Alt Left: An SJW Calumny Against Milo Yiannopoulus

Now hear me out. I absolutely despise Milo Yiannopoulus, the reactionary Alt Right troll and hero of sticking it to the SJW’s. But he does a lot more than skewer leftwing airheads.
He’s also a reactionary on everything else, and if you have been reading this blog long enough, you know that we are basically liberals to Leftists on most issues aside from the Cultural Left Freakshow, about which we are to the right of but not all the way to Republican social conservatives, who we consider to be rightwing Puritan crazies.
So with the Alt Left here, as with the Alt Left on so many things, it’s idiots to the right of me, idiots to the left of me. We would never want to be members of any club that would let us in, but no one would let us in anyway. Instead, everybody hates us. To be Alt Left is to be in the center of a circular firing squad. But it also means to be correct. The Alt Left is based on facts, truth, and science – Enlightenment values if you will. It’s not only the Right that hates science and truth, it’s the Cultural Left too. They’re just as bad as Republicans, as most Identity Politics movements proceed from fact-free theories and assumptions.
Anyway, Milo is a stinking filthy rich member of the ruling class, and he’s depraved, degenerate, and decadent like so many of them. Morals? Milo doesn’t have any. He jokes about taking huge Black cocks up his ass. His Alt Right “conservative” audience roars with approval. Since when is interracial homosexual sodomy the favorite meal of…reactionaries…?!
None of it makes sense unless you understand the decadence of the ruling class. The ruling class takes power on campaigns of religion and morality, which they sell to the masses. Morals are for the poor, and they go on and on about how immoral the poor are. Why, if they would only go to church more, they would get rich!
But you know pesky things like morals are only for those Little People. The aristocrats are of course exempt from morals in the realm of sex, drugs, and…just about anything, just like they’ve always been. So it is only in this context of chastity for the poor, interracial gay gangbangs for the rich that this confounding Milo can be understood.
Of course Milo has a right to be a degenerate homosexual.
As noted earlier, SJW’s harangue us straight men endlessly daring to look at JB’s, but gay men get to bang all the boy JB’s they want because gay men are good in SJW theory, and straight men are evil.
But somehow the SJW’s violate their own rules when it comes to Milo. Now if Milo was just an ordinary leftwing gay man, no one would care what he said or did. But Milo did the unthinkable. He decided to be a typical degenerate gay man while adopting ultra-rightwing politics. It was the latter that pointed the bulls eye on his head for SJW’s. So rightwing gays are in a class similar to straight men – evil males who must be demonized.
Hence the constant “Milo is a pedophile” claim from the SJW Left.
But what’s behind this serious allegation? Is Milo just an ordinary pedestrian chicken hawk like so many gay men? Nope. He’s not even that bad! Under SJW parlance, Milo was actually a victim of gay child molesters or pedophiles. So SJW’s are calling the kid who got molested by pedophiles a pedophile for daring to get molested! Outrageous or what?
The truth is a bit more complex. Milo stated flippantly that as a precocious male Lolita or Lolito of 13, he was already deep into gay sex and drug party culture. Of course, this culture is full of underage teenage boys. They’re everywhere at parties like that, and the older men pass them around callously like candy.
Milo said he was a regular at these degenerate sex and drug gay parties on fancy boats owned by gay men. There was plenty of sex with older men on offer for the budding Milo, and I guess he decided that the stovepipes were to his liking. In other words, Milo said that as a young teen of 13, he used to go to gay drug and sex parties full of older men, he had a lot of hot sex with  older men, and worse of all for SJW’s, he dared to actually like the experience.
Now victims of statutory rape or kids who get molested are not allowed to enjoy the experience, although many if not most of the teens love it. Even some of the little kids enjoy it. If they do enjoy it, the feminist line is that these poor kids or especially teens are deluded. Their enjoyment is not real. It’s fake. It’s fake because somehow they have been brainwashed into getting off on it. They actually hate it but they only think they like it because as minors they are too immature and stupid to figure out if they enjoy something or not!
This is the source of a lot of confusion for them because it was wrong, but it felt so good, and this mixes them up a lot. This is part of the reason that so many molested kids go on the years-long Therapy Express. But no one ever talks about this. No one talks about how some of the kids and most of the teens liked or even loved the experience. To do so brands one a pedophile by proxy simply by promoting a “pedo argument.” Except the pedo argument here happens to be true.
So, Milo isn’t a pedophile and he’s never been one. Instead Milo is being called a pedophile for what SJW’s would call getting molested or being a victim of sexual assault and breaking the rules by saying he liked it instead of falling apart like a baby.
So why is Milo a pedophile? Because he was a molestation victim who enjoyed getting molested. Even if that is true, how on Earth does that make someone, anyone, a pedophile?
Milo’s a slug but I believe in fairness and giving everyone their due. Next time you hear BS about Milo being a pedophile, you might want to, just maybe, think twice before believing that accusation.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Answering Some Reddit Delphi Murders Sub Haters, Part 2

