>
The quote of the day today is a long and rambling one, so buckle up. It’s from a comment on The Spearhead, by a fellow named Snark, which was enthusiastically highlighted by the Schopenhauer-loving, Age-of-Consent-Law-hating theantifeminist on his creepy blog. The theme of the post? Whatever nasty, violent, bad shit men do is all the fault of hot young women, who control men through the power of their evil sexiness.
Before settling into his argument proper, Snark gets one little point out of the way: he’s not talking about feminists, who are, he says, generally too old, or, if young, too “neurotic and/or ugly” to control men with the promise of sexy sex. No, Snark is talking about hot young women, who control men without having to resort to feminism. Oh, feminism is evil. But pretty girls are evil squared. So let’s begin:
There is a whole different game of misandry being played here. They already hold the power – sexual power – and so have no need to engage in things like feminism. They already have everything feminism could offer them, that is, control over men.
Gynocentrism Theory teaches us that even when those individuals in powerful roles are mostly men, they are doing the bidding of women, not of men en masse; thus the lie is given to Patriarchy Theory, which suggests ridiculously that the few men in power stick up for all the ‘little guys’ out there, against the interests of women.
Gynocentrism Theory then tells us what women – either the non-feminists who sexually control men, or successful feminists – actually do with this power over men. They get men to fight each other. …
Men aren’t naturally violent or aggressive; they simply have the potential to be these things. It is the fact that women reward with sex those who prove themselves to be the most violent and aggressive which makes men act violently and aggressively.
Hmm. So by this logic, then, we can assume that Hitler was just a hapless schmo driven to genocidal fury by thoughts of Eva Braun all tarted-up in a sexy dirndl. Heck, he probably would have spent his whole life painting pictures of butterflies had it not been for all those foxy frauleins. And just imagine how much worse World War II would have been if he’d actually had two balls, instead of just the one! Let’s continue:
The price of a woman’s titillation is an innocent man getting his head smashed in as he walks home. This, just so that the perpetrator can be sexually selected. Woman’s role in the crime is concealed; she didn’t perform the act, after all; she only manipulated the man’s natural stimulus and response system to get him to perform a violent display for her sexual benefit.
Poor men are stuck between their rock-hard dicks and a hard place:
The outcome of all this is that men today are being ground between two millstones: on the one hand, non-feminist women demand that men must act aggressively and violently if they are to be sexually selected; on the other, their feminist sisters demand increasingly brutal punishments for men who act precisely in this way.
Oh, and the way those ladies dress!
[T]oday we are subject to the new phenomena [of] ambient porn, that is, the promise of sexual rewards from desirable young women at every turn. Women who decry pornography do so while dolled up to look like porn stars themselves, and don’t you dare criticise them for it. There is no escaping the pink wurlitzer: male sexuality is provoked everywhere you look, whether in images from your TV screen, or in magazines, adverts at bus stops, billboards, and more pervasively and perversely than all of this, in the flesh, walking around absolutely everywhere from your home to the local store to the place you work. …
The pink wurlitzer? Do you mean … this? Never mind. Onward:
Our sexuality is being forever provoked, taunted, prodded at. All to ensure that we react in that ‘real manly’ way that the young non-feminist women demand, so that we can promptly be caught and brutalised by white knights employed by institutions controlled and run by or for the benefit of feminist women.
 |
| How Women Rule the Universe |
And what set all this in motion? The bikini? The Wonderbra? Nope:
[T]his was all quite possibly set in stone from the moment women were granted the vote.
The vote! That sexy, sexy right to vote.
Not that this argument, such as it is, deserves a rebuttal, but if men are naturally nonviolent, and women are the cause of their violence, why do gay men get into fights?
>Goddamn!Hilarious post! I loved it!However, I'm still trying to brush the image of Hitlers one testi out of my head. That was some bad TMI!
>Where is your proof that the antifeminist hates age of consent laws?
>"So by this logic, then, we can assume that Hitler was just a hapless schmo driven to genocidal fury by thoughts of Eva Braun all tarted-up in a sexy dirndl. Heck, he probably would have spent his whole life painting pictures of butterflies had it not been for all those foxy frauleins."You may not be as far off the mark as you think you are.
>"Where is your proof that the antifeminist hates age of consent laws?"Well you see, David demands for substance when claims don't suit a feminist agenda. But when he makes claims, well…political correctness will save him remaining silent.
>I would like David to point out one…yep JUST ONE…female problem that feminists admit is a problem created by women and not men.Let's hear it
>"There is a whole different game of misandry being played here. They already hold the power – sexual power – and so have no need to engage in things like feminism. They already have everything feminism could offer them, that is, control over men."Yes! Power over men is a PRIVILEDGE of the young and the beautiful NOT a right of the masses of mass that pass for women.
>Uh, theantifeminist complains about the age of consent all the time, links to Jay Hammers' disgraceful "Age of Consent is Misandry essay, and left this comment on his blog:In my opinion (and I've stated this before), men should only be criminilized for having sex with teenage girls if either they recklessly impregnate the girl or use pressure.http://jayhammers.blogspot.com/2010/04/age-of-consent-is-misandry.html?showComment=1270593052098#c7886523802779898597And there's this:The age of consent has always been central to feminism. In fact, it has been its primary driving force right from the beginning. The purpose of this website is not to campaign for a reduction in the age of consent from the present feminist age of 16. For one thing, there is little or no chance of that happening in this author’s lifetime. However, I have no shame whatsoever in stating my clear belief that the age of consent ought to be what it still technically is in the majority of major civilised nations – namely, 14. And I will never be morally shamed for this by creatures who compare killing defenceless children to shopping for couches at Ikea. Nor by the disgusting manginas who support such views as ‘progressive’ and ‘tolerant’ in order to get laid with those creatures.http://theantifeminist.com/ernest-belfort-bax-feminism-age-of-consent/And he's constantly going on about how hot underage girls are, for example here:http://theantifeminist.com/age-peak-female-sexual-attractiveness/
>So advocating that the age of consent ought to be changed to 14, which worked just fine in my country until they raised it in 1989, constitutes hatred of age of consent laws? Do you also think that advocates of tort reform hate tort law per se?
