How are feminists any different than child molesters

The main objection people have to adults’ having sexual contact with girls is that supposedly the “molester” brainwashes them into believing that what they’re doing is okay, and he uses his position of trust to get them to serve his desires. Then when it’s convenient to him, maybe he dumps them.

How is this any different than the behavior of corporate America? They tell girls that being a slut and having a career is in their best interests. (Sluttiness goes along with having a career because women need to delay marriage until they’re done with their education, but they still have sexual desires long before they’re done with school, so they end up sleeping with a lot of different guys.)

It’s the media and educational establishments telling them this, which are two trusted institutions. And they’re filling their heads with this propaganda from a young age. There’s a power imbalance between the schools and the kids who are forced to go to the schools, and between the media establishments (which can freely put out their message) and kids (who are not even allowed to go on YouTube to publish their own videos with open comment sections anymore; plus they’re not able or allowed to earn their own money with which to set up their own websites, and they’re barred by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act from sharing information by which to set up online accounts in a lot of cases).

Anyway, what ends up happening is, girls suffer a lot of anxiety and depression from being forced or led into situations that go against their natural inclinations to be homemakers and mothers, and they take a lot of anxiety pills and antidepressants. A lot of them end up divorced and lonely, and many of them are childless and have to resort to keeping around a bunch of animals as surrogates, which isn’t as fulfilling.

They experience a lot of stress from not having the leadership of a man who’s going to take care of them; the corporate world makes no guarantees of anything. They can be fired at any time, as we recently saw in the case of Amy Cooper, who not only didn’t have a husband to keep her safe in the park, but also lost her job for being racially insensitive. Homemakers don’t need to worry about that kind of stuff happening to them.

The proliferation of single moms means that a lot of girls are in a situation where they could get pressured into sex by the stepdad. If the kind of scenario depicted in Lolita doesn’t jibe with your vision of what girllove is supposed to be like, then I don’t know why you would support feminism, which tends to create such situations.

Not to mention, women suffer from the fact that having a lot of females in the workplace tends to make the economy less efficient. If, say, the ranks of NASA scientists are clogged up with affirmative action hires instead of the most qualified, or guys like Matt Taylor are getting distracted by scandals like Shirtgate, it tends to detract from the organization’s efficiency and ability to complete its mission. People say that patriarchy would keep women from becoming astronauts, but the reality is that feminism just holds the organization back from scientific advances that would make it easier for women to travel to other planets, even if it is under male supervision.

What’s the alternative? Well, we just need to acknowledge that a feminist social order doesn’t work, and that the kind of egalitarian utopia people had in mind can’t be realized.

It’s like if someone were to ask, “What are we to do about this cruel animal testing involving rabbits?” Sure, we can ban it, and set the rabbits free to go frolic in the woods, but then wolves will eat a lot of them anyway. We could set up some nature preserve that’s free of predators, but then the rabbits would breed to the point that some of them died of starvation or overcrowding. One could manage the population by sterilizing some of them, but is that really ethical, given that they haven’t given informed consent to that.

The bottom line is that some creatures were just meant to be prey animals. So then it’s just a question of, which kind of arrangement is the least harmful to them.

But, it’s not only just that; there’s also the question of, what about us? We are animals too and our rights and well-being are important as well. At the end of the day, you have to come to terms with your role in the food chain, which is to eat the lower animals and otherwise use them for your purposes. I mean, it’s not like they wouldn’t do the same to us if the situation were reversed; we see that when, say, wolves or mountain lions get the upper hand over humans.

And it’s the same way with the sexes. When women get the upper hand over men, they treat them as badly, if not worse, than men would treat women if they were in charge of them. Female teachers, for instance, tend to focus more on helping the girls than the boys. And women try to take every dime they can in divorce proceedings, by any means the law allows.

It’s just nature, red in tooth and claw. What would happen if the wolf ever started to get concerned about the well-being of the rabbit? He’d probably go extinct, and then probably every edible plant would get eaten because there weren’t wolves to control the herbivores. Maybe it would have ripple effects making other creatures go extinct.

And it’s the same way with humans. When there was a hierarchy with men above women, everyone worked fine, or at least, it was optimal and healthy and self-regulating. There was a balance of nature, with every creature fulfilling the place it had evolved for. But, feminism disturbed that balance, and made everyone miserable. And, now we face extinction.

The low fertility rates means that eventually girls will go extinct, so how can a “girllover” support that? Unless the idea is that the most compassionate thing is for them to stop existing, kind of like the attitude that PETA has toward pets that they “rescue” and then euthanize.


The typical fantasy of the non-rapey girllover is

probably that he’s going to see a cute girl next door, and start a conversation with her, and invite her into his house, and they’ll have consensual sex. Maybe the details vary slightly; perhaps she’s a niece or something, or maybe she’s a girl they meet online. Either way, they go someplace where they can be alone, and have sex.

And in the proposed future society where sex with a consenting kid is legal, theoretically this would not get him in trouble.

