#sexist

The woman-haters, man-haters, and non-binary-haters

Vox Day #sexist voxday.blogspot.de

Society doesn't need you getting a degree in Communications or Business or Peruvian Basket-weaving. It doesn't need you getting a STEM degree or learning to program so you can compete with cheap H1B imports from India. Society doesn't need you working at a local/state/federal government job in order to feed your four cats. Society doesn't need you "finding yourself" by jumping on the ALPHA carousel for ten years, then jumping off and trying to stick the landing with BETA in the three-year fertility window you've left yourself. Society doesn't need you trying to prove you're just as good as a low-performing, ineffectual man. Society needs you to be a) a woman, b) a wife, and c) a mother.

That whole shiny secular equalitarian society that the feminists assured you was right around the corner isn't real; it is less real and less functional than the It's A Small World ride at Disneyland. You're not going to be president, you're not going to be an astronaut, and no one needs you to be a soldier, a fireman, or a policeman.

Your future family needs you to be what you were created to be. A mother. And women know it, or so many of them wouldn't be zonked out of their greying gourds on psychotropic drugs in order to mask their dissatisfaction living life as ersatz men. The disease known as "women's rights" is literally killing women.

The math simply doesn't work. I know it's hard, Barbie, but run the damn numbers if you don't believe me. How are 0.75 male college graduates going to marry every female college graduate? Considering that men tend to prefer to marry less educated women, there isn't even one potential husband for every two of you. And if you think those of us who are married and have children are going to tell our children to support your saggy barren asses in old age, well, think again. The world of equalitarian feminism is a nightmare world for women, a world of loneliness, drugs, deprivation, and solitary death.

It's time to stop pushing young women into college, stop pushing them into pretending that they're going to have careers, stop encouraging them to jump on the carousel, and start telling them to mother up.

Timothy Dukeman #fundie #sexist #homophobia afellowtruthseeker.blogspot.com

There's a reason that egalitarians around the country are suddenly having epiphanies to the effect that the Bible doesn't mean what it says about homosexuality. Egalitarians have no reason to oppose homosexuality, and some of them are starting to admit it. If "I do not permit a woman to teach" really means "it's ok for women to be pastors," then "homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God" might actually mean "homosexuality is totally fine. There's a famous book that makes this very argument. In fact, it's so brave of them to be who they are." If you're willing to accommodate feminism on gender roles, why not homosexuality?

You're on a path to liberalism. Might as well admit it. Homosexuality is where egalitarianism ends.

Vision Forum Ministries #fundie #sexist visionforumministries.org

Egalitarian feminism is a false ideology that has bred false doctrine in the church and seduced many believers. In conscious opposition to feminism, egalitarianism, and the humanistic philosophies of the present time, the church should proclaim the Gospel centered doctrine of biblical patriarchy as an essential element of God’s ordained pattern for human relationships and institutions.

Bryan Fischer #fundie #sexist afa.net

We have feminized the Medal of Honor.

According to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, every Medal of Honor awarded during these two conflicts has been awarded for saving life. Not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on the enemy. Not one.

Gen. George Patton once famously said, "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his."

When we think of heroism in battle, we used the think of our boys storming the beaches of Normandy under withering fire, climbing the cliffs of Pointe do Hoc while enemy soldiers fired straight down on them, and tossing grenades into pill boxes to take out gun emplacements.

That kind of heroism has apparently become passe when it comes to awarding the Medal of Honor. We now award it only for preventing casualties, not for inflicting them.

So the question is this: when are we going to start awarding the Medal of Honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things so our families can sleep safely at night?

I would suggest our culture has become so feminized that we have become squeamish at the thought of the valor that is expressed in killing enemy soldiers through acts of bravery. We know instinctively that we should honor courage, but shy away from honoring courage if it results in the taking of life rather than in just the saving of life. So we find it safe to honor those who throw themselves on a grenade to save their buddies.

Jesus, in words often cited in ceremonies such as the one which will take place this afternoon, said, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). So it is entirely right that we honor this kind of bravery and self-sacrifice, which is surely an imitation of the Lord of Lord and King of Kings.

However, Jesus’ act of self-sacrifice would ultimately have been meaningless - yes, meaningless - if he had not inflicted a mortal wound on the enemy while giving up his own life.

Mcgoo #sexist returnofkings.com

This is sounding prophetic now. Future research. We men must paint that picture of tomorrows victory - AND THEN DIVE INTO IT. It is in legend that the OBELISK actually represents an ancient 'male victory' within our species when we foisted ourselves out from under female domination. Breaking out of institutionalized 'bitch rule' as depicted in 'genisis II' , a '70's mini-series where whip carrying women in fishnets kept the males as pet slaves. Today, some betas fetishize being a whip to electra in costume, but WATCH OUT. Watch what you wish for. We learn that in slavery, you don't have to be physically larger to dominate. Control is all in the mind. Never let your brow fall under the point of her stiletto. Keep the bitch barefoot and naked. She can wear YOUR bathrobe if she wants to go in public. But in the castle, its barefoot, naked and pregnant. What real woman wouldn't love that.

Pro White Women #elitist #racist #sexist #wingnut twitter.com

Most of you are saying I need to be more positive towards white men...

How tf can I do positive posts when the majority of you're weak and are race traitors?!

You're all making me lose hope for a White Future because you're weak minded, pathetic race traitors.

You say you're tired of white women?

Well, I'm tired of you, white men.

You turn your head so easily for n0n-whites it's disgusting.

I wish you were r@cists!!!

But none of you are...

I feel like Pro White Women are more r@cists than "Pro white men"

I seriously feel majority white men are not masculine enough for White Women, you're weak and I pity you!

You can't even defend our white nations, you don't do anything!!

You don't organise, plan and do action....

You call it fed if anyone suggests anything or blame WW

"Pro White Women don't exist"
"White Women destroy White men in marriage courts"
"White women divorce me if I cheat with an asian"
"White women don't want me"
"White women don't want to be my slave"

All I hear is "white men" making excuses to race mix with asians

You disgust me

various commenters #wingnut #racist #sexist gab.com

( @EB_ )
Gm
image

spoilerUniversal suffrage is a very silly
way to choose the direction &
leadership of the worlds most
powerful country.
Half of people donlt even pay
taxes. Millions canlt speak
English. IDs are unnecessary. And
everyone but White people just
vote with their race.
What a joke.

( @LurkingTachyon )
@EB_ By design universal suffrage is a terrible idea. It's why it was exclude from our system.

White males pay > 80% of all taxes. We make up roughly 30% of the population. Adjusted for those who pay taxes, that's roughly 20% of the population.

What is taxation without representation? If you're a white male your taxes are stolen and you are not represented. This is a illegal and unconstitutional even according to our laws.

Universal suffrage is enslavement of white men. Anyone supporting it supports our enslavement.

( @CharitySlaughter )
@EB_ i agree with all except - taxation is THEFT. Of ALL the times the people should stop paying taxes - its NOW.
Don't say "don't even pay taxes" like it's a bad thing.

( @UsernameTaken__000 )
@CharitySlaughter I think the “don’t even pay taxes” bit in the statement is a qualifier of who should and should not be able to vote. I agree that taxation is theft. A better way to state it should be landowners not taxpayers because property tax is a pyramid scheme theft as well

( @ShelbyD22 )
@EB_ When I was working with a friend of mine he went around and asked all the black people in the warehouse specifically why they voted for Barack Obama and none of them could give an actual specific reason why except one honest black guy that immediately said "because he's black."

( @LordVince )
@EB_ it’s not a joke, it’s a Jewish con. Democracy was always a method for manipulating the system in a systematic and even more efficient manner, it’s essentially the most effective form of tyranny once you have it properly calibrated and programmed to where the slaves perpetuate the self-enslavement, largely because they have been so brain fucked that they have no clue they are slaves. That likely also applies to you if you don’t understand that taxation is not theft, it’s fractional slavery.

Article "American women" #sexist #wingnut en.kingswiki.com

American women typically have little to recommend them in as companions due to their unattractive appearance—including short hair—and their bizarre, unnatural attitudes.[1][2] They make poor wives due to their tendency to treat their husbands with disrespect, cheat on them, deprive them of sex, accuse them of abuse because of minor transgressions in word or deed, and ultimately leave them. As a result, their only remaining utility is for busting a nut.[3]

Most American women cannot compete with Latinas[4], Ukrainians[5][6], or really anyone else at all[7][8] except perhaps women from New Zealand[9].

