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?
Ami, that totally makes sense in a way I hadn’t thought about — from the newness and Chaz wanting to be true to himself, to the media’s need to grasp onto anything controversial, to the public’s need to put his comments into little boxes. You totes have a way of unpacking stuff.
A blog I am a regular commenter on just had an entry on sex-offender registries. Our comprehensibly insane sex-offender laws. It’s a blog run by, and with commenters who also happen to be (by and large) feminist in outlook, and liberal, to moderately conservative, and progressive, in their politics.
It’s an interesting read (though I caution the folks who think they get treated badly here. from taking the stuff they peddle here there; the commenters at Making Light are less gentle than I am in calling shenanigans).
I think with alcohol there is actually damage one can do to oneself if you have it REALLY young. It does, afterall, kill braincells. The younger the body the worse the damage, from most things.
But, yeah, the cutoff for that is certainly lots below 21. I think 21 was chosen mostly because it means nobody in high school is old enough to buy booze. The fact that people in college are means effectively that 18 year olds can drink most places. If the age was actually made 18, 15 year olds in high school would drink.
@Molly Ren – they actually do staggered drinking ages in Germany and it seemed to work pretty well when I lived over there. IIRC, at 16 people could buy wine or beer and at 18 they could buy hard liquor. They could also drink wine or beer in public at any age if they were being supervised with their parents. It definitely took some of the mysticism out of drinking and it let people get adjusted to it and slowly realize their limits. Not a whole lot of 21st birthday power hour-style drinking there, except among American teens who’d just moved over there. Plus they push back the driving age to 18 (with a required 6-week extensive driving course), so drunk driving is limited, too. It seems like a more responsible system to me. That and the Washington state-style consent laws seem to acknowledge that people grow slowly over time and that it’s better to ease people into new privileges and responsibilities instead of just dumping everything on them at 16 or 18 or 21 (depending on what we’re talking about).
There is no grey area. Adults who have sex with children are wrong.
@Ami, I think of age of consent rules and things like transition or pregnancy to be rather distinct. Because, the former involves no immediate crisis for the teen at issue. While it might be annoying to not be able to have sex with adults, they can have sex with teens their own age and the odds of lasting harm from being made to wait a few extra years to have sex with adults is extremely unlikely to do long term or permanent. However, when you have a dysphoria situation or a pregnancy, the issue can’t just be delayed for a few years without extreme damage. Pregnancy decisions (one of which is the abortion decision) have to be made in those day to day moments. There really is no option of having the teen wait a few years, it has to be dealt with at the moment. While it isn’t the most wonderful thing in the world that a thirteen year old, for example, is making those decisions, there really is not a better option. Immediate, permanently life altering decisions have to be made in that moment of crisis, and there really isn’t a better workable alternative than letting the kid make those decisions. I think transition hits a similar issue. Body changes (for those with body dysmorphia) present an imminent crisis, with decisions that need to be made, as do social presentations. While it isn’t ideal that kids have to make those big decisions at such a young age, again, its the best option out there. It makes me think of that Churchill quote “Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. ”
There is a notion of competancy tests for minors in major medical decision disputes. But, when competancy to make major medical or legal decisions is at question, it is more than a lay person glance, it usually involves either a hearing or multiple psychologist signing off. Legal Emancipation proceedings also generally involve a hearing. Which makes the age of consent thing even more tricky, because the goal of the law is not so much to keep the underaged partner in line, but rather to govern the behavior of the adult. We want adults to take the cautious approach, especially as many people are not great at determining the competancy of minors (particularly when they have a loaded interest towards one direction). More cautious “bright line” rules are by far easier for the adults in practice to use to govern their behavior in a way that is legal and does not end up taking advantage of a minor who is not competant to make those decisions.
I lived 300 miles from home, with no adult supervision, when I was 17, so I do have sympathy for the fact that teens can and do make a lot of decisions about themselves. But I think that the best policy is a slightly flexible for close ages bright line rule for age of consent.
