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?
You also “feel” that a man should be jailed if he is 22 while having sex with a 17 year old girl. Right?
NWOaf-correction: you may not think like that. Other men do. The sex is incidental to their getting control over another person which is where their pleasure comes in. It is easier to do with a younger person because that person does not have the experience to tell the manipulator to go fly a kite when they start playing those tricks on the younger person.
Also, recently here we have had a rather tragic case of a county board of supervisors member’s wife getting caught having intimate relations with a child-not full blown sex but definitely illegal. She is going off to prison, her daughter is also going off to prison, more then one LDS church higher up is implicated and her husband’s career is ruined (and he may have known about it but did nothing.)
So this case here has a clear cut example of an older woman not getting a pass and the damage it can do to the child and the other people around the relationship that should have been stopped a long time ago. Hopefully he can get the counseling he needs and I am glad she is going to prison.
PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth….So the very, very minute amount of men/women who think “like that” has been transformed into a “law” that incarcerates “men” for the most part. ANd now you’ve been indoctrinated to accept this “law” as you moral guide. Would that be a correct assumption?
NWO:
Whatever Alex’s views on the matter, 17 and 22 is vastly different than 16 and 30. Do you think that if you can prove 17 and 22 is fine, that 16 and 30 becomes perfectly fine as well?
“The reasons for this are feminist indoctrination. First of all these men knew they would go to jail, (a fine detterent if ever there was one). Second being indoctrnated by the State/media/schools that this is somehow wrong has done it job. Men are reviled for daring to like a girl that might even be 2 years younger. That magic threshold of 18. Right now the UN/US is trying to raise that age to 21. My question to you is. Will you advocate and abide by that ruling should it pass?”
But NWO, if it was real, true, pure love, -devoid of fucked up power dynamics- and the men had not had sex with me (and they hadn’t) then why couldn’t they ring my parents’ door bell and ask to take me out on a date. The sixteen and seventeen year old boys certainly did.
Age of consent laws were not put in place by feminists. Nor are they inherently designed to keep men in their early twenties away from 17 to 18 year old girls. Though, depending on the state, they may be used that way. In fact most states have Romeo and Juliet clauses. I realize that you’re never bothered about being absolutely full of shit but to clarify for others, the age of consent is lower than 18 years in most of the U.S.
http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html
In fact, in most of the U.S., the age of consent is 16. So, exactly how young does a girl need to be for you to be in true, pure, utterly devoid of control, love with her? Fourteen? Because Idaho, Hawaii, and South Carolina can accommodate you. Thirteen? Are your rights to share true, pure, utterly devoid of control love with a 13 year old “woman” being infringed upon? Is twelve too young or just right?
ngz3120
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.)
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.
Jessica Valenti wrote one sentence in one piece (that was not on feministing) that might be construed to mean what you think it means.
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.
And, no, I do not support making the age of consent twenty-one.
Spearhafoc, since Lolita isn’t a Star Wars novel, NWOfootslave probably thinks it’s boring.
“There is no dynamic to a relationship. If women and feminists have been indoctrinated to believe a relationship between a man and a woman is a “power dynamic” that you are viewing sex as a means to an end. And that end is obviously about power and control. Men don’t think like that”
I can’t be the only one here who’s read Roissy talk about how his followers should play games with the women they want to fuck in order to keep them off balance. I can’t be the only one here who’s read MRAs complaining about how unfair it is that western women won’t meet their every demand. Or that their wives had their own agendas that took them out of the kitchen and birthing room. Or that the more aggressive, independent, or dominant a woman is, the less pliable and vacant and yielding to his desires, the less they want to do with her?
I don’t know where Subby is getting this “Men don’t think like that” crap. It sure as heck isn’t the MRM.
Can/will anyone answer my question?
1) Are any men over the age of 18 imprisoned for sleeping with girls under the age of 18?
2) Can any of you give me one good reason that doesn’t involve a power dynamic? (feminist jargon)
NWO, I realize that you’re an ephebophile but you do understand that most 14, 15, and 16 year old girls are not really interested in men much older than their early twenties right? I mean, you don’t have to take my word for it; take a look at the movie stars and pop stars that earn a living off of the desire of young teenage girls. They aren’t exactly swooning over Colin Firth. There are always exceptions.
Nobinayamu, that doesn’t answer my questions.
@NWO:
“Can/will anyone answer my question?” Yes. Will you ever get around to answering ours?
“Are any men over the age of 18 imprisoned for sleeping with girls under the age of 18?” Yes.
“Can any of you give me one good reason that doesn’t involve a power dynamic?” Rape/abuse? Or is that an imaginary power dynamic made up by feminists?
kirbywarp, tell me how a 16 year old girl consenting to have sex with a man over the age of 18 has translated into rape?
“If you are a woman, (can’t tell by the name) If you are a woman, (can’t tell by the name) and you are “a little later in life”
I am a 20-year-old female -.-
“than get one every week for a year and let me know the results. Ionized radiation is cumlative, so if 20 doses will cause a particular woman to get cancer, the time it takes/or the time in between doses is irrelevant. The dose recieved never goes away, it doesn’t dissapate. So if she gets 1 every six months she gets cancer in 10 years, if she gets 1 every year she gets cancer in 20 years. The end result is the same. Radiation causes cancer.”
