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.

Who benefits from prohibition?

This question is crucial to anyone spending a single second in this blog.

I won’t make any specific case. It could be a teenaged female or a bottle of gin. What matters is it is considered illegal, somewhere, at some point in history.

And thus the question must be answered. Who benefits from prohibition? Who would be harmed if it was removed? Wouldn’t it make more sense to only mitigate damage instead of banning things?

I understand why someone would say opiates, for example, should never be legal, or at least not for recreational purposes.

However when I look at the painful fact that black markets and criminal organizations cover the requests of those who are affected by prohibition I wonder how useful it actually is.

Consider the following. In 1819 a man could ask for the hand of a woman age 14 in marriage and start a family with her if her parents approved. Turn to 2019 and we see high ranked public figures involved in human trafficking buying females under the age of 18 to satiate the natural male instinct they are forced to restrain.

In 1825 a man could go to any store and by a bottle of gin. In 1925 he would end up buying moonshine from some mobster who decided alcohol prohibition was the best thing to ever happen to him.

And all prohibitions have been performed for the sake of morality or the well being of “the people”.

Who actually benefits from keeping things forbidden though? I am pretty much sure it is not the people, since they are now subjected to criminal organizations exploiting them for profit.

But we know who does. Human traffickers, bootleggers, drug gangs. It is the criminals who gain from prohibition.

Guess what? I was never a pedophile!

And no. I am not backstabbing the male sexualist crowd, or even the anti feminist crowd.

I am just calling a spade a spade. Teenagers are not children. Only prepubescents are children. Therefore I am not a pedophile and never was. Probably you aren’t one either. And if you are, just refrain from having sex with prepubescents. I know that is physically possible. We are rational humans.

But back on topic. I am used to talk to psychology professionals, and recently I was talking with one on the topic of pedophilia.

This expert, which i will name Professor Crimson for privacy reasons, discusses some current social topics with me regularly. When I mentioned the matter about pedophilia Professor Crimson stated the term is used irresponsibly since pedophilic tendencies require a primary sexual attraction to prepubescents. Everything else is, as often agreed by many specialists, a variation of normal.

So no. Just because she is under 18 doesn’t mean you are a pedophile. If she is not prepubescent you are not a pedophile. So let us end the semantic abuse and make it clear. Pedophilia refers only to prepubescents.

I must repeat. If you are indeed a pedophile just refrain from sexual activity with prepubescents and that’s it. I do not approve persecution over thought crime. Your thought and fetish shouldn’t be criminalized, but having sex with prepubescents is not precisely a healthy thing to do from a reproductive standpoint.

Feminism is actually in favor of rape.

Sounds weird, right? Well. But it is the truth. Feminism wants more women to get raped.

They want that so much they actively distort and expand the definition of rape. Rape used to be forceful penetration in the case of a woman. Now we got things such as stare rape (Being seen by an ugly man), fart rape (Because if your husband farts he raped you), and birth rape (If your child is a boy, since he was inside your vagina it was rape).

Yes. All of these were feminist positions that extend the definition and concept of rape. In fact one of the most influential modern femihags, Andrea Dworkin (And yes, she was ugly), declared all heterosexual intercourse as rape.

But well, we know they want to extend the definition of rape, but why? Well. Because they need to extend their existence. Feminism justifies itself by claiming there are issues that affect women negatively which need to be solved. But most of the time either they fail to solve the issue, or it was already being handled by someone else.

For example, under the so called “patriarchy” rape was held as something unacceptable. Turns out men, even when in charge, tend to like women enough to want to protect them. Who would have imagined both gametes are instinctually driven to preserve each other?

Well. So rape was still a crime but was still happening, because as we all know not everyone is a law abiding citizen. But then there were more laws, harsher punishments, and a lot more police officers handling the issue. And no one really complained. Most people are not in favor of preventing what used to be defined as rape before feminism.

And so, even though rape was still an issue, it was an issue that had been handled long before feminism. Even in societies where women were seen as less worthy than men rape was often seen as wrong. And there is an instinctive reason for that, no man wants to raise they child of another man.

But so feminism had nothing to do with rape, they fixed nothing, and they knew it. Besides most things that had a negative effect on women (Except for those their corporate overlords wanted) were gone. In fact one could say women were far too sheltered from hardship. So feminism lost its meaning, again. And thus they needed a new thing to fight against.

Of course instead of seeking more freedom for women (Only Camille Paglia and a few other “feminists” want that, and they are seen as a heretics by other feminists), and therefore fighting their rich masters and investors, they wanted to take freedom away from men.

And so, without a true purpose, since they already took so many freedoms from men, they had to create something that could keep them alive. They extended rape because it was just about semantics, so they did with pedophilia.

And new freedoms to take away from men were available to their claws. With pedophilia extending past puberty they took full control over the sex market (They even want to extend pedophilia to full grown adults with large age gaps, such as a man in his 40s and a woman in her 20s dating), and by extending rape they extended their victim points and the demonization of men.

As such they want more women to get raped, in the most complex, non penetrative ways possible. Even without physical touch it is now possible to rape a woman thanks to feminism. No wonder why many male sexualists came up with the idea of “legalizing rape” since everything a man does is rape now.

So no. They do not want to decriminalize the forced penetration of women. They just want to be able to look at a woman on the street and not being charged with rape. Is that unreasonable?

As I said before, I do have a positive thing to say. Camille Paglia is one of the few feminists whose words are worthwhile. Hearing her words is different to hearing other feminists. She speaks of wanting women to be more free, and generally she is not against men gaining that freedom too. In fact she has often said teenaged women should be free to be with older men. There might be strong disagreements between her and I, but she is one of the only feminists I can feel an ounce of respect for. Naturally she is considered an enemy by other feminists.