Random sidenote: Happy Juneteenth US folks!
Kave – I think the “grey area” is what is defined as “children”. Does childhood end at 16? 18? 21? Personally I like the “age/2 +7” rule but I don’t think it makes sense to legislate that.
I still maintain that the Standard Creepiness Range should be the baseline for age of consent (for underage people, obviously – for anyone of age, whatever, it’s their business). Thus, a 20-year-old can date a 17-year-old but not a 15-year old, an 18-year-old can date a 16-year-old but not anyone younger, and those of us over the age of 20 can just stick to dating people who are of age.
Because, as a latecomer to this thread, I have to agree with everyone who says that no, really, a 16-year-old is not emotionally mature. If I had dated someone over the age of, say, 20 at that age (and how does a 20- or 30-something even meet a 16-year-old? Gross) it would have been really, really creepy and awful and bad for me in so many ways. Teenage relationships and adult relationships are so, so different. When adults try to date teenagers, they have an unfair advantage, and it can turn manipulative really, really fast.
Note how I don’t mention gender here? It doesn’t matter. A 30-year-old woman dating a 16-year-old boy is just as bad as if the genders were reversed.
(Sorry if all of this has been said before. I am too tired to read through 500+ comments.)
Haha, Plymouth, you brought up the SCR before I could. I agree there are problems inherent in legislating it, but for underage people, I think it functions as a better baseline than a universal age of consent. Sort of a similar principle to that whole “age of consent = 18 except where both people are within 2 years of each other” business.
Though, uh, I just did the math in the other direction and that means I could in theory date someone who is 56?? Ugh, just… ugh. I changed my mind. It’s an awful standard.
It pretty much doesn’t work past a certain age. I told my mum about it, and she was horrified at the idea that she could apparently (non-creepily) date someone who is 100.
My maximum is 32, which means I cannot date Patrick Stewart 🙁 🙁 🙁
@Darksidecat I agree.. it’s actually something I was thinking of (about not being able to wait) but didn’t want to write it out, b/c some ppl don’t consider transitioning an urgent issue, or one that a person can decide at a young age, or even know… and I dun feel like debating that tonite >_<;;; But I dun think that makes it separate from the body autonomy issue or being mature enuf to make choices… b/c it has a lot to do with trusting ppl to know what they want and how they feel (I'm also not saying btw that there should be one strict age for everything, so therefore if a trans person can consent at age 14, then sex is 14 too) and I don't like things like this being an exception based on the argument of immediacy b/c a lot of ppl don't believe that, and don't trust a child to know, or be mature enuf to consent to the future consequences : And what if they're not trans "enuf"? Or they want to do things to their bodies that don't fit typical trans narratives? Or that there is no desperation for them? : This is why I go back to body autonomy for this stuff (this stuff being specifically right now trans stuff) b/c so much of it is tied to that (i'm not saying immediacy does not matter either, but it's not a bright line for society and the medical community and the narratives, and those narratives can also change and then the exception for trans ppl will change 🙂
@Darksidecat I’m rly tired and frustrated and grumpy atm Darksidecat… so I didn’t mean to sound like I’m arguing w/ you… I agree w/ you… but I’m also making sure the body autonomy part and “trusting somebody to know what they want” part doesn’t go missing cuz that’s also something rly important to me (as I said before, and I think there’s so many complications and other situations that we’re not gonna solve this in one night obv xD ) b/c I dun want it to just be dismissed as “oh well those things are just cuz we know they’re important and immediate, so…” cuz I dun think it’s unrelated to trust ppl to know what they want. :] I am trying to make sure that I dun make exceptions just for the stuff I LIKE or support. (also why I kept out the immediacy part, besides that I dun want to fight about it -_-)
sry : I’m worried I’m coming off as combative or nething… I rly dun want to : I agree w/ you.