Here.
I really shouldn’t answer this stuff, but some of it is so outrageously and libelously flat out wrong that they need to be answered because they are so nasty, so wrong and so destructive. They actually report my conclusions as the exact opposite of what I concluded! Very few rumors below fall into that category, but a few do.
I would like to point out that a few posters were considerate enough to write about me more or less respectfully. I thank these posters for their decency. I notice they are all men. For some damned reason I am a lightning rod for women on that sub.

(like instuctionals on how to seduce a preteen girl, A.K.A “grooming”)

This is the worst one of them all. I keep answering this charge and they keep throwing it back at me. Now that I think of it, I did write a post, “How to Seduce a Teenage Girl,” but I think I said the post was mostly intended for teenage boys. Anyway, that was a troll post and having had a lot of experience with them, you don’t seduce a teenage girl any differently than you seduce a grown woman. There are no special techniques to use if she’s not 18 yet.
Thing is, I would never write a post ever instructing child molesters on how to groom a child! Are you kidding? Hell no. I don’t support molesting children. Never have, never will. In fact, I have turned people in for child porn, and I turned in a neighbor for possibly prostituting their 12 year old daughter out to men.

‘exploring the sexuality’ of underage girls by adult males is definitely illegal and mostly considered immoral.

That’s not true. Grown men can talk about the sexuality of teenage girls all they want to. Of course it’s legal. And in terms of immorality, adolescent sexuality is a study of heavy research and many books and journal articles have been published on this very important aspect of our culture.
If he truly is a psychiatrist/therapist, professional whatever,the discussion of such taboo issues on personal blog is also unethical.
Peer counselors don’t need a license. And a lot of clinicians write about subjects like this. There is a sexologist who writes about this subject very regularly. Is he unethical. Clinicians can write about any are of psychology and psychiatry that they wish, even sexology.

The correct way is to conduct a study, compile the research, and present it to a community of peers for review. Open internet blog is not the way.

That’s not true either. I publish in academic journals and I referee for a journal. Scholars, including colleagues I have worked with, publish their ad hoc, seat of the pants, anecdotal and observational research all the time. It’s just that people might not take it seriously until you do actual peer reviewed research on the topic.

Can you imagine some poor mom dropping off her poor daughter to talk to a “professional” and its him????

I don’t generally work with minors for money. I have worked with one teenage boy though. I worked with two teenage girls, one 13 and the other 14, for free because they were in such bad shape. They were miserable and almost suicidal so they needed some intervention. And course we talked about all sorts of sexual matters because that was why they came to me in the first place. Most of my professional work is with people dealing with sexual issues. Last time I checked, they felt that I helped them a lot.

but i wouldnt doubt thats the reason he got into that field-

She just called me a pedophile of some sort. I have no more interest in underage girls than any other man.
Another libel.

I know everyone is entitled to have their own opinion- but being attracted to girls that age is 100% NOT OK- I’m 38 and holding a conversation with guy or girl in their early 20’s is hard enough.. everything about him is off – total creep.

If you don’t think he’s a creep you either haven’t read his entire blog or you agree with his views on the sexual availability & desirability of prepubescent or barely pubescent girls.
Sounds like another libel. Of course I do not think that prepubescent girls are sexually available. Are they sexually desirable? Not to me, but to at least 25% of all normal men they are. But no men should have sex with a girl like that. Actually it is more than that. The most recent study I saw showed 51% of normal men responding sexually to prepubertal girls in the lab. I guess 51% of all men are evil pedophile scum who should be killed.
What’s barely pubescent? 10-12 years old? No man should have sex with a girl that young. They’re not available to anyone. Desirable? Not to me but to at least 25% men they are.
In fact it is. Endless studies in the lab have shown that all normal men are aroused by teenage girls in the lab, typically maximally. In other words, men react just as strongly to teenage girls as to adult women. The only men who don’t react to them are dead or gay, so I assume this man mosluggo is a homosexual.