Causes of Disfunction

Michael Sebastian identified five environmental factors that have ruined American women: Disney princesses, girl power culture, unrealistic expectations, feminist media, and a lack of parenting—all of which derive from cultural Marxism.[10]

Louis Stuart has also identified white knights as key enablers for delusional and dysfunctional American women.[11]

Eivind Berge #sexist eivindberge.blogspot.com

Most men, myself included, prefer fully developed girls (as young as possible), but that doesn't make sex with a 12-year-old "rape" or "abuse" and the desire for them isn't any more depraved than lusting after 40-year-old women, for example. It is slightly deviant to be a hebephile, if that means a clear preference for pubescent girls over fully developed ones, but you need better arguments than that to criminalize it. I think most men are at least somewhat attracted to pubescent girls, and there is no reason to demonize this desire or pretend these girls are damaged by sex. I myself find 12-year-old girls about as attractive as women at the end of their reproductive lives (around 40). Not optimal, but so what? Less than peak attractiveness means just that; it doesn't mean some horrible crime. The oldest mothers also have worse health outcomes from their pregnancies; does that make sex rape?


There are good reasons to prefer females slightly older than the age of menarche as an optimal strategy, but that doesn't make attraction to subfecund females pathological. Kate Clancy makes some valid points, but then she ignores some elephants in the room -- all the reproductive opportunities which actually result from hebephilic desires -- and implies more than is warranted by the evidence.

Whenever there is a reproductive opportunity, it would be very strange if men weren't evolved to want to take advantage of it, and pubescent girls do represent such an opportunity. Men are sexual opportunists, obviously, sperm being cheap -- they don't tend to bet their reproductive success on one partner age or one partner and ignore the rest.

But let's be clear about what we are talking about here, since it is kind of off-topic: "Let’s first be clear on definitions: hebephilia is the sexual preference for pubescent children. Not teenagers, but pubescent children. In industrial and post-industrial populations, that means a sexual preference for ten to twelve year olds."

I didn't really argue that the age of consent should be lower than 12, and Øygard was only accused of having sex with a 13-year-old. Hebephilia is not a big concern of mine, except to state that it doesn't deserve anywhere near the demonization it gets.

Eivind Berge #sexist eivindberge.blogspot.com

The bizarre behavior exhibited by the manginas in the Men's Human Rights Movement (MHRM), found at A Voice for Men (AVfM), whereby they embrace the most absurd and hateful feminist ideals regarding sex, and even more bizarrely, apply these standards to women as well, is puzzling in the extreme. After thinking long and hard about what might possess these nincompoops to behave in such a deranged manner, and rereading the Unabomber Manifesto, I think I have figured it out. I thought for a long time that they must be some kinds of autistic freaks or something, but the explanation may be found in the far more pervasive concept of oversocialization. The buffoons at AVfM fancy themselves as rebels against feminism, but of course they are nothing of the sort. They are feminists of the more extreme kind. I hate feminists, but most of them have the decency to at least back off the most absurd manifestations of their odious worldview in practice -- for example if you were to apply their sex-hostility literally to women as well as men. The buffoons in the MHRM have no such barriers. They are loose cannons among radical feminist, who will cling desperately to feminist tenets no matter how absurd it gets in the real world.

Here is yet another example of their idiocy: Boys raped more often than girls.

Any person just a few short decades ago would laugh his ass off if you told him women can "rape" boys. An honest biologist would still laugh his ass off at such an imbecile notion, as would any halfway rational or commonsensical person. Biologists know perfectly well that because the sexual superiority of women is the prime fact of life for deep evolutionary reasons, women committing "rape" or "sexual abuse" is not a meaningful natural concept but a legal fiction you have to be oversocialized to take seriously. But the manginas in the MHRM do take it seriously, because they have been oversocialized into feminist ideology.

Thus the manginas at AVfM attempt to oversocialize their natural attraction to teenage girls away (whatever age of consent local feminist legislators decree, the manginas will unquestioningly accept and internalize in the most servile fashion), since their feminist ideology will not permit them to think any "unclean thoughts." This would merely be laughable if these clowns didn't take their bizarre oversocialization one step further and insist that underage boys who get lucky with women are actually victims. And of course they also support all the hateful feminist sex laws and abuse-industry nonsense applied to men and women alike, so they are frankly as pure evil as the scumbags in law enforcement who put feminism into practice, and must be exposed as such. There is simply no nice way to put it; they are feminist scum.

I suppose the Unabomber has correctly identified this as a leftist phenomenon. A leftist is above all else a conformist. The leftist does not think for himself; he merely absorbs the political correctness of his times, and if these ideals conflict with human nature, then human nature be damned. And in this day and age, the pinnacle of political correctness is the ideology of ubiquitous sexual "abuse" (or usually and increasingly just called "rape" regardless of the details). The more socialized you are, the more you see "rape" or "sexual abuse" everywhere, until "abuse" encapsulates all of human sexuality (and beyond -- as even an image of a baby breastfeeding can qualify). With sufficient oversocialization, it is even possible to insist on the existence of female sexual abusers with a straight face. This is the pathogenesis of the female sex-offender charade, which has caused me so much headache. Never mind that common sense, natural science and experience all tell us it is preposterous to hold women culpable for sex crimes. The oversocialized leftist mangina will insist on his internalized politically correct hogwash even if all his senses and reason as well as science contradict him. Thanks to the Unabomber for identifying the word for it. I know my ranting against the female sex-offender charade for the umpteenth time probably won't sway any of the manginas, but at least now we know what to call the phenomenon that rots their brains.

The Unabomber is brilliant in some ways, foolish in others. One way he was wrong was thinking he had to kill people in order to get his message out. With writing skills like his, there is no need for violence, at least not in the Internet age. Rather than wasting away in a supermax prison, he could have had a popular blog now if he had only waited for the rise of the Internet. It is also completely unnecessary to use violence to bring down industrial civilization, since peak oil will take care of that beautifully. Soon there will be no occasion for what the Unabomber derides as "surrogate activities," as any survivors of the imminent Malthusian catastrophe will have no choice but to struggle to stay alive by the sweat of our brows, rather than leisurely sit by as fossil fuel slaves do the work. My attitude now that I am aware of peak oil is that unless you are already incarcerated, then insurrection against the feminist establishment is largely superfluous.

As I have said before, the Men's Rights Movement has not grown. There are only 3 sex-positive MRA sites that I know of beside myself: The Anti-Feminist, Human Stupidity and Angry Harry. The rest is merely feminist oversocialization, although I suppose The Spearhead should get an honorable mention for lately at least somewhat acknowledging the insanity of feminist sex-hostility as codified in law, as well as the foolishness, if not the biological absurdity, of men trying to assume the role of victims of rape by women (Price has, however, written some embarrassingly naive articles on the female sex-offender charade in the past where he has parroted the feminist narrative in much the same way as AVfM). I have no hope that there will ever be an effective Men's Rights Movement, but we don't need it anyway, because with peak oil comes peak feminism. If the feminists and manginas want to do something enduring for their cause, they might get busy trying to figure out how to keep up mass incarceration in a low-energy world. Rather than dreaming up ways to identify more sex offenders, they ought to be seriously worried about how to even keep the sex offenders they got incarcerated long enough to serve out their sentences. John Michael Greer has got a post up about seven sustainable technologies that may be practiced in our low-energy future, and the industrial prison system is not among them. I don't see how anything like the feminist sex abuse industry can possibly exist without the abundant energy flows provided by fossil fuels. Look back to the prison population in the era before fossil fuels, and you get an idea of how many people a low-energy society is capable of imprisoning. It is no accident that mass incarceration was unheard of before the Industrial Revolution, and for most of history, incarceration wasn't even recognized as a standard punishment. (Slavery did exist, and can in theory arise again if most of the prisoners are coerced into manual agriculture, but there will be insufficient energy available to make the transition to sustainable slavery in our coming dark ages, not least because the feminists don't even realize that time is running out for reorganizing their infrastructure if that were to be accomplished). Since the prison is a cornerstone of feminist society, there is reason to rejoice even as all the things we care about and depend on are about to disintegrate. Technology has been convenient and fun, but we also see what kind of sex-hostile dystopia it leads to, which gets worse for every passing year. So perhaps peak oil is a good thing even with the extreme hardship and die-off it necessarily entails, because the alternative for men is surely prison unless you put on the charade of an oversocialized mangina.

Anonymous #sexist eivindberge.blogspot.com

Adult women have nothing to offer about a girl under the age of 18, NO beauty, NO intelligence, NO better conversation, NO ability to bear children and have a family, NO even better, in fact the skin of their bodies literally just rots more and more every day. The peak of a female to offer all this is 14 to 16 years. So what a adult woman can have to offer a man?

Nothing.

Eivind Berge #sexist eivindberge.blogspot.com

Reasons why people believe in the female sex offender charade

Whatever their reasons, people do not believe that women can sexually abuse because it is true. As I have resoundingly pointed out, it is logically impossible, given the core beliefs and values that I hold, for women to sexually abuse boys. In this post I will examine possible reason for why people believe, or say they believe that women can be sexual abusers despite the obvious falsehood of this proposition.

- Virtue signaling. Now that it is established as politically correct to believe in female-perpetrated sexual abuse, that in itself will make a lot of people say it just because it increases their status. It is a classic case of the emperor's new clothes -- social status counts more than perceptions and one tends to say what powerful people want to hear.

