Feminist bitch Sarah Hall thinks that Sleeping Beauty is rape and should be banned

Sexually jealous old hag Sarah Hall claims that Disney’s Sleeping Beauty should be banned from the school curriculum because it features the princess being kissed while asleep, without her explicit consent.

This dangerous feminist lunatic’s suggestion should make it clear to everyone why I have been, for all these years, campaigning for the right of men to “sexually assault” women without their consent, so as to save the world from this continuing insanity. Fanatical feminist definitions of rape should have no place in a civilised society.

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

7 Responses to Feminist bitch Sarah Hall thinks that Sleeping Beauty is rape and should be banned

  1. Ldev says:

    YOU really do seem obsessed with uttering complete misogynistic
    nbile. Are you a virgin or just someone who no woman will stay with afetr youve paid them? clearly you are a royalist loving princess endorser-and a blatant alternative right globlaist shill.

  2. Tom Grauer says:

    The way I see it, the more unhinged the feminists become, the better – it makes people question: “what did we have before feminism?” Here is an example of something that was before feminism:

    http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230?section=primarysources&source=24

    As you can see, the old (1880) age-of-consent laws were instituted by Anglo puritans, and while I am against any and all AOC laws whatsoever, at least these laws were reasonable in many cases.

    Then, Anglo puritanism transformed into what we know as “feminism,” beginning with first wave feminism in the 1900s, and ever since has become progressively more insane.

    Hopefully, thanks to malicious cunts such as Sarah Hall, this whole feminist business would be de-legitimized in the eyes of the public; and in conjunction with the modern panic about “sexual harassers,” some people would realize that all of it is wrong, and rooted in delusions.

    When feminist law makes every man (and possibly every woman) a criminal, people will get used to not complying with feminist law. When masses of people defy feminist law, there will be hope to abolish the law.

    • Glazorz says:

      “When masses of people defy feminist law, there will be hope to abolish the law.”

      The main issue here has little to do with laws though. The laws are simply a symptom of a worldview that prizes female-centric sexual ethics.

      In order for real change to occur, certain unconscious ideologies (e.g. romance, chivalry, childhood innocence) will have to be done away with.

      • Tom Grauer says:

        Part of the reason for the rise of these worldviews which you mentioned — chivalry, romanticism, child asexuality — was the transition from single room occupancy (all family living in the same room, and often sleeping on the same bed) to multiple room occupancy (different family members living and sleeping in different rooms).

        What often goes unmentioned by the popular history books is that before some 200 years ago, it was common for the simple people, and especially for poor people, of which there had been many, to have the entire family sleep in the same room and even on the same bed every night. Then, modern affluence has brought about the transition to multiple room occupancy, which, as is usually the case, started with the richer strata of society but eventually trickled down to everyone or almost everyone.

        Why this historical change in living arrangement is important — why I am bringing this out right now — should be clear to everyone on our side. Back in the old days, the children would go their entire childhoods witnessing (sometimes from very close) their parents having sex, every day or however many times the parents had sex. Granted, the children probably went to sleep before the sex act itself began, but sleep is something that can and is disturbed by many factors (such as loud moaning, or the bed shaking wildly, for instance).

        What I am getting at here is that the people who screech about “sexualization of children” have no idea what the historical norms were, or perhaps they deliberately distort the reality of those norms. Because the reality was — and in fact, among many poor people even today, in the 21st century, still is — that children had been exposed to actual sex by their parents until quite recently, in terms of historical epochs. That is something that people today find very uncomfortable to think about, so they don’t think about it.

        When you realize just how *common* single room occupancy was until very recently, and that single room occupancy — not to mention single bed sleeping — must have involved a lot of exposure to sex by children, the entire idea that children are today excessively “sexualized” flies out the window. If anything, children today are the most sheltered in all of history. (Prehistorically, people had sex in the wild or in caves, in front of their children, and actually in front of the whole world. Call it “caveman pornography” if you will)

        Notable and memorable example of the single room occupancy living arrangement is the Viking “Longhouse,” which was usually a single room building, where often the whole family slept on a single bed. But Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Indians, Hebrews, Germans, etc. – basically all groups of people had single room occupancy, especially among the poor. Also, the very phrase “make a bed” comes from the practice of making a new temporary bed every night, as not everyone could afford a permanent bed structure; it’s unlikely that having multiple beds for one family was common, indeed, it was not so common.

        So, whenever you hear feminists and modern-day puritans crying about so-called “sexualization of children,” keep in your mind the fact that children used to live/sleep in the same room with their parents, throughout the entire world, and especially among the common folk, until about the 19th century. And that often they slept on the same bed.

        I argue that the transition to multiple room occupancy allowed the ideas that you mention — that women are chaste little angels and that children are completely asexual beings who can’t handle the reality of sex — to be perpetuated and to spread in society. Of course, I don’t expect, nor do I advocate, for going back to single room occupancy. But let’s imagine that for a second. Now, first of all, children would be aware of sex since the day they are born. Also, parents would be aware of the fact that their little innocent ones masturbate, a lot, and starting at very young ages (the girls especially). These two things would very quickly bring about, not just calls for reducing the AOC, but for having instituted the practice of arranged marriage at an early age for children, so they would form their own family units. The age of *marriage* would go down to 14 or something like that. Needless to say, in such a scenario, marriage would be made viable and all the oppressive feminist laws would have to be abolished, and also the gynocentric norms that you mention, which go hand-in-hand along with them.

        Right now, at any rate, our strategy should be to reach young audiences with our message. But that’s a post for another day.

  3. Glazorz says:

    I have been thinking lately about peak female attractiveness. The common wisdom among “manosphere” sites is that peak attractiveness is during a female’s twenties. However, I actually think that peak attractiveness for females occurs from 12-22, although there are individual exceptions.

    Most women simply use makeup and clothing to maintain the illusion of adolescent attractiveness after their early twenties.

    • Mitch says:

      Cosmetics makeup and plastic surgery intended to make women look younger is a gazillion dollar industry. BEcause todays AOC is older than most of a womans peak beauty cosmetic makers can make money selling makeup to make older women look young

      Is it likely the cosmetics industry has lobbyists who go to congress or parliament to promote raising ages of consent or oppose any efforts to lower the age of consent?

      If there were no AOC or the AOC was much younger the makeup and cosmetics industry would lose lots of business because men all ages young and old could go for actual young girls instead of of old women spending money on makeup to look like young girls.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.