Frankly I’m amazed he hasn’t been investigated on suspicion of possessing child pornography.

No one gets investigated for possession of child porn for some shitposting they did on the Internet. Good luck getting a warrant for that. They would have to have a valid tip (you saw CP on someone’s computer) or they would have to catch them on CP sites. The latter is how most men go down on this charge. They also find networks and when they unravel the networks, they often find a lot of other people trafficking in this stuff. I have no interest in that garbage and I wouldn’t have any of it anywhere near my computer. Supposedly I’ve already been reported for this dozens of times already, and no officer ever contacted me, so it’s useless to call me in.

In my opinion, these statements are the reason for all the pedophi- excuse me, hebephilic tendencies….He can’t deal with a real grownup woman. So he “explores” the sexuality of pubescent girls. But Hey, he’s not a pedophile. Noooo sir. No way.

Are you kidding? I’ve had many relationships with real grow-up women ever since age 17. I’ve dated more women than most men will in 10-20 lifetimes.

Jeez, he’s an old man pedocel…Guy sounds like an incel.

More libel.
Sheesh, I am probably as far as you can go in terms of being the polar opposite of an incel. Where do these idiots come up with these ideas?

apparently he dates almost very young models (in his dreams).

Actually I do. They are usually in their 20’s. Last date I had was last September though.

i used to read his writings and try to guess what his DSM-V personality orders were, for fun.

More libel.
I don’t have a DSM-5 personality disorder, and I’ve probably seen 30 clinicians who diagnosed me over 35 years. They actually specifically stated that I didn’t have a personality disorder, thank God.

Hmmmm….the quotes from the first few paragraphs were plagiarized verbatim from this very subreddit. I’m surprised you didn’t recognize them.

I have no idea what this lunatic woman is talking about. She is referring to this post. I don’t even read that vile Reddit, and I don’t understand what material she thinks I plagiarized (copied word for word) from there, but I copied nothing word for word from there.
Another libel.

RL might understand the consumption and effects of methamphetamine though..

This comment accuses me of being a meth user. Of course I do not use that awful drug. I’m not an idiot. I know what the drug is like, and it’s definitely not for me. The three-day post-high crash alone is enough to put me off of it.
Another libel.
 

He describes himself as a lady killer.

LOL used to be, I guess. I have no idea why people find statements like this so outrageous. Don’t they realize that men like this actually exist? Do they think it’s all fantasy and lies. There are a lot of men like this out there, you know. I know, I made friends with a lot of them. Why do women find this so offensive? Anyway, this is a PUA blog. What do you expect to find on here?

He’s almost certainly attracted to young girls as evidenced by his continual references to pedophilia and hebephilia.

Of course I am. But all men are. It’s been proven in the lab endlessly. I am just being honest. But when I see them on the street nowadays, I don’t even look at them much. They are not very interesting to me. It’s too much of a young girl.
I’m not particularly interested in those subjects, I’m no more attracted to little girls and Lolitas than any other man, but I just think society’s attitudes about this stuff are nonsensical. Pedophilia and hebephilia are research interests of mine because I work with a lot of people who are dealing with thoughts around these themes. But if you want to talk about sexual fantasies and whatnot, all mine revolve around adult women these days, and often older women believe it or not.

He also quotes a study he just happened upon that is about the masturbatory habits of pubescent girls.

Teenage girls. Right. What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with studying the sexuality of sexually mature teenage girls? It’s an important subject of research in terms of Pediatrics, Adolescent Psychology, Psychiatry, Sociology, and many other areas. They are sexual beings who are sexually active in all sorts of ways with themselves and maybe others, and it’s a perfectly reasonable area of inquiry.

I saw several self-confessed paedophiles comment on his blog, including one who graphically detailed his abuse of a little girl in Mexico.

Yes he commented here for a while, but most of the commenters fought with him. Anyone can come here and say anything they want to. If you want to come here and confess to your serial murders or whatever, be my guest.
That slug Lindsay not only left the post up, but made a comment in response.
Sure, why should I take it down? Did I support him? Everyone was attacking him anyway. Let them post and let the antis take them on. Fair is fair.
Is it merely chance that paedophiles congregate on Lindsay’s site?
They don’t congregate here. We have had a couple but the people who came here were mostly hebephiles. I had one on here for a long time,  but I finally threw him off because I got tired of his endless linking to photos of 12 year old girls and whatnot. I could care less about that stuff and I don’t want them literring up my site with that junk.