- It follows from other strongly held beliefs. I am thinking of feminists who posit that the sexes are equal, which is how we got into this mess. Once it is axiomatic to you that there cannot be any sex differences, women must be able to do everything men can no matter how absurd, and so female sexual acts must be equivalent to male abuse despite no one ever feeling it. This is similar to how some physicists feel compelled to believe in the multiverse. Neither phenomenon can ever be observed, but one must believe in it for the sake of consistency.

- Projection. Women project their own sexual feelings (or lack of them) onto males, honestly not realizing how different we are. Notice that women are by far the most vociferous proponents of the female sex offender charade, as well as inventing it, and we often hear that "abuse" was accused only because a boy's mother egged him on. Men used to keep such lunacy in check, and it can thus be seen as a nasty side effect of giving women too much political power.

- Their paycheck depends on it. Is a policeman, prosecutor, judge, school administrator, therapist or journalist going to go with his instincts, which if expressed will get him instantly fired, or what brings home the bacon and furthers his career? The choice is dishonorable, but understandable. These figures will almost always follow the profits. The same goes for accusers and their families who stand to gain from suing the school etc., in which case greed is the proper name of the sin.

- Thoughtlessness and going with the flow. I know I am special because I have thought and read extensively about sexual abuse, and there are doubtless people who give it little thought. I am sure I hold irrational beliefs on some other subjects myself, perhaps some of them equally ridiculous as the assertion that women can sexually abuse boys. But I wouldn't know, because I don't examine these views critically, and there isn't enough time in anybody's life to think critically and research the facts about everything. This is probably the most excusable excuse, but it can't remain excusable for long if you are made to think about the topic.

- Socially acceptable misogyny. To label a woman as "sex offender" is to declare open season for any hate anyone wishes to heap on her, and this being the sole remaining politically correct way to hate women, naturally it will attract misogynists. This hate is so strong in some men that they will pathetically deny their own sexual nature as boys in favor of claiming abuse, and this applies to accusers as well as bystanders. Thus you have grown men spouting the lie that they didn't want to have sex with their female teachers in school, or that they were "abused" if they did. I am willing to accept that their hate is stronger than their sex drive, but they were most assuredly not abused, because that would require a consensus reality in which I could intuitively partake and not just a false and self-serving belief. This doesn't even have to be misogyny, but the same kind of misanthropic malice that causes a person to jump on the bandwagon and participate in any old witch-hunt or lynching. Vigilante pedophile hunters are cut from this cloth.

Insofar as people believe in the myth that women can be sexual abusers, how do they justify it to themselves?

- The aversive experience delusion. We all know that boys want sex, but somehow, for the purposes of expressing an opinion on female "abusers," this knowledge is blocked out and replaced with the message promulgated by the theatrics of feminist abuse hysteria. They may be laboring under the delusion that "children" are asexual, never mind their own memory to the contrary. And the "teacher or similar status = abusive power differential" myth is a powerful destroyer of common sense. All it takes is a mumbo-jumbo explanation like that and a lot of people's minds go blank and ready to be filled with whatever authority tells them. This is similar to how the "rape is about power rather than sex" canard got established. It sounds like a sophisticated thing to say, so having heard it all his life from intelligent-sounding people, the man in the street will parrot it even though it bears zero resemblance to how he feels his own sexuality works.

- The more pseudo-sophisticated explanations. Some true believers will admit that boys go through all the motions and feelings of wanting and enjoying sex, but then all this is somehow made irrelevant by a metaphysical layer that still makes it abuse. Or it is believed that some kind of "trauma" will surface later. Of course this is gibberish unless you go out of your way to brainwash boys into thinking they have been abused -- which is to say actually abusing them -- but it is an explanation for how these dimwitted minds work.

- Misguided equality or an MRA tactic. Some men understand that the female sex offender charade is completely or mostly nonsense, but they want to punish these women anyway just to be "equal" or get even or convince women that the hateful sex laws were a bad idea (which never happens). This belief is common among men who have partially opened their eyes to the abuses of feminism, including a lot of self-styled "MRAs," but of course they are no such thing.

- The irrelevant harm theory. This is also common among "MRAs," who will want to punish women not for sex itself, which they know is harmless, but consequences such as child support. They may have a point, but this should be dealt with by reforming child support laws rather than pretending that women can rape or sexually abuse boys. Apparently they lack the imagination to do anything but go along with the feminists on 99% of issues.

If you look at the comment section below any news article about supposed female sexual abusers, wherever comments are unmoderated, it is always teeming with men who express disbelief that it can be abuse or say they wish they had been so lucky themselves. So this is one issue where male sexualists are decidedly not alone. I would say we represent the true majority, but those who promote the female sex offender charade wield disproportionate power, enough to make it the law of the land for now. This is a horribly wrong situation that we need to change, gentlemen. As male sexualist activists we must never forget to stand up for women accused of sexual abuse as well, because we know this charade is every bit as absurd and odious as any historical witch-hunt and even more troubling than the hateful persecution we face ourselves.

MAP Biology #sexist mapbiology.wordpress.com

If you ever see some footage of primitive tribes that don’t wear clothes one of the first things you notice is that the adult women have horrible saggy boobs. This is what adult boobs are supposed to look like. A girl’s boobs are at their pertest and most attractive in her adolescent years before she starts reproducing. Once she starts having babies and breastfeeding, usually by the late teens, her boobs quickly lose their adolescent pertness and become less attractive. The pert boobs of the average nulliparous (hasn’t had a baby yet) 14yo girl are much more attractive than the drooping boobs of the average 20yo who’s had a baby or two.

The 14yo girl’s boobs are an honest advertisement of nulliparity. They’re more of an advertisement of future fertility than current fertility. They’re a signal saying “I’m approaching reproductive age and ready to start mating. I haven’t started reproducing yet and have all my fertile years remaining. Acquire me at this age and you can have all my fertile years to yourself and I’ll start giving you offspring soon.” Men’s preference for pert adolescent boobs has co-evolved with this signalling.

Another honest advertisement of nulliparity is a tight midriff that hasn’t been stretched by pregnancy. This is presumably the reason adolescent girls like to wear short tops that show off their stomach

MAP Biology #sexist mapbiology.wordpress.com

The vulvas that get posted in “Post up the best looking pussies” threads on porn sites always look like they could belong to girls about 12 or 14. They are nice and neat with little or no pubic hair and have a virginal, slightly immature look about them. (A vulva that’s tight and fresh looking is a sign that the girl it belongs to hasn’t started reproducing yet and still has all of her fertile years ahead of her).

MAP Biology #sexist mapbiology.wordpress.com

The porn site motherless.com allows users to create their own groups that other people can view and post in. Before they got strict these were the top ten groups:

1. Young
2. Stickam
3. Incest
4. Jailbait
5. Daughters
6. Teen
7. deutsche teens
8. little puff nipples and hairless pussys
9. School Girls
10. Very Cute Only

The “Young” group was mostly filled with girls about 14. If there were no legal restrictions that’s what the porn industry would be using.

MAP Biology #sexist mapbiology.wordpress.com

Where this line of argument goes wrong is that the issue isn’t whether the adolescent years is the best age for a girl to become a MOTHER but rather whether it’s the best age for her to become a WIFE. If a man acquired a 12 or 14yo wife she wouldn’t typically start reproducing at that age but rather several years later at about 17. That’s the whole point. In order to monopolise a girl’s reproductive lifespan and get as many offspring from her as possible a man needed to acquire her some time before she started reproducing. There would be rare cases where a man’s wife got pregnant at 12 or 14 and died in childbirth or something but this isn’t what would TYPICALLY happen. The few cases of early pregnancy wouldn’t have made it maladaptive for men to form sexual relationships with adolescent girls anymore than the rare cases of people choking to death eating steaks would have made it maladaptive to eat meat.

What we want to know is the reproductive success of the males as a function of the age of the females they pursue and acquire: are men who acquire 14yo wives more or less reproductively successful than men who acquire 20yo wives etc? What those statistics show is the reproductive success of the females as a function of the age at which they start reproducing. They’ve got the wrong statistics and it’s really fucking laughable. The statistics only show that it would be maladaptive for girls to start reproducing in their pubescent years. They tell us nothing about the reproductive success of men who acquired pubescent girls as wives.

In prehistoric societies the typical 20yo would have already had a baby or two and started using up her fertile years. The typical 14yo would still be nulliparous and have all her fertile years ahead of her. Men who acquired 14yo wives would have got more offspring from them than men who acquired 20yo wives. It’s not complicated.

MAP Biology #sexist mapbiology.wordpress.com

Natural Age of Consent

If you ask someone on the street what age they think girls prehistoric times typically started having babies they’re likely to answer something like “Oh I dunno, about 12 maybe.” Now, we know this is not true since girls in modern foraging societies don’t typically start reproducing until their mid to late teens even though they don’t use any contraception. So why do so many people think girls in prehistoric times would have started having babies at 12?

What I think is happening is that people are confusing a girl’s readiness to start mating with her readiness to start reproducing. Although girls don’t typically start ovulating and become fertile until 15+ people seem to instinctively think that girls become ready to start mating at about 12. In this sense the age of about 12 seems to be the “natural age of consent”.

