedophiles.

This reeks of chemical neutering. The very notion is repulsive to me. What's the next step? Chemically neutering homosexuals or any man that is perceived to be too aggressive?

Statistics show that between one in 20, and one in 35 men are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Due to the high rate of the figure, researchers believed it could be as a result of orientation in the same way as homosexuality or heterosexuality
The very notion is repulsive to me and it sets a scary precedent. Testosterone is what makes men in to men.

Then again if these pedos volunteer for it i'm not going to try and stop them i'm just scared it will become a thing when they see how effective it is. As soon as a man "acts out" or is too aggressive or have a too high libido they will try to get him on a hormone treatment to make him in to a prepubescent boy.

Is it effective? Sure, ask any bodybuilder who has ever been on a supra physiological dose of testosterone what happens when he goes of the drug. No libido, no sex drive. This is something bodybuilders try to avoid which is why they take other drugs to combat the shut down and help their natural test production. Living with low testosterone levels is a nightmare and have very adverse physical and psychological effects.

Not that there is any research being done on male hormones these days because testosterone = bad. Makes men aggressive and sexual.

I'm sure the feminists of this world would be overjoyed if they could control men in this way. Just read some of the articles where they say how "testosterone makes men aggressive, lowers empathy (lol what?) and heightens libido. Like it's some kind of disease they need to cure.

Sure why not, they do their time in prison then go out and rape some more. If catration could make it so they dont feel the need to go rape someone, what harm would it do? other then to the filthy rapists ofc. The world would be a better place with less rapists out there no?

so pretty much anyone convicted of rape then? A 17 year old who has drunken sex with his girlfriend who later claims he raped her. Lets say that he technically did rape her as there wasn't any consent but the circumstances were so that the man could feasibly have inferred consent. Should he get castrated too?
What about if a husband forces himself on his wife? Immediate castration?

I'm starting to think many of you guys would have been very happy to live in a benevolent totalitarian police state. Scary thought

. "

Roosh #conspiracy rooshv.com

Does The Hollywood Elite Use Rituals And Sexual Blackmail To Keep Its Stars In Line?

Most people in the mainstream already know that Hollywood is a liberal safe space that was the first to promote leftist causes such as socialism, drug use, feminism, hookup culture, atheism, environmentalism, homosexuality, and transsexualism. This can be attributed to the fact that Hollywood is run by Jews who seem to greatly dislike traditional America, small-town values, and Christianity. What’s even more peculiar is that we hardly see any infighting between Hollywood actors and the producers or executives who hire them. It’s like they’re one big happy family. Or are they?

You probably already know that the casting couch is a way for directors and producers to have sex with the female talent in exchange for jobs, but what if I were to tell you that male actors also must have sex with other men to get work, and that the top male actors in Hollywood have had to submit to degrading homosexual rituals in order to get acting jobs, and that trophies like the Oscars are not based on merit but on those who have paid their dues into the system by enduring the most humiliation, and that the degrading sexual acts all actors commit are used to keep them in line?

You’d think I’m crazy, surely, but every now and then something happens which lends credibility to “conspiracy theories” that were floating around beforehand.

A couple of months ago I found a detailed article showing how producers, writers, and directors leverage their influence to sodomize young boys. Many of those boys go on to become “heterosexual” male stars, all because they gave up the ass for a shot at fame.

“I never slept with [X-Men producer Bryan Singer] before I was 18,” he writes. “But after my 18th birthday, I was quickly passed off to him by a friend, Gary Goddard, who was having sex with me at 17. Gary was his good friend at the time, so Bryan would be out with us—with his dates of the moment, all young guys. I saw him at parties and out in LA, and we hooked up in Gary’s house when I was 18, like three days after my birthday.”

Two years ago, a compelling video was published that made outlandish claims about the Hollywood system. Here’s a sample of the claims that were made:

– Will Smith, Denzel Washington, and other big-name stars not immune from ritual sodomy
– Benny Medina and Quincy Jones sexually initiated actor Will Smith
– If someone in the Kabbalah cult likes the daughter of a star, he/she must relinquish their child in order to move up
– Queen Latifah initiates Hollywood women using a strap-on
– Monster’s Ball movie with Halle Berry and Billy Bob Thorton featured live sex ritual
– Jewish produced “Ghetto Gaggers” not just a porn but also in Hollywood
– Porn stars go to Pandora’s Box Hollywood sex parties, initiate stars
– Tony Braxton driven out of her mind over what she had to give up to be famous

Wait, Will Smith is gay? No way. The entire video must be bullshit, because Will Smith is heterosexual and masculine. He’s married with two kids. But then his wife Jada Pinkett Smith went full social justice and called for a boycott at the Oscars because it was not black enough. Only one day later, a marginal transsexual actress named Alexis Arquette came out with this, confirming what the above video stated years before

The video explained how Hollywood actors are controlled: their sexual hazing is recorded on video and used to manage their future behavior so it’s in line with Hollywood elite interests. When actors go off the rails, or refuse to submit to the demands of their bosses, “rumors” are leaked that destroy their reputation and acting jobs are withheld from them.

What I think happened is that Will Smith’s “owners” gave Alexis the information to publish in exchange for later favors while making it appear as a “leak.” But if you examine the final three sentences of the Facebook post above, it’s easy to see how those words are coming from the men who write Smith’s paycheck, warning him to get his wife in line immediately. And she did. Not even half a day later, she thanked the Academy for their response.

No further rumors about Will Smith were disseminated. Within only two days, a challenge to Hollywood’s elite seemed completely squashed. Will Smith, sitting on his $200 million fortune, did later double down and state that the boycott would take place anyway. We should now expect him to never work in a major Hollywood blockbuster again.

Consider that in Hollywood there is hardly any public infighting at all, but here in the alt sphere we have fights seemingly every week. Human nature is aggressive. People fight and argue publicly. Yet in Hollywood, everyone is calm as sheep. It could be because stars are controlled. Through submitting to hazing rituals and having gay blackmail hanging over them, they are slaves to the Hollywood elite who give them fame and money in exchange for their complete compliance, including having to display stupid Illuminati symbols in music videos and photo shoots.

Every major actor in Hollywood has made a deal with the devil, and has had to trade things that you wouldn’t, often starting when they were children and passed around to pedophiles, as Corey Feldman revealed. Therefore Hollywood looks not for talent, but for souls, explaining why you can’t even name more than five actors who are actually good. This is the industry that has sway not only among the mainstream American public, but the world as a whole.

One of my favorite actors is Leonardo DiCaprio. Before the recent Oscars, I noticed that he was spouting some social justice ideas:

On Tuesday, Leo received the Crystal Award for “improving the state of the world” at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. During his acceptance speech he called out the “corporate greed of the coal, oil and gas industries” who “have denied and even covered-up the evidence of our changing climate.”

