Time to speak to the real pedophiles.

Listen, you filthy pedophiles. Anyone who isn’t a pedophile can tell the difference between a 4 year old, a 10 year old, a 12 year old, and a 17 year old.

Actually let me rephrase that. Anyone who isn’t a pedophile can tell the difference between a child and whatever is NOT a child. That is, a child has no secondary sexual characteristics.

A female child has no breasts, armpit hair, or pubic hair. A child has no menses. A child is a prepubescent human.

As such a 17 year old, or even a 13 year old, is, under normal circumstances, not a child. Only a pedophile, especially one who obsesses over childhood, would extend that period far beyond puberty. Why? Because pedophiles do benefit of a high age of consent.

Well. Not all pedophiles. But the pedophiles we should look at with disgust do. Of course you won’t expect one of those unfortunate no contact pedophiles desiring anything more than not being hunted down by society, and those pedophiles who want to be open about their preference, and active, do want the same goal as I, but for different reasons.

Whereas I desire to reform the age of consent worldwide, and actually make it not based on age,  but on biological development, actual pedophiles want to lower it below puberty. At least I expect they are more capable of reasoning than those closet pedophiles who want to increase, or preserve, the age of consent.

Those pedophiles seek to keep postpubescent humans as children before the law for the purpose of creating an environment where they can perform the shadiest acts and still gain support from men who are desperate to relieve their natural preferences.

Those pedophiles are the kind of people Epstein spent time with. They want people to think liking 17 year olds (Legal in New York), 14 year olds (Legal in several countries), and 9 year olds is the same. They want to make sure you get called a pedophile for looking at a teenager and finding her attractive.

That way you will go to them and ally with them under the same banner.

Well. Not I. I won’t form alliances with anyone but my own, even though I won’t attack anyone directly unless they trample on my goals.

I have seen how the entire male sexualist movement falls apart as its figureheads go into hiding or take stances which actually benefit the real enemy of men. I have seen how both anti feminists (With the exception of one named such) and men’s rights activists cave in to feminism upon the shrill cries of “Pedophilia” coming from women past their prime.

I have seen everyone acting to the benefit of pedophile human traffickers by keeping the current age of consent, just as they would have acted to the benefit of bootleggers during the 20s alcohol prohibition.

You, fucking pedophiles, closet pedophiles, supporters of ages of consent higher than 14, you are the ones who would drink bathtub gin in the 20s. Those who were patrons of Epstein’s shady business. Those who support prohibition and hate yourselves behind closed doors.

So I will talk to you, pedophiles. If you’re going to stay pedophiles, start by speaking the difference between young adults with secondary sexual characteristics, and what you like, prepubescents. And if you’re going to stay as you are, stop supporting high ages of consent and stop supporting the resulting black market.

Will I support any change that allows prepubescents to be involved in sexual activities? No. Probably I won’t. But I would rather see you speak honestly than have you hindering my goals.

Because right now it is a matter of who we are allowed to fall in love with, but as long as we don’t fight back against feminism and the laws it imposes, the femihags will try to bring back that same 20s booze prohibition. No joke. They have already suggested so.

A nasty c*nt is all they could ever be.

I had considered many things for this month’s article. I could have written about feminists suggesting to ban alcohol (again), or about how the grifter known as Chris Hansen has found warmth in the grifter known as Onision. Both contributors to sexual abuse statistics and predators acting as morality police to everyone else. (One preys on men and the other on women).

But I found a calling from somewhere else. I had to write about it since femihags will often claim we, men, are obsessed with our penises. Well, then explain the following.

Why is Gwyneth Paltrow selling a candle scented like her vagina. That’s right, ladies and gentlemen. Yet another feminist past her prime doing something to get attention, with her cunt.

While most men just want to enjoy their lives and careers, marry someone younger than themselves, and form a family, and while most women tend to find some points of agreement with that desire, often finding contention only in the part where men’s lives and careers do not connect to themselves, feminists have a bizarre obsession with their reproductive organs.

Only Gwyneth herself and her unfortunate employees at the suggestively named company “Goop”, also owned by her, know how they managed to get the stench of her cunt right into a candle. All we can tell it is disgusting.

Even though men do not find the smell coming from a female in a sexual context, nobody but the most degenerate Hollywood elites would want te genital stench of a 47 year old feminist actress, and no man but the most immature manchild with morbid curiosity and no sexual experience would want a candle with vaginal smell of any kind.