Everything changes at about 12

By the age of about 12 most girls are sexually developed enough to distinguish them from pre-pubertal girls and get men’s attention. Women typically report that about 12 was when they noticed that men started taking a sexual interest in them and this is also the most common age women suffer their first sexual assault.

These statistics aren’t unique to modern Western societies. In primitive foraging societies about 12 is when girls become targets for sexual assault. If a girl of this age hasn’t got a husband or other male protector the other men in the tribe will start harassing and sexually assaulting her. To give you an idea how much young adolescent girls are targets for sexual assault in these societies I repeat an experience the anthropologist Kenneth Good had with the Yanomamo people. Good lived with and studied the Yanomamo for years. He fell in love with and married a little girl about 9 called Yarima. These types of romances and marriages between pre-pubertal girls and men are common in primitive foraging societies and are part of the natural human mating system. By the time she was about 12 she’d grown a pair of boobs and he had to protect her from the sexual advances of the other men in the tribe. One day he had to leave the tribe for a few months and worried about what would happen to her while he was away. Before he left he gave a stern warning to the other men to leave her alone, as was the normal practice when a man had to leave his wife unprotected:

Pacing the area I began to speak. “Today I am going away.” I said. I could see they were listening. Most often people just went about their business during a speech, but this was an event. Everyone was looking. “But I am coming back. I am coming back. I am coming back. No one here will break into my storage house. If you do, when I come back I will be very angry. Very angry.” Pause. “And her—” I pointed to Yarima. “No one is to touch her! No one is to touch her! No one!” I could feel the anger coming over me. Pacing up and down, I threw my arms around, slamming myself on the sides and back with my open palm, punctuating the words. “She has been given to me! She is my wife!” Slam! “You do not touch my wife! You do not touch my wife! You do not touch my wife!” Slam! “If I come back and find someone has touched her, I will know!” Slam! “I myself have never touched her! And no one is going to! No one!” I turned around and swung a roundhouse at the wood house pole, smashing it with my fist so hard that the roof shook. Wham! I looked around at all the people in their hammocks, staring into their eyes. They were all staring back. They looked pretty impressed.

At the age of 12 Yarima hadn’t had her first period yet and by the taboos of the Yanomamo the men were supposed to keep their hands off her, but like I’ve mentioned before these taboos are often violated. Good appeared to know this and that Yarima would be a target for sexual assault now she was displaying breasts.

Jailbait at 12, not “post-puberty”

The age of about 12 is also when a girl becomes mature enough to qualify as jailbait. In his 2016 paper on chronophilias Seto characterised the popular jailbait category as post-pubescent minors about 15-17. This is a bit inaccurate, jailbait is usually girls about 12-16. I think he was trying to force the data into the ephebophilia category. Jailbait is not exclusively ephebophilia but just as much hebephilia. The most popular age for jailbait girls is about 14 which is right on the dividing line between the hebephilia and ephebophilia categories.

What makes a girl qualify as jailbait isn’t when she completes puberty, or when she starts ovulating and becomes fertile, or when she starts menstruating, but rather when she simply appears to be ready to start having sex. Typically this is about 12 or 13. This appears to be the age that the females in our species have evolved to become sexually active and this is several years before they typically start ovulating and become able to conceive.

MAP Biology #sexist mapbiology.wordpress.com

Girls under 12 can be wives too

If girls about 12-16 were the best to acquire as wives what about girls a bit younger say 9? A 9yo wife wouldn’t be ideal since she wouldn’t reach reproductive age for about 8 years but it can still work. Humans have long lifespans and as long as he’s not too old a man can afford to wait. Even if he does die before she reaches reproductive age he can still benefit through inclusive fitness since widows in primitive societies are usually passed on to their dead husband’s brothers or other close male relatives.

In primitive societies it’s quite common for men to marry girls of this age so although it’s sub-optimal the strategy definitely does work. We must expect men to have evolved adaptations for acquiring girls of this age such as finding them physically attractive and being susceptible to falling in love with them but to also be averse to having intercourse with them since they’re not physically ready for it.

As we go younger and younger there will be a point at which girls are too far away from the beginning of their reproductive lifespans and the probability of them surviving to reproductive age is too low for it to be worthwhile for a man to chase after them, assuming older females are available too. My estimate of this age is under about 7. I arrived at this estimate partly from gut feeling and the fact it’s uncommon for men in primitive societies to marry girls under the age of about 7.

MAP Biology #sexist mapbiology.wordpress.com

Females in prehistoric societies

Ages 0-6, infants and younger juveniles:
Girls this age are a long way from reproductive age and it’s generally not worthwhile for a man to invest much effort in acquiring them as wives. Mortality is high and there’s a good chance a girl this age won’t even survive to reproductive age. If a girl this age is offered to man as a gift he might as well take her but it’s not worth investing effort in chasing after girls this age. It’s generally best for a man to ignore girls this young. There’s little competition between the males for girls this age.

Ages 7-11, older juveniles:
These girls are closer to reproductive age and it’s now worthwhile for a man to invest effort in trying to acquire them as wives. They’re past the younger juvenile stage and the chance of them surviving to reproductive age is over 90%. Competition for girls this age is rising as they approach reproductive age. Men often fall in love with girls this age and get married to them but won’t usually have intercourse with them until adolescence. Similarly, girls this age may be abducted by raiders from other tribes to be kept as wives but they won’t usually have intercourse with (or rape) them this young.

Ages 12-16, adolescents:
Now the heat’s really on. The girls are on the verge of reproductive age and approaching the deadline. They are ready to mate with but haven’t yet got pregnant. Competition for them is at its fiercest since the man who wins a girl at this age can have all her future fertile years to himself and won’t have to wait long before she starts reproducing. Fights often break out over them and sometimes result in death. At this age they’re at their greatest danger of being kidnapped by raiders. Their pristine, perky adolescent boobs and bodies make them stand out from the juvenile girls and the adult women whose bodies show signs of prior pregnancies such as drooping boobs and stretchmarks. Their faces and bodies have an adolescent sparkle that catches men’s attention and incites men to chase after and compete for them. Their vaginas are not yet damaged by childbirth. Girls this age without husbands or male protectors are routinely pushed around, sexually harassed, and raped by the other men in the tribe. I’m not just saying this to be shocking, this is how savage ancestral humans probably were.

Age 17 onward, adults:
Competition for girls now goes into decline. Girls this age have now started reproducing and are biologically adults. From this age onward the number fertile years women have remaining goes into decline. This decline is reflected in declining physical appearance. Their boobs get saggier with every pregnancy, their stomachs accumulate stretchmarks, their waists go flabby, their faces grow duller every year, and they develop cellulite and get fatter. Remember these people are near-naked and everything is on display. Women in modern societies can cover themselves up and wear bras that give the illusion their boobs are still pert and artificially recreate their adolescent attractiveness.

195.37.190.67 #sexist rationalwiki.org

On average, when a girl is 13 years old, her IQ on an adult intelligence test will be in the normal range. The age of consent in Germany is 14. The age of consent in Uruguay is 12. The age of consent in Spain has traditionally been 13 and still is although it is in a limbo. The age of consent in Canada was 14 until a few years ago when the USA made them raise it. Phalometric studies, which measure male sexual arousal by penile blood volume, reveal that over 80% of males are just as sexually attracted to pubescent 12 year olds as they are to 18 year olds.

Evolutionary psychology theory strongly supports point 3, as males who reproduced with the full range of fertile females were far more likely to pass their genetics on, and to do so to a greater extent. The age of consent around the world was close to puberty up until the 1880's, when religious feminists groups invented the idea that it should be higher, originally done to lower prostitution rates Full sexual maturity, meaning tanner stage 5, is reached on average at age 14.5 in females, meaning that you cannot differentiate between a 14.5 year old girl and an 18 year old girl, based on sexual development.

About 25% of adult females will never pass tanner stage 4, which is reached on average around 13 years old. Underage teenagers also fall into the normal range of adult height and weight, although more so toward the petite side of normal, Tons of underage teenagers are having sex with each other and with adults and turning out perfectly fine, and your entire argument is based on made up bullshit that you have been brainwashed into believing and which has not a shred of legitimate evidence supporting it.

The brain of a human continues to develop until they are 25 years old, so you cannot use the lack of a mature brain to argue that a 15 year old cannot consent to sex but an 18 or even 24 year old can, and also see point 1 which shows that 13 year old brains support normal adult intelligences. Also, keep in mind that there are a lot of people who are very intent on lying about the facts, distorting reality, and doing whatever they have to do to manipulate your perception of the world.