It seemed so out of place for a man who travels around in private jets banging hoes on yachts, but then when you understand that stars must submit to rituals in order to gain favor, and that DiCaprio was up for an Oscar this year, it makes complete sense. He must satisfy his masters by helping their leftist agenda in order to receive a reward. We can only guess what private rituals DiCaprio had to submit to before becoming a top contender for the award—which he did win—especially when he was a child actor, and what gay rumor will come out about him if he ever calls for a boycott against the Oscars. There is dirt on all the stars, and even most of the famous musicians and rappers. If you research the issue further, the rabbit hole goes much deeper than what I’m describing.

My personal take is that the younger someone enters the entertainment machine, and the lower amount of natural talent they have, the more likely they have submitted to deplorable degradations in order to be famous. I wouldn’t be surprised if pop singers like Lady Gaga and Katy Perry serve as personal port-a-potties to industry bigwigs. In fact, Hollywood is probably where the Saudis got the idea to use paid “models” as hired toilets.

I write about this today not to participate in Hollywood gossip, but to shine a light in how elite circles operate. All the actors and singers that you may respect, whose views you may actually allow to influence you, have traded their dignity and their souls for fame and money. All the “masculine” Hollywood actors you like watching in films have certainly been sodomized or privately humiliated. At best, Hollywood spreads anti-male propaganda to the world. At worst, they are devil worshipers who practice every degenerate cause known to man.

I fully denounce Hollywood and their liberalism, their communism, their social justice, and their faggotry. There is no room for them in a man’s life, and I personally won’t be casually brainwashed and influenced by the anti-American and degenerate content they put out.

Representative Nick Marshall #fundie missourinet.com

Representative Nick Marshall (R-Parkville) has filed two articles of impeachment. He says Governor Nixon’s executive order instructing the Department of Revenue to accept joint tax returns filed by same-sex couples legally married in other states “is a direct violation” of Missouri’s Constitution. Further, he says Nixon “misstates and misrepresents the meaning and requirements under Missouri’s constitutional and statutory law and thereby misleads the citizens of this state.”

Marshall notes that in 2004, 72 percent of Missouri voters approved Constitutional Amendment 2 to change to the Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. He asserts in his filing that Nixon’s action “results in a recognition of same-sex marriage by the State of Missouri.”

Nixon, when issuing his executive order in November, said Missouri must accept such joint returns because Missouri’s tax code is tied directly to the federal government, and the state requires married couples who file joint returns to also file state taxes jointly. The office of Attorney General Chris Koster (D) says Nixon’s order appears to comply with Missouri law.

Marshall, in his filing, alleges that Nixon’s assertion was based on “a knowing omission of key statutory language.”

Specifically, in the section of Missouri tax code that defines terms, it reads that terms used shall have the same meaning as when they appear in federal tax code. Marshall seizes on the phrase, “unless a different meaning is clearly required by the provisions of,” Missouri tax code.

Marshall tells Missourinet, “Missouri law says a husband and wife who file a joint federal tax return shall file a combined return here in he state of Missouri. The condition precedent for that is that they are husband and wife, and you have to ask yourself, ‘Well, how do you define husband and wife?’ You may not use the federal definition. That’s not allowed because Missouri’s Constitution does not allow you to recognize same-sex marriage.”

The articles of impeachment have been co-signed by seven Republican members of the House: Ron Schieber, Ken Wilson, Jeff Pogue, Kurt Bahr, Mike Moon, Rick Brattin & T.J. Berry.

enjoying myself #racist lipstickalley.com

White men are obsessed with legalizing their degenerate ways.

Sadly, and unfortunately, it will come a day when this nonsense is legal in some way shape or form.

The type of sexual relations that is considered statutory rape, or pedophilia in this country is legal in other countries. In japan for example the age of consent is 13.

White men successfully lobbied for, and got beastiality legalized in canada.

The sad part is, theres no end in site. White men will keep trying to impose their demonic will on the world. Because they cant help it, diviance is intrisic to them.

ITS THE NEANDERTHAL IN THEM!

Eivind Berge #sexist eivindberge.blogspot.no

I have noticed something funny. Outside of my own blog, The Anti-Feminist, Holocaust21 and Steve Moxon, there appears to be more activism for pedophilia than hebephilia and ephebophilia. Isn't it funny that there are more people extolling the virtues of attraction to 7-year-olds than 17-year-olds, if my impression is correct? Despite this kind of attraction being so normal that no one can tell the difference on a blind test, someone who goes to jail for sex with a 17-year-old or a picture of a 17-year-old gets almost no support, except from the four MRA blogs mentioned and what exists incidentally on pedophile forums.

But I think I know why. Hebephiles and especially ephebophiles are just normal men who are arbitrarily criminalized, so they lack an identity of their own for the very same reason. Even the words used here to describe them are not in common use, because there is truly no good reason to set them apart. Why should someone who is the victim of an arbitrary age of consent, or even more arbitrarily being four rather than three years older than his 15-year-old girlfriend or something like that, have an identity? The only thing they have in common is blind criminalization, so no wonder they feel no unity. Pedophiles, on the other hand, with their attraction to prepubescent children truly are different than the majority, so it is not surprising that they form communities of the like-minded, whether they are politicized in favor of legalization or of the "non-offending" variety.

This brings me to the question: should pedophile rights be an MRA issue? I don't have the energy to answer this question definitively right now, but suffice it to say that we wouldn't have a movement to speak of without that kind of activism. Someone like Tom Grauer would not exist or be interesting beyond the hard core of MRAs without the inclusion of pedophile rights. And I did proclaim him our new leader for a reason. I invite further discussion in the comments.

Conservapedia #fundie conservapedia.com

Human Hermaphrodites

Often in humans afflicted by hermaphroditism, one or both sets of organs are non-functional, and the condition is considered to be a birth defect, which can be caused by abuses of alcohol or drugs during pregnancy. The abnormality in humans occurs at exceedingly rare interval; the individuals in question are generally not able to reproduce through sexual intercourse.

Christianity teaches that all can be saved through Christ. In most cases, hermaphrodites are more male or more female. Doctors can then perform operations shortly after birth to correct the child to the dominant gender and most hermaphrodites will then lead perfectly normal lives in Christ.

There is no Darwinian reason for human hermaphrodites to exist, since hermaphrodism does not provide any reproductive or survival benefits. Human hermaphrodites therefore provide yet another challenge to Darwin's theories, often explained away by evolutionists as an "unfavorable" mutation, yet they are unable to explain its repeated occurrence over the ages.

Sigmund Freud held that all people were hermaphrodites while in the womb, and that this stage affected human psychology permanently. This view is contradicted by modern medical understanding of the process, however, where ultrasounds clearly indicate just one sex of the fetus.

"Dr" Rick Van Thiel #conspiracy crooksandliars.com


Before becoming an antigovernment “sovereign citizen,” Rick Van Thiel worked as a porn star, male escort and sex toy inventor in Las Vegas.