What could go wrong with that scenario, in practice? Well, a lot of stuff. She could accuse him of rape later, since what they did happened behind closed doors and there’s no proof of her consent. Maybe he’s a rich guy like Michael Jackson, and she wants to shake him down for money. Or maybe, like Brett Kavanaugh, he’s going to be nominated to the Supreme Court, and she’ll come out of the woodwork decades later to try to sabotage his confirmation. Or maybe, like Paul Nungesser, he’ll get accused because of her mental illness that drives her to become a cause célèbre by carrying a mattress around.

Men who have never been accused of rape probably assume it wouldn’t happen to them, because they only hang out with quality women, and they behave themselves well, and there’s lot of evidence of consent such as love letters and amorous texts and whatnot. That doesn’t necessarily prove that every single time they had sex, it was consensual. Even if the relationship went on for a long time, she could say later that it was an abusive relationship that she hung onto long after it would’ve been good to have dumped him, because she was young and naive, or he was being controlling and threatening her, etc.

We see this problem even when the relationship is between two adults; you can imagine how it will be if men are allowed to have consensual sex with young girls. The girl will be able to say that he was stronger and overpowered her, and this will sound credible, given their difference in size and strength. In some cases, she may say that because of her age and naivete, she didn’t give truly fully informed consent. Maybe to a jury, a little girl could be a pretty sympathetic witness, when she’s accusing of rape an older man who, according to the evidence, had sex with her.

So there could be a big problem with false rape accusations arising. Even if the girl was documented to have said she was coming over for consensual sex, that doesn’t prove that she still consented at the moment they had sex. And even if she took some sort of test to prove she understands, academically, what sex is and what its implications are, some might argue that she still does not have the life experience to fully grasp what is involved in all that, or that she had the gumption to be able to resist the advances of an older man if she wanted to (there are some young people who are capable of asserting themselves in some situations, but a lot of times, young people have a tendency to passively go with the flow instead of pushing back when they find stuff objectionable).

If you believe that sex with girls should only be allowed with the girl’s consent, I would ask, what are you going to do about false rape accusations; how will you prevent those from ruining men’s lives? There could actually be more men getting accused of child rape, once consensual sex with kids is legal, than there is now, since more men would be trying to have sex with kids, or running onto kids in places like dating sites, and getting into compromising situations.

You might respond, “The accused will simply be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” In that case, how do you propose, in cases where the girl really was raped, that the prosecution is going to meet its burden of proof that she did not consent to sex? Right now, all that’s required is that they prove that the accused had sex with her, so it’s easy to convict him, whether she consented or not, since her unwillingness is not an element of the offense.

In other words, how would you prevent men from getting away with raping young girls, in a society where consensual sex with those girls is legal? What would keep it from becoming like the situation with adult women, where a large percentage say that they were raped and didn’t report it; might it not drive down the rates of reporting and prosecution of child rape, if the unwillingness of the child were made an element of the offense that needed to be proved, and thus it were harder for such a prosecution to be successful?

If there is going to be a rise in the rate of child rape following such a reform, what is your argument for how the benefits of legalizing sex with children outweigh that which, being opposed to rape, you perceive to be a cost?


Well that sucks

There were a lot of important images in there.


Here’s where men’s and women’s interests diverge

walkinginthepark writes:

> My own feeling is that I think women could actually be more tolerant and supportive of change than men rather than hard line against the idea. I say that because while I know of some women who are very much anti-pedophile I also know several who are much more open and understanding. I’ve had women strongly defend friends of theirs who have been convicted for such relationships and argue that it’s normal and natural, guys being guys and falling for pretty young girls.

It really depends on what women regard as their being in their own interests. Let’s say that there’s a hot guy who has a few sex offenses in his record. A woman might be attracted to him and either excuse his past or even be turned on by the fact he was willing to be deviant and rebel against society’s standards. She might be willing to support that he be released from prison and from other restrictions that keep her from having a relationship with him.

That doesn’t mean that she’s going to be okay with men continuing to pursue young girls, or especially having ongoing sexual relationships with young girls. That doesn’t benefit her in any way; it makes men less available to her because they’re chasing after those younger girls instead of focusing on having a relationship with her. So she will support a system that allows her to report him for having relationships with young girls, and break up those relationships so that he’ll focus on her instead.*

This is not really compatible with, say, institutions like child marriage that some pedophiles might want. But we need child marriage in order to placate the concerns of fathers that their young daughters will be simply used for sex and then discarded. If child marriage isn’t an option, then those dads will probably support stiff penalties for men having sex with their young daughters. So it’s hard to reconcile the interests of these different parties.

A patriarchal system based on the authority of husbands over their wives, and the authority of fathers over their daughters (including the authority to transfer ownership of the girl to a suitable husband), will probably have better outcomes for girls than any of the alternatives, but that doesn’t mean older women, who are already invested in a more feminist system, will support it.

These older women are more like obstacles than allies when it comes to accomplishing our goals; they need to be brushed aside or subjugated. One possibility that the Mormons came up with was to simply allow a desirable man to have both senior and junior wives. Some women tolerated such an arrangement if it had the backing of their society, and were able to even defend it by saying that they appreciated the help the younger wife offered in taking care of the kids, etc.