There is an organized movement to demonize and criminalize empirically demonstrated as normal male sexual behavioral patterns. These people are filthy liars, and they have tried to infiltrate every group of significant power they are capable of infiltrating, in order to further their male hating agenda of bullshit. A prime example of this was their failed coup of the field of Psychology, in which their agents attempted to have sexual attraction to pubescent 12-14 year olds labeled as a mental illness called "hebephilia". Thankfully this attempt was REJECTED, and hebephilia is not a recognized mental disorder in the DSM, and the MAJORITY opinion of mental health professionals is that being sexually attracted to teenagers is NORMAL, and the opinion of the majority of people in dozens of first world countries from Germany to Italy to Uruguay is that it can be acceptable for an adult male to have sex with young teenagers!

Marshall Hare #sexist escapistmagazine.com

The biggest problem is this... Hebephilia accounts for most cases of so called pedophilia. Michial Jackons was not a pedophile, he was a hebephile. Chriss Hanson exposed hebephiles not pedophiles and the list goes on. Straight hebephilia is not rare unlike infantophilia and pedophilia and gay hebephilia. Hebephilia is in fact dominany among all mammals including humans.
src: http://egomoral.com/age-of-consent-throughout-history/

Only up until the 1920s did feminism try to redefine the pubescent nature of humans to not include pubescent females.
src: http://egomoral.com/feminism-and-age-of-consent-laws-in-modern-culture/

The reason modern society permits current ageist policies demonizing hebephiles is because of women. Most women don't acknowledge the hebphilic nature of human sexuality because it's hard on their egos. In current modern society, human relationships are unnaturally defined as same age relationships. No where in the mammalian kingdom or human history is same age male and female relationships dominant. Females need to start breeding young to produce the most offspring and the males need to be at their competitive prime i.e. older and experienced. Most women are in denial regarding the pubescent nature of human relationships despite their extensive efforts to mimic pubescent traits daily. The phenomena is called Child-bride-denial.
src: http://egomoral.com/child-bride-denial/

Caamib #sexist blogger.com

bold is mine


Gally, I will reply to you though my goal isn't so much for you to read it, as you're a delusional idiot, but to make an intelligent reader, somebody who really wants to learn about this stuff, see why you're wrong and misrepresenting a lot of what we believe.

"Being anti-masturbation and anti-porn has NOTHING to do with fighting against feminist anti-male sex laws. "

Jesus, what idiocy ! Of course they don't have nothing to do with it. You're right. You know what it has to do with? Actual improvement in male lives. Making it easier for healthy, reasonable males to get women. Which masturbation actively impedes by making them less motivated to do so. But the fuck would you know about any of that?

That's basically the reply to that entire paragraph of utter bs. Let's go on...


"You're validating their whole enterprise. The whole feminist movement has been a response to the ever greater range of sexual alternatives for men to the average woman on the street (and women are getting more and more average by the day, at least in the West). "

You have no idea why and how feminism comes about. Today's males have far less sexual choices than those in 1970s, when there was less feminism. Another thing that's a waste of time to discuss with you.


"How the hell can you seriously rage against feminist anti-porn laws when you agree with the feminist junk science basis for them?"

Which "junk science" are you rambling about? Feminists were never against masturbation, in fact they deem it to be an acceptable "solution" as their idea of a nightmare is whites having any kind of sex. But this is also something you're too stupid to get.

"You also completely fail to see what's going to be happening in the next few decades."

No, in fact you do. Your idea of robots replacing women in that women will not happen. And I'll tell you why. There's several reasons. First of all, the technology won't develop. In late 1998 people believed they'd have robots as servants and various other stuff by 2018. We don't. We have been stagnating technologically since around 2000 and your fantasies simply won't happen. Chances are that technology will decline, not improve with times.
Other issue is that there's still a lot of shame connected to using such technology.

But there's one reason that is much more crucial - men and women still want to be with each other. I still meet women 13-40 with my online ads, because modern Western women, as messed up as they are, still are looking for somebody to control them and own the shit of them, to put them in their place. You won't replace this and the male need to do so with any robots and virtual reality.

And there's a more important reason as well- why would we want to do so? Can you marry a robot, have a child with a robot? No? So what is the point, anyway? Why live in a virtual reality and knowing you'll never procreate? You think men like fschmidt, Nathan or myself would have kids if we did so? Why don't you just take drugs or kill yourself if you don't want to live in the real world?

"This is the last thing men need in the face of the tsunami of anti-porn based feminist sex puritan laws."

No. This would be a blessing, which he understands full well as he's not as dumb as you are. It would make thousands of men get off their asses and take women.

"'I'd go as far to say as you're as much of an enemy to men as feminists are at this stage"

No, he's just not a delusional idiot like you.

"And given all the work you've done for the last couple of decades, includes bravely standing up to the Norwegian State, that's a real tragedy."

Standing up to delusional idiots like yourself, who pretend to be their friends (unlike the less perverse Norwegian state) is also quite brave. As I told you, he's just not a delusional idiot like you.

"yet if you can point to one single pro cannabis legalization activist (let alone 'the leader') who actually promotes the idea that smoking cannabis is harmful and should be avoided, then I'll apologize to you and become a 'Male Sexualist'."

No. Another thing you get completely wrong. An actual comparison would be "find me a cannabis legalization activist who actively promotes harmful chemical alternatives to pot that are known to destroy people's lives". And that is what masturbation is - a shade of actual sexuality, nothing. A dangerous tool that makes you complacent and unlikely to seek out actual sex. If you think being a male sexualist is about helping males jerk themselves off in dark rooms... Well, I'll just say that getting rid of that would be the first step to not being an idiot.

"We're struggling to get more than a dozen followers out of the 3 billion men on the planet affected by feminist sex laws"

But feminist sex laws would collapse quickly if men stopped jerking off. Because, guess what? You are not a hebephile. There's no such thing. All sane men would sleep with 12 year-old girls and younger. And they'll be much more motivated to so when they don't jack off. When millions do it regularly, and they will when boys are discouraged from masturbating, it will be easy.

"Islamic minded anti-masturbation incels who crave spending their lives with a HB4 just when AI sex robots and virtual reality sex are becoming real??"

No, no, no, no.... Just no.

Everything wrong and stupid. The problem with the term incels is lookism and cultism, which didn't exist when I was in charge more, as I explained in my June article. This is directly connected to their takeover of the term after July 2016, Also, you miss the real point. Incels aren't meant to be popular or liked, of course feminists will hate them. The point is to promote actual solutions, which don't have to do with looks but are extremely contrary to feminism (finding non-feminist wives, rape etc). When men who call themselves incel seek actual solutions then the term will be seen more seriously. The idea that you will get a political solution in Western countries is pure idiocy. I just want to help men improve their everyday's lives. Politics is a waste of time and these countries like Norway will collapse like all countries which adopted their policies did.

It's your stupidity and idiocy and listening to mainstream media that you believe incel is some political term or whatever. It isn't. You're a fucking incel.

My goal is simply to improve the lives of men, not some great political solutions you dream of.

I already addressed the robot thing. Your assumptions about the state of technology and human nature are wrong.

If I chose robots instead of women I'd never have a daughter now, for example. Or several girlfriends or willing sexual partners, not to mention less willing ones.

Also, I'd like to address some of the shit you said before, some of which I painstakingly translated..

-Eivind's ideas on women being the owners of sex don't mean that men can't reject sex. They just mean women forcing it on them should be very lightly punishable. If I don't want chocolate that moment and somebody force feeds me some delicious chocolate am I some great victim? That's nonsense ! And Eivind did say that in cases of harsher violence these women should be charged with assault. But for giving somebody chocolate, which is how men see women's sexuality? Of course not. Another thing you'd know if you weren't a brainwashed house negro.

- No, male fetuses masturbating in wombs aren't a problem. Males usually develop first serious interest at women at around 12-14. Besides, their penises are usually too small to be properly masturbated before around 10-11-12, so they masturbate them the way clitorises are played with before that age (at least that is my experience). So such males don't develop penile sensitivity and can be successfully directed to have sex with rl girls of similar age of slightly younger/older. See how stupid and clueless you are?

Also, remember just one thing, Gally. Sperm doesn't ask. It doesn't ask if you're worthy enough, if you achieved this or that, if you have this or that level of consent or respect. It just impregnates. Think about that. So impregnate somebody. Do your role in the world.

I was attacked for saying I should have killed 12 year-old girls with C4 and burning rubber tires around their necks, but guess what? THIS IS WHAT MODERN WESTERN WOMEN WANT. What they don't want is anybody of IQ above that of a goldfish and any respect. This went down the drain from the first moment they got basic "rights" like suffrage, which are nothing but privileges that enable the destruction of society.

Oh, and another thing. Regarding islamic minded incels, you're completely wrong, as usual. Those in such communities who are most islamic minded, like myself or fschmidt, aren't even incel anymnore. Most actual incels, at least by my definition, are lookist fools who know nothing about history or wqmen's nature, want to have consensual sex (and nothing else) with dirty Western sluts who get raped regularly anyway and don' give a fuck about it, and then they're are angry when this fails.

Various incels #sexist incels.is

RE: [RageFuel] Made an r/amithesoyhole bait post about not wanting my 14 year old daughter to railed. Reddit once again reveals themselves as pedophiles.