Now Van Thiel is in jail there, accused of practicing medicine without a license and claiming to have performed dozens of abortions, circumcisions, castrations, root canals, even cancer treatments.

Meanwhile, the FBI, the Southern Nevada Health District and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department are attempting to locate more than 100 former “patients” of the sovereign citizen-physician who calls himself “Dr. Rick.”

His patients — treated in a ramshackle trailer described as a scene from a horror movie — likely were drawn in by his ads promoting holistic medicine and natural remedies and denouncing conventional medicine, vaccinations, the pharmaceutical industry, GMOs and government interference with health care...

He will be in court later this month in Las Vegas – acting as his own attorney, a frequent practice for sovereigns.

“We do NATURAL REMEDY RESEARCH for the purpose of increasing quality and span of life, one human being at a time,” Van Thiel claims on one of his websites. “Unlike the American medical industry's toxic drug-dealing doctors, we don't see you as your disease.”

Like other extremists, Van Thiel claims chemtrails are evidence the U.S. government is secretly poisoning its citizens.

Van Thiel claimed he performed abortions, removed sebaceous cysts, treated sexually transmitted and life-threatening diseases and provided ozone treatments at “unbeatable prices” in exchange for Bitcoins, gold and silver and firearms.

“I contract privately with people [and] do not contract with government employees of any kind,” he said in advertising his medical services.

“Prior to becoming a professional doctor, I was a sex machine inventor, swinger, BDSM master, porn actor and producer for 14 years, so I've seen it all,” Van Thiel wrote on his site. He claims the title “Dr. Rick” is a nickname, “not intended to infer state sanction or Rockefeller drug pushing training.”

“The purpose of this site is not to beg for FDA endorsement or to diagnose or treat disease, it is to help you make informed decisions necessary to take control of your own life and health, and now to care for it in the manor [sic] you decide is best for you,” a passage on the site reads...

Van Thiel contends prostitution and practicing medicine shouldn't be regulated by the government because they involve “only consenting individuals.” He claims to have studied health and anatomy for 28 years, telling the Las Vegas paper he “has treated hundreds of patients.”

“When I work with people, it's a deal between me and them, not a deal between me, them and the government," Van Thiel told Las Vegas station KVVU-TV.

Van Thiel claims on his website that he treats “morgellons,” a delusional symptom in which patients claim they are infested with disease-causing agents. “Dr. Rick” says the ailment “should be called Genetically Modified Organism Disease” that is a secret government “bio-weapon that has been unleashed on humanity via genetically modified food and Geo-engineering (chemtrails).”

various incels #sexist reddit.com

Life fuel: Roasty learns that sexual promiscuity has consequences

image

(IndraMaheshwar)
Wait but I thought 16 year olds were innocent angels who don't know how babies are made?!

Reddit moralizers will call you a pedo for thinking about 16 year olds sexually, meanwhile they're having group anal sex so intense that it cripples them for life. Jfl.

(GasTheBlues)
The veil was ripped from my eyes when I was like 18, some 12 year old girl in the youth club I worked at gave bjs to a couple of the boys who went there, was creepy af to interact with her after that knowing about it.

(RAZENKN)
I’ll bet those roasties were Hispanic!

yes. i'm mexican. what gave it away?

Hispanic girls are by far the sluttiest on the planet. I mean those hoes are notorious for starting young. I wouldn’t be surprised if they made up the largest percentage of teenage pregnancies.

(Dirtatron)
Dude, make no mistake, that is a phenomenon that transcends national and cultural boundaries. I'm from eastern europe and throughout highschool I've seen girls date 25+ y.o. guys. Few of my acquaintances continue that tradition by hooking up with with 16 y.o. girls from our former highschool even though they are about to finish uni.

(StopCopingStartLDAR)
in 5th grade i went to a going away party for a girl that was moving (my first and only party btw) and i remember walking down the stairs to the basement and seeing one girl giving a guy a lap dance to Hypnotize by Notorious BIG and later i saw another girl giving a dude a blowjob. IN 5TH GRADE. and this was like 2000 so i can’t even imagine what they’re doing now.

(FACEandLMS)

It's not that minors are non-sexual, it's that they're stupid and make bad decisions. Mentally it's easy to manipulate or control minors, which is why they can't even enter into a contract legally by themselves.

When minors have sex with other minors, they're on the same playing field and even if bad decisions are made you can't blame a specific party. The law is there so that adults with more brain development and life experience don't take advantage of dumb kids. Kids don't magically grow up and become smart overnight on their 18th birthday, but they had to come up with a number, just like the age for drinking / driving etc.

Anyways, pedophilia in your head is ok as long as you don't act out on them. There are people with weirder fantasies.

Yet, if a woman gets drunk at age 25 and then has sex with a 25 yo man, she is not responsible for her actions and the whole case is treated little differently from if she had been a sober 14 year old.

And they now have "coercive rape" where if a man says: "I'll give you a Hollywood deal if you fuck me, but you don't have to accept this", the woman can fuck him then 20 years later, claim she got raped. #metoo.

So are women irresponsible children FOREVER, unable to make adult decisions or not?

(PvtJamesRyan)
“Stupid and Make bad decisions”

Wait a second, I thought inceltears official doctrine was that all girls should be free to “explore their sexuality” regardless of age and anyone who is against this is automatically labelled an incel. Don’t believe me? Check out the front page of inceltears now where they are calling out incels for speaking out against teen sexuality at this very moment.

(mwobuddy2)

woman is victim.

"blame the pron, not the individual!".

man is victim.

Good, that degenerate deserved it.


16 year old

having GROUP sex.

Suifuel.

(mantrad)
Remember you are a pedo for finding 17 year olds attractive, meanwhile they are doing this every day

(RareRaspberry6)
Lol you have no idea. where I live age of consent is 13. other parts of the country have younger AoCs, some parts have no AoC at all, some even define age of consent as "age in which the girl first started menstruating". when i was 12 and in school all the girls in my class were going out with men old enough to be their fathers simply because they had cars and money to buy them stuff. it pissed me off so much. i'll never understand why women hate dating guys their own age so much.

BoyWiki #pedo #psycho boywiki.org

Recent discourse on child pornography falsely portrays it, like child sex in general, as a disaster for the child. Children are (supposedly) "traumatized" because they cannot consent, and their parents cannot consent for them. Thus all child-adult sexual contact is called rape (actually, it is statutory rape which usually involves no real physical violence at all), and the child pornography is considered documentation "crime" and more or less permanently remains available on the Internet for all to see.

Unfortunately, there are small numbers of people who really do abuse children, and who even violenly rape them, without the child's consent or that of their parents. These are, and should be crimes, of course.

Yet there are many children seen in child pornography whose words, facial expressions, body language, and orgasms show that they thoroughly enjoy the sexual activity, sometimes enjoying it immensely. Why causing another human being intense enjoyment and pleasure, without any complaint from the alleged victim or his/her parents, is necessarily a crime is one of the contradictions of our sex-conflicted age.