>Nick, I don't blame any problems on "men" or "women" as a class, so your question is really rather silly. Pretty much everything in the world worth praising or criticizing involves both men and women. I don't think women are inherently blameless victims who never do anything bad, and nothing on this blog would even remotely suggest that. Nor have I ever suggested that men are inherently evil or anything like that. Men and women are both capable of great things, and capable of very evil and/or stupid things.But if you really need a specific example, how about: Twilight. Women are largely responsible for the popularity of Twilight. Not all women, just some women, but, yes, it's mostly women.
>Well, by suggesting that people should be allowed to have sex with "teens" he's basically suggesting lowering the age of consent to 13. That's pretty much gutting Age of Consent laws. That's sort of like changing the laws to keep murder illegal but make manslaughter legal. It's not really comparable to tort reform.
>"I don't think women are inherently blameless victims who never do anything bad, and nothing on this blog would even remotely suggest that."
>You really are dishonest, aren't you? You ought to know perfectly well that the word "teen" can, in numerous contexts, mean age ranges other than 13-19. As I recall lots of porn magazines have "teen" in their title but specifically mean that the women are aged 18-19. The antifeminist seems to have made it quite clear that he means ages 14-19, but then again that could be ironic, couldn't it?Even if he did believe in lowering the age of consent to 13, that wouldn't be "gutting" the laws as it still leaves a protected age range spanning over a decade and protects young children from pedophiles like Mary Kay Letourneau.
>Well, he also posted this:There is no evidence or even rational reason to believe that teenagers are 'naturally' harmed by having non-coercive sex, whatever the age of the partner. Most females, throughout human history, were having babies right from puberty, never mind sex.http://www.economist.com/comment/353722#comment-353722I don't know exactly what he's advocating there, but girls can hit puberty pretty damn young. But, hey, maybe I am reading him too literally. Maybe he doesn't really mean 13 year olds. But he has said he's fine with adults having sex with 14 year olds. Maybe you think that's fine too — your comment above would seem to suggest as much — but I certainly don't.
>evil: Pointing out that some women are in fact victimized is not the same as saying that women are inherently blameless victims. Same with men. This really shouldn't be too complicated to you to understand.
>I love in a country in which it was legal for adults to have sex with 14 year-olds until quite recently. Despite being legal it didn't happen very often and we did just fine as a society with that age of consent.
>@coldfire.There are a couple of essays – which claim that the age of consent laws are "misandry".However – those essays (written by MRA's) – came under criticism by other MRA's.Yet another item to divide the MRM.I think that the original intention of the age of consent laws was to protect children from perverts.However – I think such laws have been hijacked by radical feminists – or perhaps people who are just plain stupid.That is why you have 19 year old men having to register as sex offenders for having sex with their 17 year old girlfriends.
>19 year olds having sex with 17 year olds is a very different thing than 40 year olds having sex with 14 year olds. I don't think the first should be illegal, but the second definitely should. That said, this country's sex hysteria isn't being driven by radical feminists today; there are barely any of those around.
>Coldfires angry that Kansas raised their age of consent law from 12 in 2005. This was exposed when a 22 year old man had sex and impregnated a 14 year old girl.
>…and coldfire age of consent is usually around 16. 18 is considered an adult so dont distort.
>@David Futrelle."19 year olds having sex with 17 year olds is a very different thing than 40 year olds having sex with 14 year olds. I don't think the first should be illegal, but the second definitely should."Fair enough – but – why?What if a 40 year old meets a 14 year old that SHE is madly in love with – and wants to bear him children – and the 14 year old feels the same?How about the vice-versa 40 yr old man with 14 year old girl?Did you know that in colonial times, some women got married at 13?I neither accept or reject these things – I just want to hear other people's reasoning for accepting or rejecting such ideas…
>The fourteen year old is too young to decide what she wants. She is too young to drive, too young to drink, and too young to decide if she wants to have sex. I think it is wrong to criminalize children having sex with other children, because if a child is too young to consent he should not be able to commit statutory rape. But because a child is too young to consent to sex, an adult should not be allowed to have sex with a child. If a child is in love, he or she will have to wait, just as she or he will have to wait to drive, vote, and consume alcohol.
>It's up to each country to decide at what ages a person is old enough to consent to sex, drive, drink alcohol, and vote. It's NOT up to you.
>"…and coldfire age of consent is usually around 16. 18 is considered an adult so dont distort."Mentioning actual laws in an actual country isn't distorting anything, you fucktard.
>Coldfire, the US has decided that you can't drive until 16, vote and consent until you're 18, and drink alcohol until you're 21. Your country may have chosen differently (on all these issues, I'm not sure where you live); assuming the anonymous above lives in the US as well, even if it's "not up to him/her" it seems that particular country has chosen the sorts of ages s/he'd want anyways.
>"evil: Pointing out that some women are in fact victimized is not the same as saying that women are inherently blameless victims."Those Bangkok girls are not victims. If they are then so are coal miners. Why don't you do a post about them? "I don't think women are inherently blameless victims-"Yes you do. Get over your hero complex. Their are no maidens in distress (their never were) only distressing maidens who CONSTANTLY put themselves before everyone else and their whiteknight/mangina lap dogs who will do and say ANYTHING to please them.