(AlexanderTheGreat11)

The comment of that guy saying he was banging his gf everyday after school when he was 13(feelsree)

(Words2_live_bye)

ragefuel. These same people then argue and call you a pedo when you say you wanna smash a 13 - 17 year old. JFL
girls in this age range DO have sex drive and desire for sex.

(Edmund_Kemper)

AITA is a shitty subreddit of retarded faggots. They think it’s ok for for 12 year olds to look at porn and use sex toys but they get mad at a 40 year old man dating a 20 year old foid. That subreddit’s morals are retarded

(Hate_my_life)

To all our reddit friends:
Please cool it with the hate. Incels.co is a forum of peace. Look at this disgusting display of misogyny and toxic masculinity in a pile of pancakes, batman!

image

This does not surprise me at all. The language is so creepy and weird. "I immediately reacted negatively and told my wife to keep our daughter away from these boys when I'm not around." (where the heck are you going?) and "I instructed my wife that our daughter doesn't need to be engaging in sexual activity at all. This dude has never been in a relationship before and it shows. Also lmao just because he didn't get any at 13 he thinks other boys don't? When I was in middle school I knew dudes that were getting head when they were 12.

Nobody has sex at 13 (Soyface emojis). It's normal to be a virgin to your late 20s (Soyface emojis).

(Subhuman Currycel)

The comment of that guy saying he was banging his gf everyday after school when he was 13

I can’t believe him and me are males from the same species fuck my life. Remember a few nanomenters of DNA all it takes.

(Gymcelled)

The comment of that guy saying he was banging his gf everyday after school when he was 13

Our lives are so different to what they could have been, had we been born with the right face/height.

(Mainländer)

Those people think it's ok for your 14 yo daughter to be gangbanged by Chads her age and if you have anything to say against it your a misogynist, but if someone older, even if 17 or something, even peck kisses her, he's a rapist. I wish they were just a handful of retards, but tons of people think this way nowadays. It's mind-boggling.

Just the other day I read someone on IT saying about a 14 yo hypothetically having sex with another 14 yo: "as long as it's consensual, it's ok - oh, and btw, 14 yos can't consent". Do these people even stop for a minute to analyze how they think, or at the very least what they write?

(ScornedStoic)

This is what I don't get. It's okay for a 14 year old to be a slut for other 14 y.o.s but if I want to provide for one and genuinely make her happy in a monogamous marriage (preferably virginal) why am I a monster?

If you want to do stuff that will make society less degenerate and feminist you're a monster, basically.

I just want to be left alone if for some reason in some universe I was able to get a jb to fall in love with me. Is that so much to ask?

(Wizard32)

Teen girls are not prepubescent, so using attraction to them to call people pedophiles is a bunch of anti-male feminist propaganda.

"Hebephile" if you must, toward those who prefer them (noting that inclusion is not preference, of course) but the idea that we should label this as some kind of paraphilia is wrong, because it isn't any more fetishistic than preferring a specific sex/gender or preferring a specific ethnicity/race or preferring beautiful to ugly, having a height preference, a smell preference, a hair color preference, etc.

Preferences (particularly slight ones) don't need medical terms for them when there isn't anything unhealthy about them. Especially since it leads to the demonizing of slight preferences and implying they are dramatic fixations when they usually are not.

Calling teens "children" is misleading. Yes, modern legal classification of "minor" is synonymous with that, but in general practice we use terms like "adolescent" rather than "child" or "kid" to refer to people in-between being an infant and an adult.

This type of language is used to minimize the maturity/intelligence/experience of teens, to ignore their biological readiness, to demonize normal male attraction to healthy fertile females.

If you buy into thinking 14 is too young, you're just mentally cucking yourself (poor biddy) as a coping mechanism to deal with being denied the freshest pussy by our present matriarchy.

(nazianime)

Honestly an older male would be a better companion for a young girl. Theoretically if a male has a high paying job, his own home and transportation and still has time in the day left. It would be ideal, because a man that is a college educated and already has life experience can be a treasure trove of information. This would only work if she was committed to learn and respect. But parents don’t teach that.

But you are a monster according to IT for trying to provide a show of real respect and commitment to a girl.

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.

ScornedStoic #sexist #crackpot incels.is

The agecuckery on this site is getting out of control

14-16 year olds are sexually active, pubescent, and nearly sexually mature. By 17 they're biological adults, barring some brain development that only finishes by 25 anyway despite us barring 16 year olds and 20 year olds from fucking and considering 18 old enough to do porn.

Teenagers are not children. Stop being cucks and go back to Reddit.
Also, the cucks calling ephebephiles and hebephiles pedophiles... Literally kill yourself

(Uglymuggly)
Yea tbh also it’s rare that youngcel ascends

(ScornedStoic)
This is about aoc not youngcels

theantifeminist #sexist theantifeminist.com

I couldn’t give a fuck what middle-aged women want to do – just so long as they know that if feminists continue raping male sexuality, they’re heading for a war in which they’ll ultimately be annihilated. I would feel sorry for older women and what they have to contend with in a free sexual market, but utterly raping men loses them all sympathy from me. I have no regrets about pointing out what disgusting old bags these feminist rapists and the middle-aged women who give them their power are.

Eivind Berge #sexist eivindberge.blogspot.hr

Beware of sex-negative MRAs
A casual observer might get the impression that the Men's Rights Movement is growing, since there clearly are more self-identified MRAs now than ever. But actually, most of this growth sadly consists of a cheerleading chorus for the feminist sex abuse industry rather than any real antifeminism.

There is a deep schism in the MRM between sex-positive and sex-negative MRAs which is well illustrated by how Angry Harry is now treated at A Voice for Men. Angry Harry is a venerable old MRA, a founding father of the movement, and for him to be ostracized like that just for being eminently reasonable is a travesty.

AVfM purports to be an MRA site but is actually a cesspool of feminist filth, where they worship radical feminists like TyphonBlue. She is a particularly nasty promoter of the feminist sex abuse industry including the lie that women are equally culpable for sex offenses. TyphonBlue is so extreme and clueless in her feminist thinking that she even attributes my former rage over celibacy to "processing (badly) some sort of overwhelming sexual trauma from his past." In the feminist worldview, sexual abuse is the only explanation for every perceived problem, and any man who disagrees with feminist abuse definitions must have been abused himself and is in denial.

TyphonBlue, the AVfM crowd and other feminists have a special poster boy for female-on-male "rape" in the former marine James Landrith. I always felt James Landrith was one of the most unsavory characters on the entire Internet, as his advocacy for the expansion of rape law has disgusted me for many years now. Even if he were telling the truth, it is patently absurd to take his sob story of female sexual coercion seriously as rape. The story inspires jealousy in normal men instead of sympathy and Landrith is a hypersensitive outlier to be traumatized by whatever experience he had. Angry Harry says so himself,
Furthermore, even if these particular memories were 100% correct, it seemed very unlikely to me that a 'normal' man would be so traumatised - and remain traumatised even 20 years later - by the incidents described in his article. So, as I said, I groaned inwardly, being somewhat depressed at the thought that false memories and/or 'particularly sensitive' victims were invading one of my comfort zones in cyberspace.
Now it turns out this feminist poster boy is exposed as not only a preposterously sensitive moron but a fraud as well. Angry Harry has caught James Landrith carefully changing his story and relying on recovered memories just like any other feminist accuser of the most untrustworthy kind. Now Landrith even claims, based on memories recovered in therapy, that the woman spiked his drink before "raping" him, making the feminist melodrama complete.

I myself called out the female sex-offender charade several years ago. To me, nothing screams bullshit as loudly as claims of sexual abuse by women. I have emphatically stated that women cannot rape men nor sexually abuse boys. I regard it as crucially important for MRAs to make it perfectly clear that we do not acknowledge female sex offenders even in principle. It was clear to me from the beginning that the female sex-offender charade only serves to promote feminist sex laws that ultimately hurt men immeasurably more than it can help a few rare particularly sensitive outliers who are traumatized by female sexual coercion (if they even exist). It is unreasonable to make laws based on hysterical outliers, and most importantly, the laws they want correspond exactly to the most hateful feminist sex laws which hurt innocent men every day. Therefore, I cannot emphasize enough that anyone supporting the female sex-offender charade is not a true MRA. This is a very good test to separate the wheat from the chaff -- ask how someone feels about female sex offenders, and if they respond that male victims of women are marginalized and female sex offenders need to be prosecuted more vigorously (or at all), then they are most certainly not one of us.