LHathaway #sexist amren.com

Re: Controversial Study Finds That Brain Differences Between the Sexes Begin in the Womb

This is bad news for men. The research will just lead to a rationalization for why girls and women do better and advance farther in school and on the job, why they spell better, why most managers are women, why sales ladies and female models earn more, why women working full time earn more money yet only 3% of stay at home spouses are male, why chivalry is a part of our culture, why nearly all of the homeless are men, why men are much more likely to be diagnosed with serious mental illness (and why most American men end up being prescribed very powerful psychotropic drugs (and are much more likely to start off with them as children), why sexual deviance and perversions are almost exclusively male, why transgenderism is in reality almost exclusively male, why well over 90% of those on the sex offender registry are male while prostitution (where the man Pays the woman for an equal exchange of sex and the woman is seen to be the one who is exploited), why 3 million men are in prison, why over 90% of those who die while on the job are men, why men oppose immigration, why men are unfounded chauvinists, why men are bad husbands, why men should do more around the house, why men are bad parent, why men are violent, why women should be granted custody nearly every time sole-custody is awarded to one parent.

I probably missed a couple hundred - I’m a man.

Really, it doesn’t matter what science reveals about gender - what is revealed by science and/or social or political science, or what happens, we’re not going back to where men are mostly bosses again at work.

It may make some feel better (very, very, strangely {and we’ll blame the mediaversities for the only thing that could explain this misinformation}) to think it’s all genetic. Perhaps ‘feeling better’, the way some young man looked at his arm as an adolescent and said to himself, ‘it’s getting bigger, I think’ or the way the same young man felt after watching an action movie and all the power and destruction, but, feeling better, surrender to a feeling, a chauvinism, will do nothing to change men’s status. Desperately waiting for it be proclaimed ‘it’s all genetic’ seems kind of strange. When I mention ‘misinformation’ I should have mentioned something about those who, in reality, are trying to arouse racial hatred of whites, and trying to propel such hatred into the future, or rather, trying to promote white guilt, or moral equivalency, as far into the future as it is possible to do so?

Our best female soccer players (USA Women's national team) just lost a scrimmage game against 13 and 14 year old boys

I notice a lot of girls winning boys wrestling tournaments. They always go off to some ‘olympics training farm’ sometime towards the end of their HS run. Hearing this is supposed to make boys feel better. Your story has a familiar ring to it - as satisfying as going out and paying hard earned money to see an action movie?

What is your point? When it comes to {seemingly glaring} favoritism toward girls also in athletics, I could continue on for another 2,000 words? By chance are you leading to, boys are so much superior to girls athletically boys are above competing wth them?

By the way, you pay to feel better. Feeling better rarely pays you.

It didn't used to be like that, except for young children. The reason it is like that now is that the educational system is now made by and for females.

When did young boys and girls fight each other as sport in the US?

I guess that it's the environment that leads to breast development in females rather than in males. Hey ma look at me: I be a scientist.

Actually, ‘trannies’ seem to develop larger breasts/larger breasts than their sisters. I suspect this is because, growing up as male, they have more tissue/muscles in their chest than females do.

AngelRho #fundie wrongplanet.net

The problem with this whole debate is that the real point is being missed. The REAL ISSUE is whether the district holds any responsibility for what happened. Passing the blame along to others is the worst way in the world to defend oneself against this kind of thing. It's like saying, "It's not our fault 'cause the devil made him do it." What she did or didn't do is IRRELEVANT as to whether they hold responsibility.

It might, though. If she knowingly acted in such a way to provoke a sexual encounter, perhaps a consensual one, then she wasn't even really raped.It's stupid for a teacher to fall for this crap, but any idiot, I don't care how old you are, can figure out if you have sex with a teacher, you automatically have that teacher by the balls. Heck, you don't even have to know the teacher or even be in the classroom. All you have to do is say "Mr. so-n-so raped me" and that teacher gets an unpaid administrative leave. A negligence defense could very well be what it takes to help prevent abuse of the system.

SHE WAS TWELVE.
No more needs to be said, but you keep on digging anyway:

It doesn't matter how old the person is. Consent means "no rape." Rape as commonly understood means that a sexual advance has been rejected and the attacker refuses to take "no" for an answer. That is what rape is. When you hear "no," you stop. Rape happens when you hear "no" and you do it anyway. A 12 year old who invites rather than rejects a sexual advance is consenting. And no, I don't care what the law says. Laws change. Now, sure, I acknowledge WHY we have laws, and setting AOCs avoid legal ambiguities. We accept that "12 year olds can't consent" to make it easier on ourselves when it comes to pursuing child exploitation in the justice system, but--I'm sorry--laws don't reflect reality. Kids have sex with each other before they're 12 years old. Kids that age even have sex with young adults and don't see anything wrong with it. And they don't call the cops. Unless someone tells them they should, or unless they think they have something to gain from it. They are remarkably intelligent, and I'm not sure you give them enough credit.[/b[

gay_fag #sexist incels.co

gay_fag:
What is the youngest you'll fuck if there's no age of consent? I find 12yo attractive and I don't feel like a pedo at all. Some of them look really grown up.

eurocel:
jesus man, how could you even feel attraction towards a kid.

gay_fag:
If she's attractive I feel attraction. 100 years ago in a non-cucked society it was ok to fuck a 12yo.

commander_zoidberg:
What the fuck dude? You realise r/cucktears will use this as proof we are all pedos?

Why the fuck do you want to fuck a 12 year old child?

gay_fag:
Why do you care about opinion of those idiots? And 12yo is far from being a child. I at that age was ready to fuck all of my attractive teachers and girls hit puberty even sooner.

VLÖ:
Yeah, 12 is below AoC in almost every country. And really, that would only turn them into whores even faster.

gay_fag:
Age of consent means nothing. It was made only to somehow secure the virginity of an unmarried girl. If she was married sex was allowed anyway no matter her age was.

[...]

gay_fag:
But whores don't really get more mature with age. When they hit age of 13 only thing they develop further are tits.

Dingus_Incel:
There is a disturbing number of people here saying 12-14.

gay_fag:
there is a disturbing number of cucks who think it's wrong

Michael Silvera and Nathan Larson #sexist nathania.org

Silvera has stated that if he could own any dinosaur, it would be a tyrannosarus rex, partly because it would probably be rather effective at attracting young boys to his property. Silvera punctuated this remark with a resounding "RAR!" However, it is not clear that tyrannosaurs actually roared, as audio recording did not exist in prehistoric times.
In early 2012, Silvera was asked by a fan what his advice would be for a father considering asking his daughter for sex, but who worried what her reaction might be; i.e. whether she might get "weirded out." Silvera replied that if the father and daughter were at a restaurant and he asked if she would like some kung pao chicken, why should she get offended? All he was doing was offering something he thought she might like. Silvera also commented that it is rather common for daughters to get upset over what their father thinks, says, or does, such as not liking her boyfriend, not giving her a big enough allowance, etc.

image
Image is captioned: "What could be better?