It’s not always going to be possible to fully satisfy all stakeholders, though. I think the way forward is going to be to prioritize the interests and rights of men. That’s the strongest group in society, and the one whose further empowerment is going to directly benefit us the most.


* She’ll also support other restrictions on male sexual freedom, such as an International Megan’s Law that keeps men from moving to the third world to have sex with young girls there. A man’s doing that does not benefit first world women in any way, which is why you don’t see opposing the International Megan’s Law as an item that’s very high on the agenda of predominantly female-controlled organizations like Reform Sex Offender Laws.

We can expect that such organizations will probably also not have much of a problem with, say, surveillance technology such as computer monitoring, ankle monitors, etc. that let the state keep an eye on what men are doing without interfering with their ability to have relationships with older women and provide for their families. The idea is to take away men’s sexual freedom in a way that doesn’t keep women from using them as workhorses and sexual slaves for their own benefit.

Women will focus on issues like registries and residency restrictions that (1) keep men from finding useful employment by which to support the family and (2) otherwise bring stigma and inconvenience on the family. The common thread here is that such reforms have a clear benefit for older women.

In contrast, First Amendment issues like being allowed to trade child porn featuring young girls will not be very prominent on women’s radar screen as anything they want to support (unless they’re a woman who’s into that stuff, but those women tend to get lighter sentences in the courts, if they get prosecuted at all); on the contrary, they won’t like the idea of men looking at those young girls and perhaps comparing older women unfavorably to them.

It also offends most women’s sense of fairness that a man would get sexual pleasure from a woman without having to pay for it (whether by providing for the woman or being a hot guy who gives her an orgasm); they view it as a female performer’s prerogative to get paid an amount of money commensurate to the fact that a child porn video is getting viewed and enjoyed by millions. If the girl in the video potentially will suffer shame for being a slut, then she will feel all the more entitled to restitution. So, we ended up with these “victims” pushing for legislation to require these CP offenders to pay up.

If you look at even the writings of a libertarian like Mary Ruwart, you’ll notice, her arguments for legalizing child porn are based on the idea that it will help performers get treated fairly (presumably including being paid for their work). But, if we were to implement a market for child porn that’s similar to the market for adult porn, it would probably have all the problems you see with the adult porn industry, including that a lot of the porn stars look pretty damaged, because that slutty lifestyle takes its toll.

In contrast, in a child porn series like the Vicky series, the girl looks healthier and happier, because it’s her dad she’s involved with and they have a loving relationship. She hasn’t been damaged and worn out by relationships with other men, and she still has a youthful glow. The idea of men enjoying watching that kind of porn really triggers a lot of older women with slutty pasts, because they know a girl like Kylie offers something that they can’t.

Another thing about women, btw

Is that a lot of times, they’ll adopt or express sympathy for whatever ideology or sentiment you have, if they’re interested in getting with you.

So for example, if you talk about being pro-pedo, she may say that she’s pro-pedo too. Or at least she may avoid picking a fight with you about it.

This is while she’s trying to attract you into a relationship. She may figure, once she gets you to fall in love with her, or marry her, or make kids with her, or otherwise commit to her, that she can then reveal her true self more, and assert her will more, and you’ll be more likely to accept it because you’re in too deep by that point to back out.

Also, a lot of times, women are fine with going along with a man’s ideas as long as they’re abstract and theoretical, and don’t yet affect them directly in the real world. This gets back to my previous point, about how they try to lure you into a relationship by seeming congenial to your pedophilic viewpoints, plans, hopes, dreams, etc. Girls may figure, “There’s not a lot of harm in letting him, for the time being, express some political rhetoric, or fantasize about hypothetical sex with young girls. I’ll tolerate it for now, and if it’s a problem later, I’ll deal with it then.”

A lot of times, too, they’ll tell themselves, “Well, maybe he’s not all that serious about this stuff.” That goes hand-in-hand with their idea that maybe they can get you to change once they get you locked down.

If a girl seems to be agreeing with your pro-pedo stances, you may want to ask yourself, “What’s her agenda; why is she agreeing with me about this? Has she really done her own independent thinking about this, or is she just being submissive to my wishes because she likes me and it’s in her interests to be that way right now?”

Classic female mating strategy is to find out what you like and try to cater to it, or get your hopes up that she’ll cater to it, during the courtship period. She hopes that you’ll change, and you hope that she’ll never change, and you’ll both be disappointed.

If women weren’t so deceptive, or if men weren’t so gullible, it might be harder for the sexes to get together and mate, especially in a world like ours where women have so much freedom to do what they want (and thus it can be hard for you to impose your will upon them if they decide to betray you).


MAP strategy

With regard to MAP groups, there’s the male population as a whole, of which most of them probably, if they’d be honest with themselves, would be open to the idea of messing around with kids if (1) it were legal and (2) they didn’t think it would be harmful to the kid. A lot of, but not necessarily most, men are willing to be open about the fact that they’re attracted to teenagers and would not mind banging a girl who’s sexually developed, under the conditions mentioned above.

In the common parlance, “perverts” are the subset of the male population that’s too obvious about having these desires, especially with regard to particular girls (e.g. whistling at the junior high school cheerleaders at a parade). And the “pedophiles” are either perverts by another name or those who actually act on those desires and touch a child.