@Darksidecat not grumpy or frustrated at you : I’m having a seriously bad ED episode right now : and I dunno what to do… I’m kinda a crying mess and I’m worried I’m coming off as a jerk in my responses 🙁 or rly defensive or something : can’t handle this atm..
@Ami – Agreed. I think we tend to ignore the fact that while there MIGHT, at some point somewhere, be negative consequences to letting young people make really important decisions about their bodies (e.g. transitioning – and again, I have a hard time imagining anyone choosing to transition without really, really thinking it through, but I won’t say it has never happened or will never happen) those are NOWHERE near as severe as the consequences of granting youth no bodily integrity at all, or of severely limiting it. Sure, maybe at some point, some young person has been granted the freedom to make a decision, and they have regretted that decision. But how many young people have suffered from a lack of bodily autonomy? (Most, I would guess, albeit to varying degrees.) How many have had their lives vastly improved by the ability to decide what happens to their own bodies?
Basically, fuck anyone who thinks that kids “belong” to their parents.
Also, Ami, I’m sorry you’re going through that, and I hope you feel better soon. *hugs*
(It was also really great to meet you today. You are awesome.)
*hugs back to Brett* ty so much :] I rly needed that… even an e-hug :] and aww TY! You are awesome too! I rly enjoyed meeting you :3
Looks like I missed the thread.
I don’t have anything to add to the discussion of the actual topic, but I would like to make the following observation concerning Subbie:
It’s always safe to assume he’s ignorant; it’s always safe to assume he’s stupid; and it’s always safe to assume he’s lying. The hard part is deciding which one (or ones) he’s being at a given moment.
@ami, you aren’t coming off defensive or like a jerk. I think you are making a great point, too. It can be really difficult to draw that line between “things you want but can stand to wait a few years” and “things you want and the issue has to be dealt with right away”. And there is variation for individual situations built in there as well. For example, I have a cousin who plays baseball as a pitcher. For him, that is something central to his life and something that would be devastating for him to loose. He also has dyslexia and does not get the accomodations he really needs from his school. So, when his mother was considering not allowing him to play sports because his grades were low, I was really against that idea (I am really glad I was so passionate about that, he’s now going to go to college on full scholarship for baseball). But a similar punishment for my brother, who was perfectly capable of higher grades but rather lazy and for whom sports were just a passing hobby, would have been okay. So it is a sort of balancing test, the desire and the risks associated with having it met vs the risks and rewards of having it not met (certain things, like transition, almost always go one way). The wants and feelings of the teenager (or of younger kids as well) should always be a part of that equation. We do too often dismiss the feelings and wants of teens and kids out of hand, and we shouldn’t. Even if it is a situation where they do not end up getting their way, it is absolutely crucial to remember that their feelings about it are still important.
@Brett, that does call for the question of what counts as a severe limitation. Is not letting them get a tattoo sever? Is not letting them get a motorcycle? Not letting them drop out of middle school? Not letting them choose their hairstyle? Not letting them eat a whole cake and then puke because they just ate a whole cake? No limitations at all is probably not the best, total limitations is even worse, but trying to find a workable balance is the tricky part. While it is definitely true that kids do not belong to their parents, it is also true that caretakers of children have some duty to look after the safe and healthy development of the kids.
DF – Disagreeing with you about the CTS is not misandry. Ozymandias is hardly a misandrist, and has just started a site devoted to … advocating for men’s rights. (Not Men’s Rights as the MRM construes it, but men’s rights nonetheless.)
ME – the feminist position, telling lies about CTS is inherently misadric and the willful creation of an abuse culture. Ozymandias site is dedicated to feminism. Her position is the oppression of male victims and protecting female abusers and apartheid in services as evidenced by her repetition of feminist CTS lies. She is unconscious of her misandry.
DF -Jezebel ran one admittedly awful piece four years ago in which the writers talked about attacking men. I think this article was a terrible one. The site has run probably tens of thousands of pieces, so finding one piece that is again, admittedly, very bad is not the same as showing that the site is riddled with misandry.