Larson asked Silvera, "What do you think the chances are that I'll someday get to experience the sublime joy of hearing that my teenage daughter and lover just broke water with my combination child/grandchild? And what do you think the chances are that I'll hear this news from somewhere other than in a correctional facility where I'll be serving a term of imprisonment for incestuous statutory rape?" Silvera responded that he wasn't sure, but that he hoped that he could be best man at the wedding.
Silvera's favorite character from RoboCop is the ED-209. This is presumably because the film lacked any particularly comely prepubescent characters. Even if a character suitable for being played by Heather O'Rourke had been written into the script, that actress was already 11 years old at the time of the filming and therefore at least three years "too late" by the standards of the René Guyon Society. Silvera confesses that frankly, he finds that pedophilic foundation fabulous; and he professes himself to be a freedom fighter who fully supports and fiercely defends paraphilia- and family-fun-favoring philosophical frameworks against all foes, foreign and domestic, with a ferally feline ferocity whose fiery fury is exemplified by the unflagging and fanatically fervid fidelity of his affiliation with his fellow followers and friends of NAMBLA.
Silvera has described federal supervised release as a way to extend people's sentences: "I think if you get sentenced to x number of years in prison, you should do x number of years and then get the fuck out" without having to serve a supervised release sentence, a violation of which could lead to further imprisonment. Silvera is sometimes referred to as "the white Gandhi" because of his physical resemblance, especially when he has recently shaved his head, to Mohandas Gandhi.

McDermidisGod #racist reddit.com

(I'm white. I grew up around primarily white people. My family is white.
I can tell you with CERTAINTY that the great majority of white people do NOT want to exterminate anyone.
Your fears are unfounded. You need to get out more and meet some people.)

I'm not white. I grew up around primarily white people. My family is not white.
I can tell you with CERTAINTY that the sizeable portion of white people DO want to exterminate non-whites and the overwhelming majority of white people DO want non-whites out.
Now run along, you delusional white ambassador.

Justice and Development party (AKP) lawmakers #sexist theguardian.com

Turkey’s ruling party has begun a second attempt at introducing a law to grant rapists amnesty as long as they marry their victim, four years after a similar bill sparked outrage at home and internationally.

The legislation, which was first debated by parliament on 16 January, would give men suspended sentences for child sex offences if the two parties get married and the age difference between them is less than 10 years.

Opposition parties and women’s rights groups have been quick to point out that the bill in effect legitimises child marriage and statutory rape in a country where the legal age of consent is 18.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s conservative Justice and Development party (AKP) has said the proposal is designed to deal with Turkey’s widespread child marriage problem.

[...]

“In 2016 the government introduced a [similar] draft law on amnesty for child abuse perpetrators. All women stood against it and the bill was withdrawn after our protests,” she said. “If they dare to try again, we will fight against it again.”

[...]

“Marry your rapist” clauses are present in legislation relating to sexual consent in many countries in the Middle East and Latin America. In recent years such loopholes have been closed after protests against them in Lebanon, Jordan and Tunisia.

Turkey appears to have travelled in the opposite direction. After abolishing such laws in 2005, a 2016 bill that would have allowed the release from prison of men guilty of assaulting a minor if the aggressor married the victim and the act was committed without “force or threat” provoked widespread fury and was eventually defeated.

Ankara insisted that the bill’s intention was distorted by critics. “There are people who get married before reaching the legal age. They just don’t know the law,” the then prime minister Binali Yıldırım said at the time, adding that the measure aimed to “get rid of this injustice”.

His comments were echoed by the justice minister Bekir Bozdağ, who said marriages involving minors were “unfortunately a reality” in Turkey but the men involved “were not rapists or sexual aggressors”.

Bsutansalt #fundie reddit.com

As a parent I think statutory rape as a crime should be abolished. It's been used as a sledgehammer against too many teens it was never intended to be used against, much the same way we're seeing child porn laws being wielded against the kids they were intended to protect. And if parents don't want their child having sex with someone, regardless of the other party's age (young or old, it doesn't matter), then they should have the right to nix the relationship. If that other person doesn't stop then we have tools in place today that didn't exist when statutory rape laws were invented, namely restraining orders that keep people away. If, and only if, someone violates the restaring order should they be arrested.

Having seen the world and lived overseas for many years, it's clear that people can consent much younger than we currently allow in the US. Plus girls tend to mature faster than boys. And then there's the fact that some people even in their 20s probably aren't mature enough to be having sex--it goes both ways. We as society need to accept this reality, not hide from it by criminalizing healthy natural sexuality because some people happen to fall below a certain age.

If someone's parents think they're ready for sexual activity, or not, then let them be the arbiters of what's appropriate for their own child. Parents can determine if their child can have tattoos, piercings, medical procedures, but for some reason when it comes to sex and/or reproduction they have no say in the matter. It's legally and IMO morally inconsistent.

Cornfed #sexist happierabroad.com

The reproductive superiority of stupid assholes

I realize this point has been made before and I may be boring people, but think of it this way: How many grandchildren is a Western woman likely to have if she has a few children fathered by stupid assholes vs. if she has a few children fathered by intelligent, righteous men? The answer - obviously vastly more.

Because they don't care about the consequences to other people and are too stupid to worry much about the potential downside for themselves, stupid assholes can go around impregnating underage girls, the wives and girlfriends of other men, stray skanks etc. without feeling the need to be tied down in raising any of the resulting offspring. Being stupid, they won't learn from their mistakes, so will likely continue their behavior even after serving time for statutory rape, incurring child support etc. Hence they have the potential to father dozens of children. How many children is an intelligent, decent man likely to have in modern society? Between zero and three perhaps.

Now consider a woman who gives birth to a son who takes after his stupid asshole father. She would reap a reproductive bonanza in grandchildren. Daughters of stupid assholes are also at a huge advantage. Smart women are now encouraged to become sterile corporate whores or other "career women" and have few if any children. Stupid asshole women can crank them out on welfare. If some of these are stupid asshole sons, their grandmother will once again reap a reproductive bonanza. Note that the children produced will be low quality scum lacking paternal or community support, but in modern society this is reproductively irrelevant, since Western regimes ensure that virtually all children survive to reproductive age, so female hindbrains have no reason to care.

Now, a woman is a relatively simple, biological robot designed to survive and reproduce in whatever environment she finds herself in. If she can vastly improve her reproductive fitness by f***ing stupid assholes, then this is what she will "want" to do.

This is why by far the most important qualities Western women are attracted to in men are stupidity and assholishness. "Game" consists mainly of acting like a stupid asshole. Sure other factors (looks, height, wealth etc.) come into it, but those are the main ones, and they are becoming more prominent over time. This is because a positive feedback loop occurs. The more reproductive advantage stupid assholes have, the more women find them attractive, so the more reproductive advantage they have and so on.