The word for such people is feminist or mangina. And now I've got some bonus advice for manginas: If you want to be sex-negative, then there are ways to go about it without catering to the feminist abuse industry and without advertising how stupid you are. For someone brought up in a feminist milieu this might be difficult to grasp, but guess what -- there are ways to prohibit and punish undesirable sexual activity without defining it as "abuse" of some helpless "victim." Traditional moralists have done so for millennia. One example is Islamic sharia law. Another is traditional Christianity and our laws against adultery, fornication, sodomy and so on in place until recently. Even obscenity can be dealt with on grounds of morality rather than the hateful and ludicrous persecution of "child porn" we have now, where teenagers are criminalized as sex offenders for sharing "abuse" pictures of themselves. A blanket ban on obscenity such as in the old days would be infinitely better and more fair than this charade. I don't agree with the sex-hostility of traditional morality either, but at least it isn't as retarded as the false-flag MRAs who apply feminist sex abuse theory to males. So if you want to be taken seriously, it would serve you better to advocate for traditional moralist values and laws instead of the feminist sex-abuse nonsense.

When a boy gets lucky with an older woman such as a teacher, quit insisting he was "raped" or "abused," because sexual abuse is not what is going on here. Forcing these relationships into a framework of "rape" or "sexual abuse" designed for women only serves to showcase your lack of intelligence and ignorance of human sexuality. It is also not needed in order to proscribe such behavior if you really believe it needs to be a criminal matter. You can punish the woman (or both) for fornication and/or adultery if you insist on being so sex-hostile. No victimology is needed! No denying the boy got lucky and ludicrously attempting to define him as a "victim." No sucking up to the feminists and no display of extreme imbecility on your part.

I can't really argue with moralism, because it basically consists of preferences about what kind of society you'd like to live in or claims about the will of some deity. It is not in the realm of rationality, so beyond simply agreeing or disagreeing, there isn't all that much to say. But when you make claims about abuse and victimhood like the feminists do, those claims can be tested because they bear relation to the real world and human nature, which is what science is about. Thus scientific methods such as is employed by evolutionary psychology can greatly illuminate the nature of rape and sexual abuse, and whether women can be perpetrators, and it can easily be shown that feminist jurisprudence makes thoroughly unscientific claims. Feminist sex law is neither based on evidence, rationality nor morality and should not be taken seriously. It is mere pseudoscience concocted to justify an ulterior motive. If you still insist on it, you are left with pure absurdity, as is easily demonstrated by a simple thought experiment.

Feminist sex abuse is so arbitrarily defined that if you are blindfolded and transported to a random jurisdiction where you meet a nubile young woman, you would have to consult the wise feminists in the local legislature before knowing if you can feel attracted to her without being an abuser (or even a "pedophile" if you are utterly brainwashed). And if you see a romantic couple, you similarly cannot know if the younger one is being "raped" without consulting the feminists you admire so much. That's how much faith manginas place in feminists -- they allow them to rule their most intimate desires and defer to them unquestioningly. Manginas are feminist sycophants and the MRM is now full of them in places like AVfM, The Spearhead, and the Men's Rights subreddit.

What is going on is this. The manginas are so steeped in feminist propaganda that the only tool in their intellectual toolbox is "abuse." And so in Western countries, even conservatives and religious fanatics (barring Islamists) will only ever argue that any type of sexual activity needs to be banned because it constitutes "abuse." Old concepts of sin or crimes against nature/God have been almost entirely supplanted by the feminist sex "abuse" paradigm. In terms of "abuse" is now the sole means available to conceptualize anything you disapprove of regarding sexuality, so everyone, including devoutly religious people, jumps on the bandwagon and promotes the politically correct abuse industry. Even prostitution is now to be legislated exclusively in terms of sexual exploitation or "trafficking" of (mostly) women -- traditional morality does not enter into it and of course all whores are themselves only innocent victims while the johns are the abusers. Feminists and manginas simply cannot help themselves because they know no other morality after a lifetime of being exposed to feminist propaganda. Feminist theory is so pervasive, any alternative is literally unthinkable for liberals and conservatives alike these days. This is how you get the bizarre charade of putting women on trial for "raping" willing and eager 17-year-old boys. Prosecuting female sex offenders is the most comical and perverse legal charade in history, yet false-flag MRAs support it along with the feminists because they have been that well indoctrinated with feminism. Brainwashing really works. Last night I got a comment from a true believer which well illustrates the profoundly obtuse mindset of a male feminist:
if he says no, it is rape. if he is forced, it is rape. if he is under the legal age, it is rape and child molestation. plain and simple. same laws for all...and if women want to enjoy the privileges of modern society, they must be held accountable under the same laws and to the same degree.
Such blind devotion to feminist sex law is the hallmark of a mangina. They neither comprehend that men and women are different, nor do they see anything wrong with these hateful sex laws when applied to men either. Instead they unflinchingly support equal injustice for all. We real MRAs need to denounce these fools. Don't be led on by these impostors who claim to be on men's side while promoting the very worst aspects of feminism. Rest assured that real MRAs are not like that and we do exist. The real MRM will trudge on despite our depressingly small size at the moment.

Anonymous #sexist eivindberge.blogspot.no

Anon, all men are "hebephiles" by default, it is very unlikely that a man is not sexually or emotionally attracted to a pubescent, in fact if a man tells me he has never been attracted to a well-formed 12-years-old I simply do not believe he, it is not a rare specific attraction like children

Anonymous #sexist eivindberge.blogspot.no

A woman who turns 30 is practically in menopause, and at 18, 1/3 or even 1/2 of fertility is gone. For a sane society, this is just not sustainable.
But, even if it were, men are rightly attracted by women at their fertility peack, that means between the start of puberty and 17 years old.
Laws can not change byology, just fill jails with probe men and keeping out assasins and thieves.
What we are undergoing to is the results of successful attempts to institutionalize the oppression of men by feminists lobbies (Soros, US and UK government and the evil feminists who rigged the system.)

Eivind Berge #sexist eivindberge.blogspot.no

We are fighting for normal male sexuality, of which "ephebo-" and "hebe-" are merely subsets that don't need any special attention except to point out that they of course need to be legal, for basic moral reasons. At this stage of the game, before we have the power to change laws, we are mostly concerned with exhibiting contempt against the human scum who support the current laws. We aim to win the hearts of men and turn them against the feminists, which is better done without pathologizing labels.

holocaust21 #sexist eivindberge.blogspot.no


Babies aside, sexual attraction to 11 year olds on the other hand is, I think, quite common. Certainly, if one is to count how many men are attracted to 11 year olds - even if it might not be their ideal age range - I suspect it would be quite high. And we'd still see quite a few attracted to 9 year olds, though a lower number of men. In any case, it's hard to comprehend how any "harm" can come from such relationships and it is notable how common some of this was in the past - consider the prophet Muhammad marrying 9 year old Aish

MIKEDOUT #sexist youtube.com

(This guy is serious)

Plus I don't get why there are so many haters of these guys....practically ALL OF YOUR GRANDFATHERS and GRANDMOTHERS were either fucking when they were 13, or getting fucked when they were 13 often times with/by someone significantly older. Let's face it.....by today's standards/laws if we were to go retroactive our Granddads would all be in prison. Your sweet Grandpapa's tongue was shoved up your Grandma's 13 year old cunt and she loved it. Go care about something that actually matters.....this is just sex....there are much more dangerous/life ruining experiences that exist for a young person..this no matter how much you want to deny it is not the biggest problem they face. PLUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND HERE IS THE KICKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS ALL FAKE. IT'S ENTRAPMENT. THERE IS NO LITTLE GIRL waiting to get fucked by some 40 year old weird looking vet. and if there was the ONLY conclusion that could ever be made is bad parenting. And with that I have won. Now STFU.

(2nd comment)
+Aesthetic Killjøy - of course. Pedo's are people too. . Pedophilia has been around since the beginning of time and if it wasn't for rape known of us would be here. Long live the rapists and Pedo's.?

(3rd comment)
honestly believe pedophiles are good people and no different than someone who has depression, or herpes. And I honestly believe that nobody should never teach their male children to not hit women. It's a disgusting thought that there exists people who would teach little boys to not hit girls. It's also disgusting that if you have depression people want to bow down to you and do whatever they can to help, but if you want to lick a 13 year olds pussy you get labeled as a pedophile and cast out of society and locked up for the rest of your life. Simple facts: 1) Kids should be taught to not hit other people. Period.(instead of being told which gender they can hit and which they can't) 2) People need to learn the difference between a pedophile and an hebephile. Almost everyone's grandpa was an hebephile when they had sex with their grandma. Less than 40 years ago for a 25 year old to be shooting his cum into a 13 year old was common place. 3) AND FINALLY...and this one is my favorite point of all.....there exists no Pedophile, or Hebephile, who wakes up in the morning and says "Oh gee what a beautiful day today....I'm going to go and ruin some little girls life, which in turn is going to ruin my life, and my families and her family and then I'm going to spend the rest of my life in Jail. I can't wait to get this day started!" These people are SICK....they are no different than the 49 year old depressed house wife who is championed by her friends and family who all support her and want her to make it through her difficult time in life. They need help. If anyone really cared about kids being taken advantage of then the would recognize that someone who want's to fuck kids is not healthy in the mind and they would work to reform these individuals. But that isn't the case. So let the kid rape continue until the day the world recognizes the simple fact that a brain tumor victim is no different than a pedophile. They are both wrecked in the mind. I encourage you to listen to Sam Harris's talk about free will, and also pay special attention to the part where he likens a baseballs size brain tumor to micro tumors and ultimately concludes that if we understood the brain on the smallest scale then everything would just seem like a brain tumor and we would treat it as such.?

theantifeminist #sexist theantifeminist.com

"Normal men never, never can admit their loose attraction to teenage girls, you will lose at 100%."
So, this is why teen porn is by far the most searched for adult content? This is why in cultures such as Japan, which until recently had no taboo on teenage sexuality, just about ALL porn featured teenage girls, and it went without any discussion that females aged 13 – 17 were the most attractive? This is why even in the West, popular culture until the recent paedohysteria largely accepted that teens were most attractive (beauty contest winners were 16 (and then 18 when feminists banned under 18s))?