You are ignoring the context. And you are ignoring the studies that I presented to back up my point…which, interestingly enough, take into consideration that we are exposed to radiation every day.
A woman does not need to get a mammogram once a week. Women who are not considered high-risk are not generally recommended to get a mammogram every six months once they are of the appropriate age. A healthy woman with no predisposition toward breast cancer is typically recommended to get a mammogram every two years once she is between the ages of 40 and 50, although nowadays some studies/organizations suggest that waiting until 50 to start getting them may be better. On the whole though, the evidence strongly suggests that mammograms provide vastly greater benefits than harm.
You are also not taking into consideration variation among individuals. For instance, my mother had never had a mammogram in her life, and succumbed to breast cancer at the age of 46. Early detection could have saved her life. Her illness and subsequent death combined with my family history suggest that there is a very strong predisposition toward breast cancer in my lineage. So personally, I am not overly concerned about developing cancer as a result of being exposed to radiation via mammography. Other women may feel differently based on their own circumstances. The point is, it’s highly illogical to contend that on the whole, a woman is more likely to get breast cancer from mammograms, in part due to the fact that all women do not have the same likelihood of developing cancer…not to mention the empirical data that points to the contrary.
And just as an aside, since this has nothing to do with mammograms–yes, radiation causes cancer. Are you aware that radiation can also be used to treat cancer?
You see kirbywarp, you went right for the worst of the worst of your fabled power dynamic. Rape/abuse. Cause thats what men do, right? The feminist movement is pure hatred and nothing else.
Actually, based on my experience with members of the Arizona State Legislature (yes, I know way way too many of them), I would say that the people who created the laws were doing it to protect their children from being harmed.
It had nothing to do with some kind of indoctrination. It had to do with fathers (and it was mainly fathers) wanting to make sure their little girls were not being exploited by evil old fuckers. Also their little boys as the Brock family has learned very well.
NWO, would you like a list of all the questions that I’ve asked on this thread that you have been unwilling or unable to answer? Seriously, it won’t take but a second to whip it up.
1) Yes, there are men who have been jailed for sleeping with women under the age of eighteen. Since the vast majority of the U.S. posts the age of consent at 16, then these men should have just waited until their pure, true love was 16 years of age.
2) It’s against the law and is defined as statutory rape. Different states have different rules regarding the age of consent. If a man is caught breaking the law and is arrested, tried, and convicted, he may very well go to jail. As for the reasons: maybe the girl’s father found out and had him arrested. Aren’t you all for fathers having a say in who their daughters date and marry. Don’t you write all the time about how back in the good old days, fathers loved their daughters so much they took responsibility for their love lives?
And you’re all about the love, eh Slavey?
Dammit NWO, I’m trying to be helpful here. You asked for one reason why an over 18 man and an under 18 woman having sex has resulted in an arrest, and I said rape. You turn around and say “oh ho! You think that every single such relationship is rape! Ha!”
“16 year old girl consenting to have sex with a man over the age of 18 has translated into rape?”
It doesn’t always. If age of consent is 18, legally the girl cannot consent, and therefore statuatory rape. if age of consent is 16, guess what? It isn’t rape. I don’t know why you don’t understand this. And the goal posts are constantly shifting with you: on the one hand you thing 16 and 30 is fine, but now you want us to defend all 16 and 18 relationships, as if opposing the first is equivalent to opposing the second. Stick to one point, will you?
I’m looking after your health papr1ka. Radiation causes cancer and is cumlative.
1) Is radiation cumlative?
2) Do mamograms use radiation?
What are your answers?
1. I’m sure they have. Of course some states have laws that say the age of consent is less than 18, and many states have so-called Romeo and Juliet laws that allow a sexual relationship between two people where both are over 14 and the age gap between them is no more than 4 years.
2. Because adults molesting children is sick and wrong. And can cause long-term, damaging psychological effects. For example, I’d say, off-hand, that many of the men I worked with in prison had been sexually molested in their youth. Is that a good enough reason, or do you need more?
I’m pretty sure radiation gives you the proportionate strength and agility of a spider. I read it in a book so it must be true.
Explain something to NWO: Yesterday you were going on and on, and endlessly on, about how women were terrible and not worth being in relationships with because we’re devoid of responsibility and consequences. We’re given everything we need just by crying, we’re vain, self-centered, inconsiderate, etc.
Men, rightfully, deplore these qualities in women – you especially. But a 14 year old girl who literally has parents who provide her with shelter, clothing and food, who probably is woken up by her mother every day, and is driven to school or dropped off at a bus stop, who pays no bills and whose responsibilities may stretch to occasional baby sitting gigs, and house-hold chores…
This 14 year old is a woman? And not just a woman, a woman of such stellar character, steely resolve, courage and responsibility that you NWO, would deign to possibly fall in love with her. Sweet, pure, utterly devoid of control, love/
Spearhafoc, it’s true. I was bitten by a spider earlier today and I’m actually hanging upside down from the ceiling as I write this.
Also, in case you’re interested: http://www.tomandlorenzo.com/2011/06/debbie-reynolds-auctions-movie-memorabilia-today.html