This situation only occurs in the first place because evil Western regimes create an environment that sustains it. It will end when the society is so corrupted by stupidity and assholishness that it can no longer sustain the system that gave rise to the problem. However, with modern technology the system is resilient, requiring the collaboration of just a handful of intelligent men to keep it going. By the time it collapses the gene pool may be complete shit and not survivable without the system. R.I.P. the human race. You were an interesting experiment that didn't really take.

OverBeforeItBegan #sexist incels.co

How can a man have a daughter in the Western World in 2018 and not want to rope?

How could anyone watch the birth of their little girl, feed her, help her with her homework, go to her school games and watch her grow into a woman only for her to end up being a cheap fleshlight for the entertainment of highschool and College Chads? Your own flesh and blood that you spent decades of your life raising, exposing her holes for Chad and Tyrone to use her like a piece of worthless meat. The little innocent angel you see when she's in her prepubescent years will exist solely to provide pleasure to attractive men and she'll be too stupid to realize that they're taking advantage of her inferiority.

What mental gymnastics would you have to perform to be able to say "her body, her choice" or "all adults have sex"?
If we ever do ascend we literally have a 50% chance of having to raise a sex toy for Chad, even more if we have more than one child.

I honestly think the first person that creates technology that will allow us to choose the sex of the baby will be the richest man in the world.

Dota #fundie donotlink.com

One can immediately glimpse the contrast without being an art major; the Greek sculptures possess a more detailed knowledge of human anatomy and are models of representation; their Indian counterparts, however, are used as decoration (in keeping with India’s introverted culture) often adorning temple and cave walls. A closer inspection reveals that the Indian sculptures are more voluptuous, possessing fuller breasts and ample hips compared to their Greco-Roman counterparts. If the old Western ideals of physical beauty precluded voluptuousness, why then is society obsessed with big breasts today?

I hadn’t thought about this until I stumbled across a blog called “seductive Jewess”. The blog is now offline but the author maintained a large database of softcore, mainstream, and pornographic actresses; all Jewish and all large chested. He believed (from what I could infer) that the preponderance of large chested Ashkanazi Jewish women in porn (hard and soft) had over the decades imperceptibly altered society’s tastes.

The fitness model look is very recent, which is obvious when compared to the soft and feminine bodies of models from the 70s and 80s. I do know from personal experience that Asian women find the hard bodied muscled look on women to be rather hideous.

The majority of female fitness models these days have undergone breast augmentation surgery. This isn’t entirely surprising given their extremely low levels of body fat. However, I can’t help but notice that these female fitness models are as toned and shaped as fit men in the 60s and 70s. You can see it in their shoulders, arms, and long torsos. If you ignore their faces, they look like men with breasts. Some have pointed out that the preponderance of homosexuals in the fashion industry has led to gays projecting their ideal of beauty (lean, muscular men) into the female models they work with.

In conclusion I wish to say that the purpose of this post is to leave you with some food for thought. Is beauty in the West being subverted or is my post completely off track? Subversion or evolution? Your thoughts are welcome as always.

Kate Short and Joseph Lumbasi #conspiracy express.co.uk

CHILDREN in Scotland have been the victims of evil ritual abuse including rape, murder and even the production of so-called ‘snuff films’, two leading charities claimed last night.

One veteran campaigner said he had even heard of babies being born and never registered, so the innocent youngsters would not be missed when they were eventually killed by secret paedophile networks.

The existence of such terrifying ‘cults’ practising the ritual abuse of children is said to have gone unchecked in Scotland for decades, with those victims who do come forward facing scepticism and outright disbelief.

Although many of the vile incidents are said to have taken place some years ago, experts are sure that an unknown number of ritual abuse rings are still in operation today.

Last night, Police Scotland said they were taking the allegations “incredibly seriously” and would investigate any complaints made to them.

The claims are certain to put the Scottish Government under intense pressure to finally announce a public inquiry into historic child sexual abuse – with Scotland now the only part of the UK without such a review.

Education Secretary Michael Russell is due to make a statement to the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday in response to growing calls from survivors, charities, lawyers, politicians and human rights groups.

The disturbing claims of ‘snuff films’ and widespread ritual abuse came to light during a lengthy investigation by this newspaper and were made independently of each other by two charities operating in different parts of Scotland.

Break the Silence is an award-winning charity based in Kilmarnock which has helped some 2,800 childhood abuse victims in North and East Ayrshire alone over the past decade, working with the two councils and NHS Ayrshire and Arran.

Founder Kate Short, who sits on the Holyrood committee on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, said the level of depravity experienced by some of their clients – most of whom are now aged 30 to 55 – was “unbelievable”.

She said: “We hear of ritual abuse, it’s not common but we have had quite a lot of people that have been abused as part of a cult or a paedophile ring.

“In the worst cases they have been forced to watch the making of snuff movies.

"It’s the extreme, barbaric type of terror that can lead to serious personal disorder.

“Often it is siblings who are forced to have sex with one another in front of the paedophiles or on the ceremonial altar.

"There are animals involved, it is vile.

“Sadly many of these victims lack the confidence to engage the authorities because they think no-one will believe them.

"They are controlled by fear.

“The cults and rituals involve all sorts of people and many are often upstanding members of society or possibly in positions of authority or power.

“Their victims are so brainwashed they don’t dare to speak against them which makes it near impossible to see any prosecutions let alone convictions.

“And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

"We are contacted almost on a weekly basis. This is something that’s been going on forever and I can’t see it ever stopping.

“I don’t think the authorities that could stop it really believe the extent of it or even that it does exist.”

Ms Short said survivors often suppressed their memories of such harrowing childhood events and therefore the specific details are vague, meaning they can be written off as suffering from of ‘False Memory Syndrome’ or mental illness.

Many abuse survivors also lead chaotic adult lives involving problems with drink, drugs or crime, making them even less likely to be believed.

However, the astonishing claims were supported by another reputable charity, Izzy’s Promise, based in Dundee.

Project co-ordinator Joseph Lumbasi said that while ritual abuse did occur in immigrant communities, the overwhelming majority of cases involved white Scottish perpetrators and victims.

He said: “Actually 80 per cent of those who contact us are born and brought up right here in Scotland.

“We’ve dealt with people who have been involved in gang rape ceremonies, animal slaughters and all sorts of things in secret places.

“People who talk to us are relating us their experiences from when they were maybe just eight, nine or ten – kids really.

“There are stories of girls being forced to conceive and then their babies are aborted for sacrifices. Children are born that are never registered. It is not impossible, they never come up. There is pornography, sick films. Horrific things are happening and nobody is getting caught.

“But all these incidents are so well orchestrated it is near impossible to find anyone to corroborate with your story or to find evidence.

