True Men’s Rights Activists Oppose the Age Of Consent

Certain ‘alt-right’ activists have, in recent years, tried to deliberately claim that feminists are ‘pro-paedophilia’ whilst any ‘normal person’ – including those who support men’s rights – are reviled by it. For that reason I think it’s worth posting an article written by The Anti-Feminist which shows that, historically, Men’s Rights Activists have always been opposed to raising the age of consent and that it was the feminist movement who were originally responsible for raising the age of consent the late 1800s.

The article can be read here.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Men's Rights, Paedohysteria. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to True Men’s Rights Activists Oppose the Age Of Consent

  1. No True MRA says:

    I agree, although I am for abolishing the age of consent entirely, not merely holding it where it is (which it itself elevated from where it used to be, in most jurisdictions). The idea that there is some magical number that transforms rape one day into consent the next is absurd. The whole concept is corrupt and must be tossed out.

    Like rape laws, I don’t think age of consent laws originate with feminism, but rather with the idea that some humans (women and children) traditionally have been viewed as property. But as is so often the case, feminism has found these traditionally conservative limitations to be of use by simply inverting the reason to focus on supposed victims. Having consensual and harmless sex with someone under an arbitrary age therefore isn’t a defilement of someone’s property, but some vague offence against the person themselves, and their “innocence” or “honor”.

    It is all part of the feminist worldview, which sees all things male, masculine, and therefore sexual, as part of a mysterious and evil patriarchy. In reality, sex is something that men are plainly evolved to want more than women, but when men get it, for that feeling of joy, community, love, intimacy, then women’s power is reduced. You see it in the sex scandals plaguing Hollywood. Men are required to seek sex partners and mates as far as possible away from their daily lives, totally unnatural to human nature (even for women, as schoolteachers show us). A man can’t even ask permission to simply watch him jerk off, without it being cause to lose his career.

    Where this becomes most clear is when all parties to the sex are underage (just as if both were drunk). When a mix of sexes are involved, the boy’s life is ruined, and the girl becomes a triumphant victim, even if she was an enthusiastic participant. It becomes a game, where all the moves available to boys amount to cheating, to protect girls’ supposed honor.

    There are common principles behind men’s rights, anti-feminism, youth sexuality, the sexuality of the disabled, senior sexuality, and the rights of sexual minorities including gay people and kind people. One of those principles is that sex isn’t bad or dishonorable. There is no virginity to protect, but rather there is intimacy and joy to be shared. It’s simple humanity, and every person, at every time, is entitled to it. Another principle is that facts actually do matter. And the facts show that there is no reason for any arbitrary limitation on sex, based on age. Rather, as common sense would lead us, we simply need to outlaw the behavior none of us would want as adults, which is to say: harm. People who had positive sexual experiences in their youth grow into healthy adults. Harm is what has lasting negative effects. Harm is something feminists don’t understand, which is why you’ll find them in vigorous support of the ritual cutting of baby boys, but it is generally MRAs and kind people who oppose this harm.

    Not only that, but the importation of feminist ways of (un)thinking is corrosive and toxic to any philosophy of men’s rights. The idea that boys are somehow victims of the sex they sought out, enjoyed, and bragged about to their friends, is a complete betrayal of those boys, who are then run through a feminist system telling them that what they know about their own selves is false, and always leaving them with the guilt of having resulted in the destruction of someone’s career, or indeed their life itself. It’s the easy siren song of equality, the #metoo-ing of men’s rights, copying rather than comparing all things feminist. Liberty and facts must always come before equality. Being equally poor and equally caged helps nobody.

    Last, the age of consent laws are a strong prohibition on speech, something the feminists love, because it frees them from the responsibility of having to prove anything. It’s extraordinarily difficult to provide direct counterexamples to claims of harm, when the evidence itself is criminal. Instead of the strong, instant emotional impact of seeing two people so in love, so enjoying each other completely harmlessly, we are left with dry scientific studies that nobody will bother to read.

    Anyway, to conclude, it is the connection between sexuality and masculinity that makes both unacceptable to feminists. We must defend both, even when many MRAs imagine themselves somehow separate from kind people. It’s the same attack, with the same weapons.

    • holocaust21 says:

      It’s extraordinarily difficult to provide direct counterexamples to claims of harm, when the evidence itself is criminal. Instead of the strong, instant emotional impact of seeing two people so in love, so enjoying each other completely harmlessly, we are left with dry scientific studies that nobody will bother to read.

      Very true. I think another commentator made that point when he was basically saying that the only way to destroy the feminist system is to break the law and distribute child porn. Chicken and egg.