One of the problems with showing what good people pedophiles are, is that it tends to get interpreted in a negative way, as grooming, for example, or trying to gain trust within a community in order to betray it. It’s almost like, the more good you do, and the more people come to like you, the worse you are regarded when your pedophilia is revealed (e.g. because of a CP arrest), because they feel like you’ve undermined people’s ability to trust. On the other hand, mere perverts are simply treated with real or feigned disgust and ostracized and ignored from that point onward, rather than being treated with ongoing hostility and persecution so much (unless they’re Jack McClellan).

Looking at past movements, we can see how stuff works. Blacks are viewed as having a legitimate historical gripe that entitles them to various kinds of handouts and indulgences and tolerance for criminal behavior forever, which whites don’t mind paying or extending, respectively, because we figure we can afford it; maybe someday it’ll become unaffordable, but that day hasn’t arrived yet. The assumption has been that throwing them a few bones should appease them and/or at least make whites look like they’re trying to be good.

Gays were viewed as harmless; not only are lesbians hot, but all homosexuals seemed to want was their civil rights, which didn’t seem too much to ask till they got obnoxious with this “bake the cake” stuff, but by then it was too late; we’d already committed to this course and even enshrined it in our constitutional law. It would have to become totally disastrous, rather than merely annoying and/or unacceptable to a few religious diehards, in order to be reversed.

It went much the same way with women’s rights; men figured they could afford to give women opportunities to try to succeed in the work world, and that if women proved to be unsuitable or unambitious, it would just reaffirm how much they need men. They also figured women would probably not abuse their rights in ways that would fuck over good men too much, if they were given legal equality. Plus it was hard not to respect some of the sacrifices women were making for their cause, starving themselves in the prisons and whatnot.

Also, men just didn’t have a lot of solidarity behind their male privilege, compared to what the feminists had. At this point, a lot of men are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs, but still are more inclined to “go their own way” rather than form a united front to fight for the restoration of the old male privileges, even if they have sexist or misogynistic beliefs.

With pot smokers, there was the advantage right off the bat that most people had smoked pot so weren’t totally unfamiliar with it, even if boomers claimed today’s pot is stronger. Medical pot provided a convenient wedge issue, with patients on their deathbeds saying that pot provided the only relief that worked. Now, it seems that the racial disparities are finally going to be the coup de grâce to prohibition, although legalizers had been talking about those disparities for decades and nobody cared all that much till now.

The thing is, it’s really easy for the media to cherry pick certain stories, and spin cases to make their designated victim look good and their designated victim look bad. For example, a lot of these blacks are thugs, and a lot of these gays have caused problems (such as being the main disease vector for AIDS when it was first introduced), and a lot of these feral women have treated men unjustly (e.g. with false rape allegations).

There are a lot of stories that could be told about pedophiles, and how they’ve been mistreated. Maybe some of their younger partners, kinda like Vili Faulaau, would be willing to share their stories, if there weren’t such a stigma. The thing about Vili, though, is that he seemed more masculine by being able to brag of his conquest; the same might not be true of a young girl (who might be regarded as a slut) or a young boy in a gay relationship (unless he’s like Milo Yiannopoulos and decides to own it; but even Milo seemed to have mixed feelings about some stuff that happened).

The movement against sex offender registries mostly focused on telling about the effects these registries have on families of the offenders, since they figured, nobody would care about the offenders themselves. Basically you have to make the arguments that prohibition destroys families stronger than the arguments that the offense itself destroys families. Then again, that wasn’t what brought an end to the drug war; wedge issues and people’s own experiences with pot provided a lot of the help there.

With pedophilia, people are exceedingly wary of wedge issues, because they’re aware of how slippery a slope that could be. That’s why they’re so vigilant about trying to stop stuff like child porn that could easily awaken men’s latent pedophilic desires if they were allowed to watch it. But, it may be that there will come a point where most men have indulged in watching CP, and so are familiar with scenes where children look “complacent,” to borrow a term from the Department of Justice. That could work to our advantage.

I think it’s going to be hard to win over the women, because they don’t like the idea that men would prefer younger girls to them. So maybe we just have to give up on appeasing them, and not even worry about coming off as misogynistic in a way that would offend them.

Maybe men are the ones to win over, especially fathers. A lot of fathers would like to have sex with their daughters, so that’s a possible constituency. Or, they might be willing to give their daughter to a pedophile if they could get someone else’s daughter in return. There are a lot of possibilities.

Most fathers probably don’t want their sons going gay and messing around with an older man, but a lot of them will outgrow that phase anyway and eventually go straight, or else they were destined to be gay regardless because they were born that way, I suspect. Then again, some say that these boys who go straight when they get older are succumbing to social pressure. Idk what to think about boylove, honestly; I think most guys have at one point or another thought about messing around with another dude, though, especially if they went to prison or someplace like that. I don’t consider myself gay, but I can occasionally look at a boy and acknowledge that he has sexually attractive characteristics.

The gay rights movement probably won’t be much help; I think they want to avoid confrontation with straights over what happens to young boys, even though most gay men would probably like to have sex with a teen or little boy. I think they’re afraid of a backlash if they go too far.