Men do enjoy that smell within a sexual context, and as such will prefer that of their partners of choice. So why are feminists so obsessed with their own cunts as to make stuff such as scented candles, bread and yoghurt using yeast taken from their yeast infection, pussy hats, or literal cunt costumes?

Why? Why are they so centered around their genitalia despite claiming we are? Could it be, perhaps, that they are just narcissistic assholes who detest men, and younger women, because they won’t pay heed to their presence?

Sincerely I got no idea! The only thing certain for this humble writer (Yeah, right. Humble! Don’t make your readers laugh, arrogant prick!) is that once we get rid of feminism, there will be less people obsessed with their own genitalia, and more people loving that of their sexual partner.

Until then, stay in tune, because the war is far from over. Even though most might have gone defunct, I stand proud.

What Epstein did wrong.

Jeffrey Epstein was the Al Capone of lolita. A man who profited from the current age of consent laws in which a fully fertile male and a fully fertile female can not be together if the arbitrary numbers don’t match their age.

Since he basically trafficked young women to please men, he is often seen as a sort of hero to those who want change in this authoritarian society standing against male sexuality. Just like Al Capone was seen as a hero to those who wanted booze in his time.

However,just as Al Capone, Epstein was wrong. Not only he favored, and supported, the same people who kept the prohibition working, since that meant he could make profit, he also took part in human trafficking.

Let us set the age of his targets aside. Human trafficking is wrong, no matter the affected people’s age. She can be 9, 12, 20, or even 55, and it will be wrong, regardless of age. He also allowed the seuxal freedom of many to remain cut in order to keep his business afloat.

He backstabbed his fellow men, and sold women to the rich ones. That is unacceptable. That is not the goal of liberating male sexuality from the filthy grasp of feminism. What he did not only kept the insanely high age of consent as it is, but also prevented men from having what they desire, youthful fertile women.

Jeffrey Epstein was not a hero, he was a traitor to male sexuality, and even worse, someone who made profit out of his treason. As such, men should also frown upon him, not for his sexual preferences or the age of his victims, but because he ensured there was scarcity in a safe environment to keep his business going.

He didn’t help men, he helped feminism.

Reset the counters!

Recently I was talking to someone regarding a man we both know, a male feminist that is, and she mentioned how hard it was to be taken seriously by him because of his evident opinion on women as less capable than men in all senses.

I laughed and told her “You took a while to notice! He’s a male feminist! Of course that was bound to happen!”

To her my statement was almost comical, and just reiterated my stance on feminism, which I have mentioned several times before to anyone I know so far. However to me it was a reminder of the fact that all white, and blue, knights are so only for the sole purpose of covering their own twisted world view.

I was sincerely not surprised at all by her statement. I knew he had a very negative opinion on women, often covered as support of them. He will often speak of how oppressed women are and as such how justified the behavior of feminists is, yet at the same time I know a few rotten acts he has brought upon the women he so champions.

It is yet another example of the usual, a reminder that not a single male feminist is such for a reason other than covering his own insecurities regarding women.

As someone who used to be such, I can tell it is a 100% guaranteed thing.

It was not about the age gap.

Whenever I see a news report or article on abusive age gap relationships, a pattern becomes extremely evident. A pattern which tells the age gap wasn’t the real problem.

Then what was the problem? Well. The same as in any abusive relationship, with someone older or younger, with someone the same age, or someone of a different race. The guy was an asshole.

Yes. No other way to say it. The horror stories of “abused girls” who were with men a decade or more older than them come not from him being older, but from him being an overall dubious person.

One simple tour on the web tells you that happens to same age couples too, it happens to any couple in which one of the partners is trash.

In fact I would dare say we hear these horrible stories because they are convenient to the mainstream. Why do we never hear of the opposite? Of healthy age gap relationships which lasted for years, or even led to marriage? We don’t hear them because we don’t hear of healthy relationships in general.

People in healthy relationships rarely brag of them, rarely talk of them, rarely show them to those out of their private circle. People in unhealthy relationships however do let people know they exist.

Both before, and after the relationship hits rock bottom, they show them.

If it is doomed to fail, but not a horror story, they will brag of how perfect it is on social media, until it isn’t. By then they will break up and eventually take separate ways.

If it was a horror story they will keep it quiet until the breakup, and then they will write an article online, or tell their story as a cautionary tale. And in the process they will accuse anyone within the demographic of their abuser of being abusers.

Said abuser might be older, might be younger, might be of the same or opposite sex, might be of a different race, different nationality, different whatever, or the same. What matters is they will drag anyone with some commonality with them, except for one thing, they will never drag the douchebags.