“The leaders are very clever and very powerful. The victims are moved from place to place at such rate they lose track of where they are. They may be drugged or controlled by fear. Their recollections of what has taken place, when and where are muddled.

“But it is happening here, in Scotland, as we speak and must be exposed.”

Mr Lumbasi also said that few victims reported their claims to the police because they lived in such fear of their abusers, even many years later, and also because they were concerned at being named as accomplices.

He added: “In most cases, we can’t blame the police for not taking action. If they have no actual evidence such as names, times or places to go with, what can they do?”

Many of the crimes reported to Izzy’s Promise are said to have taken place within families or religious groups, where any attempt to expose the abuse was portrayed as “disloyalty”.

Mr Lumbasi continued: “I recently spoke with a lady from near here who couldn’t stop crying. She had been through it all and said she couldn’t live with the things she’d done.

“She was telling about everything that had happened to her, drugs, abuse, watching others being abused, sacrifices, animal sacrifices, being raped, being forced to conceive and then abort the child for sacrifice.

“At one point she says she may have killed a young child because she was forced to strangle the child. She doesn’t know if it is a real memory or a planted one.

“That’s the sort of power the perpetrators have on their victims.”

There has never been a proven example of a snuff film – where a person is murdered on camera – being made in Britain, although there have been an isolated number of cases where perverts have been caught with such footage made abroad.

Over the years there have been a number of high profile ritual abuse cases in Scotland, including a major police investigation in Ayrshire into an alleged Satanic sex ring involving 70 adults and children.

It began after eight siblings were taken into care in 1990 with a sheriff saying there was evidence of "sinister elements of sadism, ritualism and torture".

The youngsters were reunited with their parents five years later after the allegations were proved to be unfounded, following a pattern set by similar cases in Orkney, Cleveland and Rochdale where social workers were said to have been over-zealous.

In 2002, a young woman named Laurie Matthew wrote a book called Where Angels Fear which claimed to identify areas across Dundee, Angus and Perthshire where ritual abuse of children was said to have taken place.

Scottish Labour's justice spokesman, Graeme Pearson MSP, who has been campaigning for the government inquiry into historic abuse, said: "Theresa May has apologised this week to survivors for resignations relating to her Public Inquiry into historical child abuse.

“Meanwhile the Scottish Government continues duck and weave on the issue, refusing our demands to hold a public inquiry to enable us all to know what is the situation here in Scotland, and how can we protect vulnerable young people in our care today.

“Survivors have bravely fought for years to be heard and Scottish Labour has supported their calls for an inquiry. The SNP declare they stand for social justice in Scotland – if so why don’t they initiate a public inquiry now into historical child abuse?

“The buck has been repeatedly passed in Scotland between Mr Macaskill, Mr Russell and Ms Cunningham in the Scottish government. The time for justice is now. It is time someone in government acted in this matter.”

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Government said they worked continuously with law enforcement, local government and children’s charities to ensure those to prey on children are targeted.

She added they also supported those who had “fallen victim to what is a despicable crime” and continued: “The Education Secretary will update Parliament on this extensive and wide-reaching work and will also provide an update on the Scottish Government’s recent response to the InterAction process to ensure we properly acknowledge and support the survivors of historic abuse in care institutions. Of course, if anyone has any evidence of abuse, or any other criminal behaviour, they should report this to the police to make appropriate investigations.”

Itisamuh #sexist mmo-champion.com


I often see grown men eyeing up girls school girls. Is this wrong?
So I moved to a new area a while ago and basically it's located nearby a secondary school (high school) so I bump into a lot of children in school uniforms on the morning commute where I can't help but notice adult men checking girls out. There is something wrong with this imo, like the girls where I live wear knee-length skirt and usually don't wear any tights with it so men tend to get an eyeful on the bus/train and 8 times out of 10 you can expect an adult male trying to eye the bottom of a teenage school girl.I think it's disgusting.


So you think people are not supposed to look at attractive members of the opposite sex when they are at their most prime age? Good luck avoiding that. And it is not just adult men and teenage girls. Middle aged women will scream and whistle and throw their panties at good looking teenage male stars.

Sex to me is a lot more than just biology. Just because someone is capable of breeding doesn't mean they're mentally prepared for it. Some may "grow" up faster than others but under 18 is still a child in my eyes. Hell, even 18-19 is still a child in my eyes. Personally I'd make the aoc 21 but the law disagrees. Either way I think its wrong and predatory for older people to go after people at such a young age.

I have the opposite view, that the age of consent should be much lower because people much younger than that are going to be having sex. Why make it illegal for no good reason when they are going to do it anyway? When you try to judge whether someone was mentally ready for it, whether they were seduced or used and so on, you are throwing way too many subjective factors in for it to be decided by an arbitrary cutoff.

MK_Ultralord #racist reddit.com

[OP of "Japanese culture hate thread"]

Why does everyone in the modern fucking politicsphere idolize this shit nation.

Sure it has tight border control but that's it. That's the only "good" thing about it.

• It's an atheist nation that is "culturally Shinto." If "Cultural Christians" are anything to go by then these Jap atheist are moral relativist who larp as Shintos.

• Rampant homophila, beastiality and pedophilia in their media. The term "Loli" and "trap" shows how common this is. Also their AOC laws is disgustingly low. They are a country of irradiated paedophiles and for anyone to point to this and say it's progress shows that the slippery slope isn't a fallacy

• Gay pride parades, just because they rumored to be less obsene doesn't make it any better.

• Any non homophiliac media they have rarely features any Japanese people, even one of the key anime artists said modern anime doesn't resemble people anymore. For WN to idealize this country is retarded, alot of their media could be considered foreigner influenced and not Japanese.

• See above, Most hick style racist country in the world. As in, they blame foreigners for a problem that they legitimately caused by themselves and think their shit godless nation is great.

• Disgustingly consumerist capitalist. The whole "you don't have a lifestyle outside working for the corporation" is like something written in a dystopian novel.

• Parents being such pussies not to kick out their lazy otaku sons and daughters to the point it drains so heavily on the welfare of the country and caused the government to address it directly even has a name called Hikkimori.