We need to show that the desired reforms are going to be in kids’ best interests, or at least harmless. Do we have the evidence? If not, we need to get it somehow. Maybe some state like California will be open to doing a social experiment.

We have the Rind report, but we need some academic and scholarly and professional organizations to support the stance that pedophilic behavior toward kids is not bad for them. But they too are probably worried about backlash. Look what happened to University of Missouri-Kansas City after Harris Mirkin published his essay; they lost some funding.

Child porn could turn out to be the real weak point in the anti-pedo armor, because there are legitimate First Amendment issues involved, enough so that three justices in Osborne v. Ohio said laws against possession are unconstitutional. Maybe a good approach would be to put more legal resources into tackling the issue of child porn in the courts, and maybe getting some research done that can be used in these legal briefs.

The fact that most men are at least mildly sexually interested in children (or “child-curious”), and that certain offender populations (like CP offenders) tend to be white men, in a way works against us because it makes it seem like more of a privileged group and therefore less deserving of the protections given to minorities. But it’s also an advantage, to the extent that the privilege is real and means that there’s some political muscle that can be flexed, if this group can get behind a pro-pedo agenda.

There’s a lot of institutional solidarity behind the anti-pedo position; there are a lot of NGOs that make money off of doing research and providing services related to “child exploitation”. And the psych profession makes a lot of money off of court-ordered evaluations and treatment for both “offenders” and “victims”. There are also a lot of sex offender detectives who like to feel like they’re playing a role straight out of Special Victims Unit and make easy money and earn prestige by luring horny men into stings. Horny men aren’t known for being a particularly sympathetic group, especially if they’re unattractive, so some cultural change around that could be needed.

See also Jessy’s post btw, Sorry but you left out the entire economics of it


What are you going to do about the jealousy problem?

What if men have an attitude of, “If I don’t think I can attract a little girl to want to have sex with me, I don’t want ANYONE having sex with little girls” under the principle of, if they can’t have her, no one can?

This type of crab bucket mentality can be a real problem in trying to achieve any changes in our culture or laws regarding relations between the sexes. People want to make sure that whatever happens, they benefit more than anyone else.

The reason is, people, in deciding whether they are going to feel comfy and satisfied in their situation, will often compare themselves to those around them; if they’re doing better than others, they figure the situation is okay. If others are starting to get ahead, then they want to either hurry to catch up, or try to kneecap the competition, if they don’t think they have a chance of catching up otherwise.

This is especially true when it comes to mates. People will go out of their way to cockblock you from being romantically successful, if your success would make them look bad in comparison. They don’t want you getting a hotter or younger girl than what they have.

The solution? We’re going to have to come up with a system that allows EVERYONE a reasonable opportunity to have a cute young sexual companion. Part of the problem we have these days is that the modern system of “dating” leaves a lot of men wondering how they’re supposed to get a chick; they don’t know what approach to use.

Another problem is female nature, which makes a lot of women flock to the worst men. People worry that prepubescent girls would make poor mate choices, but there’s plenty of evidence that postpubescent girls flock to pretty trashy guys. If a guy is too nice, they find it a turnoff. Some have said that prepubescent girls might actually make better choices, because they don’t have their hormones interfering with rational decision making.

Anyway, long story short, we need arranged marriage.

Marriageable age

Consent-based pedophilic relationships probably are not a workable political, legal, or cultural concept

Virginia, not too long ago, raised the marriageable age. One of the justifications was that underage brides “have a divorce rate of as high as 80 percent.”

Well, there’s a high divorce rate in general in our society; it’s just that, all else equal, it may be higher for young brides. One could speculate about the reasons for this. Maybe the more responsible, financially stable men are spending their time on other stuff besides having sex with underage girls and impregnating them, which is the kind of situation that made it legal to marry them with parental consent. Maybe the “good girls” who are more mentally stable and less slutty (perhaps because they’re more religious), and have a father who watches over them to keep them from having sex and getting pregnant, are also the type to have more successful marriages when they do finally get married.

There are a lot of good reasons to allow early marriage, provided the man is suitable to take care of the woman. Young women are fertile and sexy, so men miss out if they don’t get to have sex with them. Young women also, especially as they get into their mid-teens, are usually pretty eager to start having sex and feel “grown up” rather than being treated like a kid; although prepubescent girls also can enjoy sex.

But, society won’t allow early marriage, or sex between older men and underage girls, if they think the results will be bad. Feminists would say, just the fact that there’s a power imbalance makes it bad, even if the girl is happy. They would say, she has just internalized misogyny and decided that she deserves a bad relationship and that it’s therefore okay; and that she needs to be woken up to the truth and forced out of that relationship for her own good if she refuses to acknowledge that it’s wrong.

Here’s where a little bit of patriarchy, a little bit of “misogyny” comes in handy. And this is where rapey pedo advocates diverge from non-rapey, and we see the real split in the pedo movement, the most relevant divide that’s going to make all the difference, in terms of strategy and, I think, effectiveness. And the reason is, once you get away from the idea that female consent matters, it’s easier to call into question the age of consent. History shows this is not even all that radical; men are capable of having different views on this subject than what they have now.

