Today, a trip down memory lane to revisit an until-recently lost classic of modern misogyny: Jay Hammers’ “The Age of Consent is Misandry.” The piece, originally published on Jay Hammers’Men’s Rights blog, inspired some heated discussions amongst MRAs online, with some harshly criticizing the piece as an apologia for pedophilia and others hailing it as a “politically incorrect” masterpiece. Stung by the criticism, Hammers ultimately took his blog down. But the piece has since been resurrected on the Human-Stupidity blog – another blog that seems rather unhealthily obsessed with the supposed injustice of men not being allowed to fuck underage girls.
Here are some of its highlights (that is, lowlights); the headlines are mine.
ALL ABOUT THE MENZ
The arbitrary age of consent is not about protecting women/girls. It is about valuing females and their virtue over males and their freedom. The intent of the laws is to stop older men from having sex with younger women and that is how it is enforced. It was never intended to stop younger men from having sex with older women.
MORE BETA BLUES
Age of consent laws are designed to punish beta males. A beta male in his 20s, unsuccessful with women his own age who are infused with a sense of feminist entitlement and deride all but the top alpha males who take interest in them, who seeks companionship with a younger, sexually mature female who desires him, should not go to prison for acting on that which is normal male sexuality.
FEMINISTS WHO SUPPORT AGE OF CONSENT LAWS ARE TREATING WOMEN LIKE CHILDREN
If we are to treat women as children then we should be consistent. Young women who have sex with older men are as much victims as women who have sex with a pick-up artist after meeting at a club. In both cases, feminists are angry because the woman has been “fooled” into having sex with a less than ideal mate in terms of value. …
This is what makes feminists angry and this is why age of consent exists still today, because it is assumed women are not mentally mature enough to give consent AND because older women want to limit men’s options to increase their own value in the sexual marketplace.
BUT WOMEN ARE CHILDREN, BASICALLY
Older women … are generally not of a much higher intelligence level than teenage girls. The big difference between the two is that older women are less attractive and that is what makes them so damn angry. …
Females generally do not significantly mature mentally past puberty so it should always be illegal for any woman to have sex or it should never be illegal for any woman to have sex. There is no arbitrary age where females suddenly become self-aware, realizing the consequences of their actions, and stop seeking out alpha males. Thus there must not be an arbitrary age of consent for sex.
A MODEST PROPOSAL
If anything, it should be illegal for women to have sex with men until men have been educated on the truths of women, Marriage 2.0, Game, feminism, and men’s rights.
Discuss?
Nobinayamu | June 18, 2011 at 11:24 pm
My sister always reminds me that children have no advocates. They don’t pay taxes and they can’t vote. We rely almost entirely on their parents to represent their interests and cross our fingers.
Yus, that’s something I talked about in the other thread.. that there is also adult/child power dynamics re: privilege/oppression. Now it’s not exactly the same b/c there ARE reasons for it in terms of physical, emotional and mental development, maturity, experiences, etc… but it is also a dynamic that a lot of the “where’s my white male priv” guys miss, which is that as a child, you are also part of an oppression dynamic, or CAN be, if an adult chooses to abuse you, assault you, etc : And that that’s why the idea of “women were so well off back when they had no rights and taken care of by men” or “women dun need rights they can cry and some guy can help them” is so silly cuz it’s like saying that children have privilege. Why? Cuz they are (excluding when it intersects with class) taken care of, fed, clothed, they dun have to work, pay taxes, if they cry ppl will do things for them (or tell them they’re spoiled brats and shut up) b/c children are seen as weak and helpless and we feel bad for them (or tell them they’re spoiled brats and shut up)…. I mean look at all that child privilege! They don’t even have to change tires! xD And I dun think nebody will say children have privilege over adults (at least nobody who actually cares about children, rather than “BOY DO I WISH I DIDN’T HAVE TO WORK”) cuz they can’t decide their own bodies, their own lives, they’re seen legally as being too immature to decide things, their “protection” is dependant on adults doing their jobs, or not being abusive, or irresponsible (incl child services) and etc… their voices are heard less, they can’t vote,.. etc :
@Molly Ren you mean for the test? o_O
Re the tests: I have one thing to say: Literacy exams for voting.
Because that’s what would happen. Imagine a DKM getting into the test-making process. Women would never get to be complete adults.