DF – Stop telling lies David, that is not an isolated incident. You apologize for misandry and scour for misogyny and hold the two to different standards, because you are a sexist and your job depends on it.
DF – Jessica Valenti wrote one sentence in one piece (that was not on feministing) that might be construed to mean what you think it means.
ME – Rubbish, the site is riddled with misandry and you apologize for it, no leader of the mens movement has called called for Stalinist conditions for women, the majority of feminists support VAWA, which is discriminatory in its application and has significantly eroded the presumption of innocence for men already and the drive to remove the legal protections against false accusation of rape is widely supported in feminism, that’s extreme misandry present in most feminists and all your links, regardless of whether they realize it or chose not to realize it.
DF – Against this I offer, well, the entirely of this site. I could find ten times as many examples of misogyny in a single Spearhead thread.
ME – Rubbish, you will defend and ignore misandry, while scouring for misogyny becuse your profession depends on it, You go out of your way to tell lies about domestic abuse and marginilise and ridicule abuse victims. you are as bad as the worst misogynist on the spearhead, its just that someone told you that your bigotry is correct. You and your followers jump up and down with glee every time you find a marginalized abuse victim that is losing it and venting so you can say “look, this is why we should marginalize the advocates for marginalize abuse victims”. You don’t recognize oppressing and mocking male abuse victims and discriminatory services as misandry, that’s the only reason you mistakenly believe that there there is less bile here, than there is on the Spearhead. Your bile is protected bile.
Its self perpetuating for you, feminism oppresses abuse victims and facilitates abusers, victims get damaged and angry, you make a living out of finding them mocking them and helping feminism continue
the abuse culture by slandering and oppressing their advocates.
So, what’s the deal with your weird interpretation of Lolita?
Yes, please elaborate on Lolita, ngz3120. I love that book and I’m kind of fascinated that anyone even doing the most superficial reading of an unannotated edition could ever come to the conclusion that it’s a celebration of old man’s love for a very young girl or that Lolita was actually some kind of seductress. Are you basing your conclusions on the poster for the Kubrick movie or something?
I went to bed early and missed all the fun!
Ami, I get what you’re saying – that if kids don’t have bodily autonomy about sex they don’t have the autonomy to make decisions about their bodies that only they can make. Darksidecat’s distinction between consenting to sex/making a decision about transitioning and/or reproduction (that the 2nd and 3rd are crises that can’t wait a few years and the 1st is not and can) makes a lot of sense to me. I don’t know how what kind of legal framework would be necessary to make that work, since transition and pregnancy/abortion involve medical decisions, which are usually framed in terms of consent. Hmm.
Brett, the idea that people will transition just for the hell of it without thinking it through sounds a lot like the anti-choice idea that if abortion is unrestricted, women will just have abortions at 8 months and 3 weeks. Because transitioning is such a piece of cake. And pregnancy is such a barrel of laughs that women happily go through most of it then say “Meh, not really into it”. I mean, in a world of 6 billion people it must have happened once or twice, but it hardly should be a consideration in law-making.
In re: the “kids belong to their parents” thing, to me the idea that parents are *responsible* for their children is a better framing. As a parent you’re responsible for raising your child, but you do not own and can’t control them. Setting age-appropriate limits isn’t the same thing as control and is part of teaching a child how to be a responsible adult. (I remember reading somewhere that Lars von Trier’s mother believed that “children should make their own decisions” – about EVERYTHING – and raised him accordingly. Which explains a hell of a lot.)
Also I love that NWO responded to my twitting him on his crankery…by linking to a fluoride crank site!
Here’s the story of the woman who accidentally poisoned herself with fluoride by drinking too much iced tea:
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20050125/harmful-fluoride-levels-found-in-instant-tea
“Eleven man-meat sandwiches served up hot”
What, is it a photo spread of dicks on hot dog buns?
EWWWWWWW.