We didn’t used to have an age of consent. The age of consent came about as a way of safeguarding the value of the bride till marriage. I’m not even sure what the logic was behind the early ages of consent, of 10 or 12; was it to allow the girl’s body to mature to a point of being ready for sex, or to allow her enough maturity to understand what was going on, and its moral significance, or was it because girls used to get married at a pretty young age? Was it because when a girl hits puberty, she starts seeking out sex rather than necessarily getting seduced? We know that in some southern states, there was reluctance to raise the age of consent because white men enjoyed being able to have sex with teenage black girls, and they didn’t think there was any harm if the girl was already a slut, as many of them were.

At any rate, for whatever reasons, the age of consent got raised to 16, 18, etc., the idea being that this would provide even more protection against girls’ getting ruined by predatory men; but there were still laws allowing shotgun marriages if they did get seduced. (Compulsory marriage as a consequence of deflowering a young girl has actually existed since Biblical times.)

In 2020, with all this cultural pressure to tolerate sexual liberation, fathers have been somewhat willing to let their teenage daughters behave like sluts, based on the idea that if they really want to do it that badly, why stop them. But, I think they’re going to be more reluctant to let men do sexual stuff with their prepubescent daughters, that those girls don’t actively seek out on their own initiative.

This is where it comes in handy to be able to not really care about what the female wants, but just impose the male vision of what’s best for everyone, including her. If people object, “What you’re proposing is statutory rape [or marital rape, as the case may be], which is a form of rape,” that argument is defused if one can say, “Yeah, so? Is rape in this kind of circumstance wrong?” You don’t even have to argue about what counts as rape; you just bypass all that.

What fathers are interested in, is that their daughters get into a situation that’s going to be in their best interests, and/or that will serve whatever other goals they (the father) have, which could include, e.g., carrying on the family line. Some of those require that the girl be used in ways that might go against what she wants.

For example, some dads might put a high priority on making sure that their daughter ends up in a stable household, rather than getting deflowered and/or knocked up, and returning home as damaged goods. In that case, avoiding divorce is pretty important, and one way to do that is to simply ban her from getting divorced. And, if the spouses are going to avoid getting in fights, the husband needs to be empowered to have the final say about decisions; and if they’re going to avoid getting in fights over sex, then he also needs to be able to make decisions about sex, including being allowed to rape her. Some dads, having a patriarchal attitude and realizing that women make a lot of bad decisions and often become pretty unhappy when given autonomy, probably don’t have a problem signing over their daughter into such an arrangement, especially when they take into account the alternatives.

If we’re going to have a system where, in addition to satisfying the need of the father to be assured that his daughter will be okay, the girl also has to be willing to go along with everything that’s expected or desired of her in order for the other parties to be satisfied, it becomes that much harder to come up with a system that’s actually going to be functional. It’s just too many stakeholders who have to be satisfied, because now there are not just two men involved, but also the girl has to consent to everything.

And I don’t think we’re going to be able to shift decision-making over prepubescent girls’ sexual behavior from fathers, or the government, to those girls. It’ll never happen; the protective instincts are too strong, and if those protective instincts ever did disappear, probably our society would disintegrate and we’d go extinct anyway, because whatever resource becomes common property tends to be treated pretty badly; and girls are an essential reproductive resource. We don’t want to end up with a tragedy of the commons concerning something that important.

If young girls were allowed to roam about freely and do as they wished, probably a lot of them would get raped anyway, in practice, so if anti-rape pedos were to say, we should have a system where girls can do whatever they want, they still have not figured out how to achieve their goal.

Even college girls, who have the advantage of being adult and therefore having more knowledge and strength compared to a child, get raped a lot, because they put themselves in situations where they’re vulnerable to it. Feminism doesn’t have a good record of preventing rape; they say we should just teach men not to rape, which seems to assume that if you appeal to people’s egalitarian ideals, they’re going to be content to let their genetics get weeded out as other men, maybe less worthy men, go off with those girls and have sex with them instead, and maybe stick them with the bill for welfare to support the resulting children. Self-respecting men won’t put up with this, once they realize it’s not even making the girls happy in the long run, or having any other benefits for society.

Oh, and like I was saying earlier, another problem is that men will get jealous if they think other men have the ability to have sex with young girls, and they don’t; so they might oppose legalization of sex with those girls for that reason. It’s going to be easier, probably, for responsible men to gain sexual access to girls when this can be done through a man-to-man conversation with the father rather than by having to figure out how to seduce the girl and devote effort to that.

Never underestimate the ability of jealousy to drive people’s political behavior; it’s one of the reasons people don’t like immigrants coming in. They say, “They take our jobs” because they feel entitled to those jobs. Similarly, if men think that a proposed system would give other men an undeserved advantage in having sex with little girls, then they are probably going to object to that system.

A system where men make the sexual decisions for women is probably going to result in a more equitable distribution of young girls to the male population, since it won’t be based on which man devotes the most time and effort to seduction of said girls, and has the best seduction skills (as opposed to spending his time honing other skills; a lot of losers are good at seduction but nothing else). If people see that a system can distribute sex somewhat equitably, and reward good men with sex, then they’re more likely to go along with it.