  2. Ldev says:

    I THINK its worth bearing in mind the following in regard to the age of consent and the inbred paedophilia that has occurred throughout the British Establishment- in particular with the ‘Royals”-who are the biggest organised crime mafia on the planet.. Professor Richard Wortley and Professor Stephen Smallbone, both of whom state that prior to the 1900s girls married very young,
    “In Medieval and early modern European societies, the age of marriage remained low, with documented cases of brides as young as seven years, although marriages were typically not consummated until the girl reached puberty (Bullough 2004). Shakespeare’s Juliet was just 13, and there is no hint in the play that this was considered to be exceptional. The situation was similar on the other side of the Atlantic; Bullough reports the case in 1689 of a nine-year-old bride in Virginia. At the start of the nineteenth century in England, it was legal to have sex with a 10 year-old girl.” [2]-AND King Richard II in 1396 when aged 29 year of age married 6 year old Isabella of france…KING Edward III, aged 13, married Philippa of Hainault when she was AGED 55…. CURRENTLY- usa- 1957 a 22 year old Jerry Lee Lewis legally married his 13 year old cousin…In the state of Virginia, it is officially still legal for girls as young as 12 or 13 to be brought to a courthouse with evidence of a pregnancy and wed, a practice that has come under increased scrutiny ..In Virginia itself, according to state health statistics, more than 4,500 minors were married between 2000 and 2013, including about 220 who were 15 or younger.the minimum legal age of marriage for girls worldwide reveals that the US is one of the lowest on record, with several places – including Massachusetts – allowing girls as young as 12 to be wed with the consent of a judge.

    • holocaust21 says:

      Thanks for the information. So this shows that it is COMPLETELY NORMAL throughout the ages for older men to have sexual relationships with very young girls. Thus the case for abolishing the age of consent is a strong one.

      • Ldev says:

        clearly thats your interpretation- the point i was making is that for centuries there have been child raspists making LAWS in the usa and uk and that continues today-satanists have always been at the head of this-the only connection to feminism is the Rockefeller Foundation who began sponsoring it in th e1960’s and introduced ”intersectionality”- intersectionality is the racist and sexist notion that only black women can be oppressed and that all white people have ‘white privilege’ and therefore a white woman is never oppressed as much as a black woman…complete divide and conquer rhetoric that does as it aims to do- divide people and move the emphasis away from who is reallly doing the expolitation and oppression= the banking plutocracy and zionists who are actually satanists and who rape children because their ninth circle satanist beliefs are that it replenishes them through taking blood and sexual power from the young who have the most to give them that-DO THE RESEARCH.. http://www.vanderbilt.edu/ICI/director.php

      • holocaust21 says:

        What you call “child rape” is actually normal male sexuality. It can’t be rape if it’s not forced.

      • Mar73 says:

        In as late as 1880, the AOC in the State of Delaware was 7. Google it if you don’t believe me. I guess they were all “pedophiles” back then.

    • Willhem says:

      • Libertine says:

        Looks like Twitter if full of vir-peds, Have they managed to push away all others, Or were all the pro-contact been censored away I wonder.

  3. Order says:

    Libertine If you want to know how to make a Twitter account and bypass the phone number and block, I can help you.

    I have not had an account for months ago, but until the last time it worked using the mobile version of Twitter, that is, do not use web version, first use a mobile phone, go to mobile version (its default) and since this you have just to change to the email verification option and it does not ask for a number nor it is blocked after a few minutes .

    I hope it works.

  4. caamib says:

    Posted this on Eivind’s blog as well. One thing that had been bothering me recently because I see this stupid argument more and more…

    Regarding all this “paedophilia” crap I more and more see the idiotic argument that every adult is automatically in a position of authority over an teen.

    What nonsense !

    The idea that adults always have a power over a teen in sexual relationships is an ridiculous lie. If you have a teen of about 13 with some intelligence and a needy guy of, say, 25, with not much success with women, guess what will happen? Once she gives him pussy she basically has all the power over him.

    SHE WILL PROBABLY LEARN HOW TO CONTROL HIM, believe it or not. She will learn she has something he needs badly and will use that to her advantage. The guy literally has to do what she asks for sex, she makes him buy her stuff and do stuff for her, and at any times she can withhold sex and manipulate him that way.

    The idea that HE is somehow in charge is so absurd and unrelated to reality that it boggles the mind. Even if he had some sexual experience before her and she had none it doesn’t matter at all, since doesn’t stop her from realizing the power she has and using it like a pro.

    I have seen this first hand, from an experience my, um, “friend” had 😀

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s