Japan needs to open it's borders. I want to see it crumble under it's own weight. I hate Japan and frankly CF doesn't trash the gooks enough. It's a good way of pissing off the alt-right by trashing Japan

Matt Nuenke #fundie amazon.com

Most of the books on eugenics from the radical environmental fringe, such as this one, recount the same earlier mistakes made in eugenics, and then the books trail off into some abstract Gouldian/Boas dissertation on the evils of biological determinism. This book follows the same worn out formula, but has a few interesting new twists on the story. But first, any discounting of eugenics because of errors made at the very beginning, would apply to virtually any scientific niche, including medicine. Do any of these authors try to convince people that we should give up modern medicine because at one time it was practiced only by witch doctors? I think not, but that is the general theme of all these books. But of course, no matter how recent they are published, they usually suspend scientific facts at about 1975 so they do not have to discuss the dazzling progress made in genetics over the last twenty five years.
This book, unlike others, spends a great deal of time discussing the eugenic movements success in penetrating education, by presenting its value to school children in the curriculum. Selden laments this, but of course the flip side is that now the radical egalitarians are demanding that racial equality in intelligence be taught in schools, along with other Marxist ideologies, but ignores the fact that like eugenics it is unfounded and pseudoscientific. In all fairness, during the earlier part of the last century, eugenics was largely pseudoscience. But now, the Gould/Boas school of egalitarianism now carries that mantle by denying what modern science has found. Genes matter far more than the environment on important human traits such as intelligence, athleticism, conscientiousness, and even religiosity. These are all solid facts now discussed openly at the academic level, but kept from the general public by the new doctrines of political correctness. Published in 1999, it even has the gall to ignore books and reports by the American Psychological Association showing that there is a real concern with regards to dysgenic trends and that blacks are in fact less intelligent on average than whites. (The Rising Curve / Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns.) These are stated policy positions of this very liberal organization, but ignored by Selden, putting him in the Marxist camp along with Gould, Kamin, Lewontin and Rose. He even discusses Gould's rejection of the correlation between brain size and intelligence, even though there have been numerous recent studies showing a correlation using MRI of about 0.4. (Gould has never apologized for omitting this latest evidence from his republication of "The Mismeasure of Man" to the chagrin of other scientists who have pointed it out to him.)

Selden hammers home again and again how biological determinism is a theory of limits, ignoring the fact that modern eugenicists believe that improving genetic capital means building for the future. Would we cut down the "rain forests" if it gave us additional money for Head Start programs? I wouldn't think so. But that is the logic used throughout the book to condemn all studies in human nature.
One rebuttal that I haven't seen so far, apparently because the Gouldian school is getting desperate in light of all the recent data in behavior genetics, is that twin and adoption studies are not reliable because the separated subjects, placed in different families, may in fact be in families that are so similar as to be almost like they are the same family. Did you get that? For years, sociologists have been looking for subtle differences between family environments to explain differences. But now, even after they haven't been successful at finding what Jensen says is the missing Factor X explaining racial differences in intelligence (which these debates are really all about), they claim that twin studies are invalid because, well, families are really just all alike. I would think even Gould should admit that this is a "just so" story with little empirical evidence. Anyone familiar with behavior genetics can see the duplicity of such an inane argument. But to the unaware reader it may appear to be valid. So much for academic honesty.

Overall, if one is aware that this book is really about politics and not science, and Marxist politics at that, it is easy to read and does a very good job of showing the lucid reader how desperate the left has become in trying to stop studies in racial differences.

Caamib #pedo #psycho rape.is

About 4 years ago I was banned from Reddit after saying I might want to sleep with my daughter when she turns 12 if I can find her at the time. At that time, I was the highest rated moderator at r/incels subreddit. This subreddit was an offshoot of r/truecels, which I've moderated since January 2016 - for about 6 months. During that time these subs grew from tiny, insignificant specs on Reddit that had 50 or so subscribers to subreddits everybody was talking about.

After my ban, partially due to my bad choices of moderators, where I choose borderline retarded people like dsar, these subs suffered a sharp decline in quality after I left and became filled with insane, poorly educated and unreasonable scum. See, my moderation policy was never about keeping out "normies", "femoids" or whatever. Noncels and women participated there, but they had to adhere to the same rules everybody else had to. Terms like normies were barely beginning to emerge and I was using them in a different context . This wasn't a term for anybody who ever had sex like these freaks use it now but for "normal" people who weren't into politics much and who never had any trouble getting women throughout their lives. Nobody called women "femoids" there yet.

It was my ban that led to incel sites developing in such an awful manner - from what were once inclusive places where everybody who adhered to reasonable rules could participate to current echo chambers of very crazy people. And it had been my mistake that things turned out that way.

Anyway, that is all history now.

In this post, I will address some of the complaints people made about my daughter idea. Of course, I can't address the usual "but she's your daughter !" nonsense, as it lacks any substantial argument. But there were some people who expressed actual arguments against my idea, so I will attempt to tackle them here.

The age argument

This is a tired old argument that somebody is 12 "can't consent" because of their immaturity. It's the most common argument used. This argument is so well accepted today that it's now way outside of Overton window to question it. But this argument forgets that many historical legislatures, like canon law, had the aoc at 12 and that as late as in 1995 Spanish criminal code established the aoc at 12 (which had sadly been reversed by now). Ages of consent in Europe - Wikipedia

Were all those legislators just "pedophiles"?

From a standpoint of biology, this argument makes even less sense, as explained in this text Natural Age of Consent

The position of trust/nuclear family argument

This argument claims that it's unnatural and harmful to be having sex with your own child you are living with. It is, in my view, a better argument than the first one, but in my case it is irrelevant, as I don't live with my daughter, who in any case lives in a different country altogether and I've in fact never even seen her irl.

The pregnancy/genetic harm argument

This argument says that children born out of incestuous relationships can have genetic defects. Again, a good enough argument on its own but it doesn't apply to my case, as I have no intention of getting my daughter pregnant.

One argument against my position I've sadly never heard but would like to add here would be

The patriarchal/get your daughter married to a good man argument

This argument holds that fathers shouldn't sexually use their daughters as they should marry them off to good quality men as virgins. While completely true, this argument, once again, doesn't apply to my situation (or the situation of most fathers in the femisphere). In the feminist Western world fathers can't marry off their daughters to husbands of their own or their family's choosing. In fact, it's basically impossible to even raise your daughter right even without marrying her off. Home-schooling is prohibited in many parts of Europe and in any case asks for extreme sacrifices, especially if you want to hold a job.

Also, most women in today's feminist areas don't even hold the right patriarchal views so this makes it even harder. In my case, the girl's mother is a schizophrenic slut (I mean with an actually diagnosed schizophrenia) who holds very few opinions on anything at all. So raising a daughter that way would require me to 1) go to Netherlands, where she's been living since she was born, or get her to live with me here - very impractical in either case, especially since I've never been there and can't speak Dutch 2) get full custody, which is also basically impossible due to language barrier, huge expenses, the fact that I've not been taking care of her and the fact that femifascist courts in Europe will always side with a woman in child custody cases unless she is extremely ill and unsuitable for taking care of a child. For example, take a look at this disturbing video from Croatia -
As you can see there, this cunt female social worker and a cucked cop are trying to take this young boy into mother's custody due to a court order, despite him screaming and hiding in his room, obviously not wanting to go. His father is already in jail for obstructing this so he can't do anything. As seen here, courts obviously don't care about the lifelong psychological damage they're inflicting on this child, who is screaming in obvious extreme anguish. Such are the family courts in most of Europe outside of places like Belarus or Russia, where courts aren't just tools of feminism but actually try to do the best for the child.

All in all, it seems all the arguments against it are completely senseless so far.