One benefit of legalizing sex with younger girls is that it’s going to result in more sex, so in that sense, we’re making the pie bigger, rather than redistributing the pie. Men will be getting more sex out of girls, during the years when those girls are hotter, than would otherwise be the case. So that’s a selling point.

Feminists may object, but feminists can just be brushed aside at any time; most feminists are women, and women only have as much clout as men choose to give them, since they’re not the ones with the muscles or the guns to enforce their will. The same applies to any courts that might try to enforce women’s rights; they don’t have any police or military forces under their command either, so they can be ignored if the political branches choose to do so. And the political branches tend to be dominated by men.

Freedom of speech

Sure, property rights exist, but there’s also such a thing as “bad business” practices

Some people say, “We have a right to deny people free speech on our platform, because it’s our property.”

Okay, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good business practice. There’s a lot of stuff you have a right to do, as a business owner, that isn’t good business.

I took an hour lunch one time at work, and left a sign that said I’d be back in an hour. I neglected to give a specific time, so when a co-worker showed up with a client, they ended up waiting a whole hour, because they didn’t realize they had arrived right after I left, and so they didn’t know when exactly I was coming back. I remember my co-worker left a message on my voice mail saying that was “bad business.”

But, if I’d been the business owner, it probably would’ve been considered legally acceptable, if the contract didn’t regulate that behavior. It’s just a shitty practice. People who take pride in their work should theoretically try to limit how many shitty practices they have, although I understand that in some lines of work, there’s not a lot of competition, so people have to pretty much put up with such practices.

For example, if you want to get someone to work on your house, or fix an appliance, unless you go to someplace like Sears, you’ll probably be dealing with some guy who won’t actually show up to do the work when he said he would. Such lines of work tend to attract people who didn’t want to get into a regular 9-5 job because they’re too lazy or unreliable; or they get into it because they have a talent at fixing stuff and then they just sink to the level of the lowest common denominator because, when they look around at the competition, they realize they can get away with it.

Well, a site like Wikipedia or or any number of other platforms doesn’t really have to abide by a lot of good business practices, and in fact, who knows, maybe companies like Google who pay their bills with these huge donations push on them some bad business practices, such as censoring certain political and cultural dissidents. People who don’t necessarily like Google’s stances on social issues still have to put up with them somewhat, because they offer pretty good service compared to the competition.

It’s just sad that civilization hasn’t really advanced to a point yet where we regard freedom of expression on popular web platforms as something people should desire to offer, although I guess at this point, a lot of business owners feel like their hands are tied by the fact that the media can badmouth them without a lot of repercussions, and give them a bad reputation among normies who don’t think critically and/or don’t care about freedom of expression.

The result is, we’re back to a situation where we don’t have the advantages of having huge platforms that offer a lot of diverse viewpoints, like in the past; we’re going to go back to everyone having to create their own site, without that same centralized infrastructure, so it’s going to involve a lot of duplication of work. And Linux is kind of shitty to have to work with, but it’s what people will have to get used to using, because most free speech webhosts require you to know it.


Thought experiment on the ethics of rape

Let’s suppose there were a nuclear holocaust, and the only two humans left alive on earth were you and a 13-year-old girl, so that the future of the human race depended on the two of you reproducing. And suppose, for whatever reason, she refused to have sex with you. Would you consider it ethical to rape her?

If it were me, I would say, yeah, it’s ethical. The reason we have ethics is to ensure there’s a framework for harmonious cooperation in a society. But if people refuse to cooperate, you have to do what you have to do, to ensure progress keeps moving forward.

What happens if the human race dies? Then the progress the animal kingdom made, through evolution, to get us to this point, is lost. There’s a lot of suffering and aggression in the animal kingdom; humans are the one of the kinder and most civilized species, that has found ways to live in greater comfort and peace than most. If our species dies, then it’s going to result in more problems than if we continued even by imperfect means.

But, I also just don’t view rape as even all that imperfect of a way to reproduce in that situation. I think men were meant to rule over women, since a family needs to stay together and have unified leadership for the good of the kids, and for that to happen, there needs to be one person in charge. And this has necessitated men making decisions that women didn’t agree with throughout human history, for the sake of avoiding the evils of both (1) divorce and (2) constant fighting.

Within a marriage, it’s not practicable to have a law against rape, since the result will probably be that as soon as the female gets disgruntled and wants to leave, there will be a false rape accusation, as a way by which she seeks to more easily loose herself from the marital knot. There’s typically a lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in such cases (often the alleged rape is not reported till long afterward, when any evidence has gone stale), so we either relax the usual burden of proof by taking her word, or we don’t. To prevent injustice, most societies simply didn’t criminalize marital rape.

Historically, marriage served as a way of divvying up females among the male population, so that men didn’t run into conflicts with other men over who had a right to a woman. By that logic, if you were the only man left in the world, then any female left in the world would belong to you, just like all the other resources in the world would be available for you to claim. If you don’t do that, then all you’re doing is leaving humanity to die, so that everything will just be claimed by whatever species comes after us; and if they in turn allow themselves to die, the cycle will just continue, with evolutionary progress getting set back each time and having to start from scratch. What’s the point?