Imagine someone like D. Duke getting into it, and citing, “The Bell Curve” to make the tests.
When you put it that way, voting and changing tires sounds like an awful limited way to define someone as worthy of rights and stuff (when “rights” = “decent treatment”).
Those are exactly my concerns Pecunium :
NWO: I think the problem is you all like to be coddled. If you read the stories from long ago of our founding fathers and such. The admirals of the time were usually cabin boys at age 9 and 10 and learned to read and about life.
NWO is wrong again. The officers in former days were midshipman. A warrant rank. They were a sort of officer. Cabin boys were servants, working directly for the captain. They also didn’t exist on naval vessels, they were only found in merchant vessels.
Midshipmen were, by and large, children from well to do families, who had connections with the Navy. They learned some specific mathematics (related to sailing) They already knew how to read. They also rarely went to see before they were 11-12. They would be “put on the books” at 6-8, so they would have the required seniority to “Pass for lieutenant” [the lowest commissioned rank] at about 18.
None of which has anything to with anyone here, “wanting to be coddled”. Moreover, your asssertion that we run(or ran) to the state for anything is based on what personal knowledge? What are these “marching orders”, and whence come they? Mail? Semaphore? Secret messages in the commercials on the radio?
Or maybe the maturity test could be the kobiyashi maru xD (not mocking, I just thought of this idea and it makes me laugh XD ) It’s a no win scenario! Like real life! We’ll judge you based on how you handle it. XD
Or that box that burns your hand like in Dune!
@Molly Ren, the changing tires thing and not being able to cry and get some strong man to do it was actually something somebody else used as an example of male oppression/female privilege in another thread and I originally had it in my above comment, took it out, and forgot to take out the other reference too xD so I hope it makes more sense now
@Molly Ren or that Minbari pillar of fire trial to determine leadership in Babylon 5! 😀 Two minors go in, the one who stays the longest wants to be an adult most! XD -_-;;
Now we’re going old school on age of consent. You’re not an adult until you live in the wilderness for a week alone. Or see a vision. Or kill a mammoth!!!
Ami: That’s (tires and food) NWO being wrong again.
With just a rock in your hands and a few female humans shaking branches at you!
In seriousness, I think I’m completely convinced by now that a “maturity test” is a terrible idea.
@Holly:
Yeah, I’m starting to understand the Bright Line principle Pecunium was talking about. Its just too complicated to go through administrating of taking every case on a case by case basis. A simple standard with room for exceptional cases seems like the most likely way this would play out. I still like the idea of steps though, and of dividing “can decide on certain things” from “should be treated as an autonomous adult.”
Wait… Holly… NO! Men said was bad… that means you have to disagree… otherwise it might look like you don’t believe Woman = Good, Man = Bad.
You just have to explain how letting women run the test will solve everything.
Yeah, I agree with Holly. Thank you, Pecunium, for pointing out the absolute worst case scenario!
PS Ami, actually talking about stuff was a good idea. We should do this again! 😀
@Pecunium I think the tires was TitforTat again xD
Hey! A woman said it was bad too! >:O And woman > man… so I cancel you out AND am correct! >:3
Gah… they are ALL running into one.
Curse you page roll..
“@Holly:
Yeah, I’m starting to understand the Bright Line principle Pecunium was talking about. Its just too complicated to go through administrating of taking every case on a case by case basis. A simple standard with room for exceptional cases seems like the most likely way this would play out. I still like the idea of steps though, and of dividing “can decide on certain things” from “should be treated as an autonomous adult.””
On the topic of fluoridation, I’m wondering if deliberate fluoridation is such a good thing in terms of aquatic life? I mean if it’s good for our teeth (it’s also not known for having any especially adverse effects on people), that’s all well and good, but we aren’t the only species here, and nor do we live in the water. *shrug* Just something to think about.
I recently heard an argument against birth control under the same sort of rationale. The hormones get into the water and are flushed out into the outside world, and causes ecological damage.
… and then all the frogs start growing breasts!
Oh yeah, for ppl who missed it, Toronto MB meet up went great! And a pic of the 3 of us (others were busy :’ ) is http://manboobz.com/2011/06/17/today-boston-tomorrow-toronto/ there :3 (also MRAL is back too xD and asking us what our heights are after looking at the photo xD )