Those articles are always shit like “I dated a white guy and it sucked.”, “I dated a Japanese salaryman and I wanted to die.”, “I dated a nerd, it was awful.”, or “I was 14, he was 30 and it was hell.” They never say “I dated a douchebag.”, “I dated a narcissist” (Well. That one is starting to show up as people slowly start going to much needed therapy.) or “I dated an unemployed guy who did crack on the street.”

They focus on their demographics, and not their actions. They focus on the things they can make collective, and not the things that made them individuals. Why? Because otherwise it would mean the flaw is on them, and they would be unable to slander entire demographics.

Just think about it. Why does the phrase “They’re all the same” always is bemoaned by both men and women who have bad relationships? Are they all the same?

No, they aren’t. Those people have shit taste and pick terrible people to be on dates with. But facing that is painful. Being accountable for their poor choices is a horrible thing, anathema to them. So they will put the blame on the girl being “upper class” or the guy being “fifteen years older” instead of thinking of what they really were, assholes.

Don’t date assholes, and stop lumping everyone from one demographic in the same place as the assholes you dated.

It is all about them.

Let’s face it. Feminists and puritans are narcissists. All the changes they impose on the law, all their censorship, it is all to prevent us from looking at something else.

There are many women who reach past 25 unmarried and whose character is way too horrible to bear, and they don’t want men to look at younger, and, or, more likeable women.

It is not that their rival is 15 and clever, or 30 and motherly. It is that there is a rival. They don’t want to ban them because they are different, but because men prefer them.

Be it a teenager or a “mature” woman. Womanly, charming, friendly, motherly, and energetic women will always be preferable to bitter, narcissistic, overly competitive, hostile, passive women.

Wanna see proof? Just say you don’t want a 30 year old CEO focused on her career and with no interest in motherhood, and you will see a flood. Even if what you want is a 30 year old MILF, all those CEOs will be angry. Because what they want is to make sure you want THEM.

It is all about them.

A matter of power

Voting age, age of consent, drinking age, driving age.  What do they have in common? Well. They’re arbitrary. They are not made to prevent anything.

The age of consent is 12 in some places, 20 in others. And guess what? People under that age engage in sex anyway.

The voting age tends to be near 18, but most people won’t even vote.

Driving ages vary, sometimes as low as 14 or as high as 18. Still teenagers hijack vehicles and drive without a licence.

Drinking ages go between 16 to 23, and to no one’s surprise, people under those ages are actually more prone to get hammered. In fact in the US it is 21, yet still it is people between the ages of 15 to 20 who get hammered at nightclubs.

Then what is the purpose of age based laws? Power. In case anyone forgets, feminists, and in general social engineering advocates, are obsessed with power. Therefore they seek to build a system based on power.

Humans reach adulthood biologically at different points in time, and as such someone at age 14 might be an adult while someone at age 20 is still a child. However since what matters here is keeping young people safely away from “power”, they make sure people under an arbitrary age, often people who are not yet fully indoctrinated in the plan, have no influence in society.

Teenagers have their freedoms robbed, so do men, for the sake of an oligarchy which is focused around power even when it comes to emotional bonds.

Ironically this harms the ones it claims to protect.

Voting ages based on arbitrary numbers lead to complete adult children voting for some idiot who offered free cake monthly, and then get backstabbed.

An age of consent above the line of puberty won’t prevent 15 year old females from sleeping with men twice their age. Instead it will create a black market where they offer their virginity for big cash or where criminal organizations sell them as cattle.

Driving ages don’t prevent teenagers from driving. They just either pin the blame of their fuckups on their parents or make them fuck up big when they reach the legal age.

And finally drinking age, which is as retarded as the age of consent, set at an arbitrary number, just makes people ruin their lives via bootleg alcohol or, if they wait until they are “adults”, binge drinking.

These age based laws were not meant to prevent young adults from harming themselves. That was just the excuse. They were made to bar them from real life for longer, to keep them socially as children and arrest their development.

No wonder why the same people who advocate for such laws often advocate for using hormone blockers on “trans children”. They don’t want them  to figure out their way in life, they want to keep them as children for longer.

Because in this society children are powerless, adults make all choices for them, and since teenagers are not biologically children, they yearn that power, no, that freedom, adulthood grants them. They want to be adults and make choices in life.

By infantilizing teenagers, and then even preventing them from becoming biological adults, these people want to keep them away from the decision making process for as long as possible, and therefore control their lives.

Abolishing all age based laws, not just the age of consent, is in the best interest of young adults, and against the interests of feminism.