Maybe we could have some species that doesn’t require rape in order to survive. Male house wrens, for instance, don’t seem to rape; they just build nests and wait to see if females will be attracted to them. But male wrens will try to attack each other and take over males’ nests, and then destroy any offspring in the nest and impregnate the female. So there’s still aggression.

Humans have built a civilization that features more voluntary cooperation than what any other species has accomplished. Knock on wood, we’ve even eliminated (perhaps by the threat of nuclear annihilation) world wars. But the female remains pretty recalcitrant, and unwilling to cooperate with keeping the fertility rate at an acceptable level unless she’s forced. When dealing with a recalcitrant population, whose stubborn attitude stands in the way of survival and progress, what does one one do?

Nature seems to have answered by giving man the strength needed to rape women. It’s kind of like how nature answered the question of what to do with Native Americans, by giving civilized man the ability to annihilate them and take their land away. They had to either become civilized, or make way for civilization; civilization is the higher state of man. It represents progress, an increase in our power over the natural world, including other men.

If it were nature’s law that women have equal rights, then nature would not have made the female so recalcitrant against willingly letting men use her body for enough reproduction to sustain the species. She doesn’t want to submit unless forced to; or if females do submit, it’s not consistently enough to produce enough children to keep the species going.

Even though in the modern world, a female can earn a bunch of money at some office job where her role is to apply the same kinds of skills (e.g. juggling 12 different tasks with 12 different deadlines, the same way her ancestors may have juggled 12 different kids) that mothers performed in ages past, the fact remains, she can’t do that while still providing adequate child care, unless that’s going to be outsourced. But to whom; a daycare? Or a cousin or sister, like in the Philippines, where the whole clan lives together?

The Filipino fertility rate is going down too (currently at 2.64 births per woman and falling); apparently that’s not working too well for them. Like other countries, they tend to send their daughters to school as they become wealthy enough to do so, which everywhere has caused fertility rate to fall below replacement. But, if you don’t educate women, how can they be empowered; and if they’re not empowered, once more, we’re back to a situation where they effectively don’t have a lot more rights than chattel.

Maybe someday, our species could evolve to where there could be some sort of matriarchal rather than patriarchal structure, but it’s unlikely that there would be an egalitarian structure, since equal partnerships tend to be unstable, and stability tends to be needed for the raising of quality children. We are social animals, and so two parents tend to do better than one, as they can cooperate to lend their unique strengths to the situation.

Some say marriage is obsolete; that in the future (or heck, to a growing degree, even in the present), maybe women will just collect child support from their kids’ fathers, or from society at large, or from subsequent lovers who want to have sex with them. I suppose it could be possible, but there might not be a lot of point in such men’s investing in the kids in non-monetary ways, when they lack a biological affinity with the child, didn’t get to bond with them when they were young, and could get dumped at any time in favor of some substitute dad, much as the original dad got dumped.

It’s kind of like, if there were a shipwreck, and you were stranded on a lifeboat with one other person, who happens to be the owner of the lifeboat. Suppose he were to say, “I think we should sail this way” and, based on your superior navigation skills, you were to say, “No, we should sail this other way.” And suppose he were to be obstinate and refuse to listen to reason.

If you were confident that your way was right, and would result in your survival, and that his way was wrong, and would result in your death, would it be acceptable to forcibly impose your will (e.g. by tying him up and doing the sailing yourself); or must you go with his decision, since he’s owner of the lifeboat?

I would say, you should go ahead and impose your will, because property rights exist for the sake of orderly cooperation in a society, and if people refuse to cooperate, and death is the looming outcome, you must do what’s necessary to avert death, so that cooperation will be possible in the future. When you’re back in civilization, he may thank you that you didn’t listen to him, but instead did what you needed to do, to save both of you.

Some strict libertarians might say, if you don’t agree with his decision, your only recourse is to jump out of the boat and drown. Remember what Thoreau said, “If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself.” Well, it really depends on the parameters of the situation; if you’re sure that no good will come from respecting someone’s rights, and that a lot of harm will come from it, then it seems pointless to respect their rights.

Another thought experiment libertarians will engage in, is asking, “If you fall off the roof of a tall building, and manage to grab a pole jutting out of the side of the building, to save yourself; and as you’re hanging there, the owner of the building puts his head out the window and demands that you let go, are you obligated to respect his property right?” I would say, maybe, but in that case, I’ll go ahead and disrespect his property right, and let him sue me for any damages later. I think that would serve the greater good.

It’s basically the necessity defense.

Libertarian Party

The Libertarian convention has been kinda cringe

It’s been a cringe stylistically (in that it seems like there’s either been dilatory stuff out of control, or the chair trying to say dilatory stuff has been going on; why don’t people just quit being dilatory), but also in terms of the comments. White knights have been talking a lot of trash about candidates who have unpaid child support. I guess they never saw that meme about where the money actually goes.

Then they were also talking about abortion. My motto about abortion is, “His wife, his child, his choice.” Let the husband decide whether his wife gets an abortion.