Jon #sexist theantifeminist.com

speaking of paedocrites who come out of the shadows when stories like this come out:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2014/10/08/stephen-collins-wife-tape-molestation-divorce-money/16905815/

It is so sad to see his life ruined over something like this. Yet even IF we decided he deserves prison for these alleged “crimes” (I read in another article they were ages 12-15 so he is biologically normal), most people will ignore the fact that his wife:

http://image.tmdb.org/t/p/w185/jrqwbTemID0U0DisFO7i7iwDkRm.jpg

was extorting him for money.

Alf Jones #sexist quora.com

Actually women need men a trillion times more than men. Men created civilization, society, democracy and alllll the countless amenities and benefits that jaded, crone, old-bitter-hags enjoy. Men only need women for 1 thing. Women need men for everything. Enjoy!

theantifeminist #sexist theantifeminist.com

For most of human history, females would be impregnated as soon as they were able to be. On the male side, the winning reproductive lottery ticket goes to the man who is able to attract and keep a girl who is just starting puberty (and preferably other such girls too). Everybody alive today is the genetic result of our ‘paedophile’ sex predator ancestors.

Isn’t it ironic, that this whole paedohysteria over ‘sex predators’ is about stopping men doing what is most natural to them, and most essential to the survival of the human species – mate bonding with young teens?

theantifeminist #sexist theantifeminist.com

Note the sentence ”with men seeming to prefer women younger than the age of peak fecundity‘. I’ve argued for this for ten years now, putting myself against the Manosphere core assumption that because of the well known ‘scientific fact’ that women peak in fertility around the age of 21, it follows that this is the age most normal men find most attractive in a woman. It has most firmly been enshrined in Manosophere lore by the grandee Rollo Tomassi and his infamous ‘peak sexual market value curve’ graph.

SMV curve Rollo Tomassi

As you can see, he actually claims that a woman reaches her peak sexual market value at the age of 23 (presumably, Tomassi thinks peak female fertility occurs at that age). This always struck me as complete and utter nonsense. A peak fertility of 21 or 23 (if that age is correct, and might not always historically have been so and is likely influenced by age of motherhood itself) means nothing other than it is the age at which women are most likely to give birth at after sex. It might say something important about likely female sexual strategy or preferences, it tells us little or nothing about what age a man would be expected to prefer in a sexual partner. In a society or culture in which some form of mate bonding is the norm, a man who is attracted to 15 year old girls will have a massive advantage over somebody attracted primarily to 23 year old women. Not only is the former choosing a female with far more reproductive years ahead of her, the 15 year old girl is of course far more likely to be a virgin. I’m not a regular reader of Rollo Tomassi, but I can assume he is aware of the importance of the ‘mummy’s baby, daddy’s maybe’ maxim in male evolutionary sexual strategies. Therefore, evolution has produced men to prefer young pubescent girls.

As the quote says, the most optimal mate seeking strategy for men would be to find a female who has only just begun ovulating, or is soon to start ovulating. In other words not yet pregnant, but about to be so (with your sperm if you can capture her heart (or father’s blessing) first). For most of human history, females would be impregnated as soon as they were able to be. On the male side, the winning reproductive lottery ticket goes to the man who is able to attract and keep a girl who is just starting puberty (and preferably other such girls too). Everybody alive today is the genetic result of our ‘paedophile’ sex predator ancestors.

Isn’t it ironic, that this whole paedohysteria over ‘sex predators’ is about stopping men doing what is most natural to them, and most essential to the survival of the human species – mate bonding with young teens?

Article "Socio-sexual hierarchy" #sexist en.kingswiki.com

The socio-sexual hierarchy consists of alphas, betas, gammas, and omegas, among others. According to Jammyjaybird, “Women’s hindbrains are constantly scanning for alpha, tolerating beta, and ignoring omega”.[1]

Classes

Alphas

Alphas are socially dominant men. They are higher in the sexual hierarchy than women.[2]

Women will try to tame an alpha by taking the edge off of some of his Alphaness. This is the plot in pretty much every romance novel ever written, but unlike their fictional counterparts, real life women are rarely successful at pulling it off.[3]

Alpha males don’t usually engage in bullying because their value is high enough that they can afford to be magnanimous to lessers. It’s usually those men just below alpha status — the lesser alphas — who love to bully, because they see it as an opportunity to raise or maintain their “pack” status.[4]

Betas

Betas are providers. They tend to be post-carousel material.

Women need serious levels of social support and self delusion to make a beta palatable. Some women are direct about their lack of love for their man, however that is usually after the valuation period. Facebook, Instagram and other forms of social media seriously aid women as she can publicly claim her beta is different and is a real man because he cuddles with her and confesses his deepest fears to the her. What he doesn’t know is he is setting up a codependent/compensatory narcissist relationship with the woman. As such, the storm clouds gather.

There are greater and lesser betas. A greater beta is nice to women because he genuinely wants to be nice. A lesser beta is nice to women out of insecurity. He thinks that by being nice and supplicating, he can get success. He reeks of “loser”, and women hate him with a passion.

Gammas

Gammas are pussybitches who tolerate mistreatment that even betas wouldn't put up with, such as being openly cucked.[5]

Omegas

Omegas are men who can't get laid. Omegas are repulsive not just sexually but are a reflection of dark days for women. Most modern women has thrown herself at some retreating alpha, offering up her body as a salve to a failing relationship. Deep down, they know they spend way too many resources — emotional, financial and temporal — trying to keep said man around.

This is applicable to omegas because the rank desperation reminds them how unattainable alphas often are for them — omegas sometimes are a reflection of a woman’s position vis-a-vis alphas. Further, they remind women of the lengths they would go for alpha approval by the lengths omegas will go to secure female approval.

zay b #sexist youtube.com

I’ve learned that it is not a good Return on investment if she’s over 25. Ignoring the obvious point of looks. I’ll start with mindset. Why are you still unmarried past 25? Have you been sleeping around and messing with bad boys? Do you not value marriage and motherhood until after you’ve had your fun? That’s not what I want me wife to be of.
2. Women put in a mask after 26 when they don’t have kids/husband. They will pretend to be the best GF ever then once you marry or she gets pregnant the true side comes out because she’s comfortable and thinks you can’t go any where, I’ve see. This happen to every man I know personally who married a woman between 26-33.
3. Physicality, let’s say you gain 30lbs during pregnancy. That weight will melt off a 21 year old, 30 years old good luck. Your stuck with that from then on and it gets worse over time especially if she feels you are locked down.

It’s just not a good investment, you wouldn’t buy a used car for new car price

0nsen #sexist fluentlyforward.com

It's simple math, do you want to get a wife with more or less years of beauty ahead of herself? Twenty-five is just the modern cut-off where it no longer makes sense to invest into marriage, because the pay-out isn't enough. In Muslim countries where women do not get a say, girls get married off at like 6 years old in some cases to maximize the pay-off.

Western countries also used to be similar to that. One of the most famous love stories in our culture is Romeo and Juliet, where they run off and get married without their parents consent by a random priest. Juliet is aged 14 at that point, while Romeo is a young man.

So pretending that twenty isn't old enough to marry, when in fact 20+ is already really, really late for girls isn't doing anyone a favor. It's bad investment advice. Women interested in marriage need to be aware that there's a time limit and setting it at 25 is already very generous.

Julián Yo #sexist youtube.com

We value youth and beauty. That means that you have fertile eggs. We are not interested in your mind or your money. That's irrelevant. And if you have a high sausage count, that lowers your value a lot.

You are high value between the ages from 18 to 25. From 25 on, you start losing value because your looks start to fade and your eggs start to dry. Sheng nu. We don't want 30 year old broads. Especially if they have children and a high body count. There's no such thing as a 30-40 year old high value woman.

makeshift alpha male #sexist makeshiftalpha.com

Sexual Market Value (SMV) is defined as the value a person has within the sexual marketplace. It has an effect much like any market place the higher your value the higher value partner you can demand.

So you have this case where women start off with a very high initial value, youth bumps their SMV to the highest it will ever be (minus major plastic surgery) then it stay generally high until they hit their 30’s where they have this cliff like drop off.

Men’s SMV is much more connected to thing like confidence, power, earning ability so on. So they start getting higher value as they get into their late 20’s.