 I wonder if they’re members of the super safe password protected site? Just musing.

Of course not. Why would I join some pedo site? I’m not into that nonsense.

Law Enforcement are checking your site, slug?! Damn fuckin’ right they are.

No they aren’t. I’ve talked to LE in relation to this Delphi case. They told me they don’t give a damn what I write here. Don’t people realize that police have better things to do than to monitor some random Internet blog?

Lindsay also had a counselling business going on where he states on his blog that he counselled pedophiles.

I worked with a couple of them, one very briefly. I don’t really specialize in that though. I would almost rather refer them out.

I wonder then, why they picked the slug as a counselor.

They came to me because of some articles I wrote. They wouldn’t to make sure they were pedophiles. I assured them that I was 100% sure that they were pedophiles. One man needed a lot of work because he was suicidal and at serious risk of self-harm. He was going to hurt or kill himself to protect children from himself because he could not bear the thought of hurting a child and he was worried he might do that. As you can see, he’s a horrible person, isn’t he? Last I heard he was going to take some libido lowering drugs to kill his sex drive because he was so worried he might hurt a kid. I thought he was a very good person.

Of course, he’s not a counselor anymore.

Yes I am. And I work all over the world too. How about that?

His new job is writing made up drivel on the internet and begging people to send him money.

I work hard. I would like to be compensated for my labor, just like any other worker. Do you work for free? Why should I work for free?
There are some disgusting paedo/hebo apologist posts.
What do you mean? For those who actually have a fixated orientation like this, they can’t help it, and it’s not their fault. It’s only a problem if they act on it? Why beat someone up for something they can’t control and had no choice over? It’s like seeing a guy in a wheelchair and throwing him in the gutter.
Not to mention continuous rants about age of consent laws
I don’t really care about age of consent law as I will hopefully never break them anyway. I am concerned about very young men going down on this stuff. I mean, an 18 year old man going to prison for sex with a 16 year old girl? Two underage teens going to prison for having sex with each other? It’s crazy. And 18 seems a bit high. Most of the world is at 15 or 16. But it makes no difference to me as I don’t violate those laws anyway. I think most men who break these laws are idiots who get what they deserve.
(Personally I think the people who watch porn with innocent high school girl themes need to be watched very very closely.
Idiots don’t realize that LE doesn’t have the resources to watch the millions of men watch teen barely legal porn bullshit. We are talking millions of men here. They don’t even monitor men with openly pro-pedophilia blogs. There are pro-pedophile forums out there, and LE doesn’t even monitor the men on those forums. There are over 1 million men like that in the US alone. LE doesn’t have the time or interest to waste on some guys shitposting in the Net.
They will only investigate if there is evidence of a law being broken. There has to be a credible charge that an attempt or actual child molestation. For possession of child porn, mostly they monitor sites that distribute this s stuff, watch the traffic and trace it back to individual computers. Police don’t have the resources to monitor all of the “possible criminals” out there. It’s an insane notion. I can’t believe people fall for this bull.

Yeah, he is unemployed.

Actually I live off a trust fund, so I don’t have to work. But my health is not good enough to work fulltime anyway, so I work these side jobs. And of course I pay my own bills.

He repeatedly quotes pro-paedo studies, like apparently 95% of men are attracted to 13 year olds or some shit like that.

Nope, it’s 100%, and they’re not pro-pedo studies.  That’s the straight up solid science on the subject. The studies have been replicated so many times that no one even bothers to test the hypothesis anymore.

Isnt he the same guy who was trying to justify being attracted to young girls, but saying he wasnt a pedo at the same time??

Shit. The teenage girl bullshit again! Of course it’s normal to be attracted to teenage girls, even if they are underage. All normal men are. The only ones that aren’t, like mosluggo here, are obviously faggots. The only men who don’t turned on by these girls are gay men. It’s been proven in the lab so many times that no one even questions it.
Of course normal men who are attracted to JB’s are not pedophiles! Pedophiles don’t even like teenage girls. Those are old ladies to them!
And the American Psychiatric Association has even stated that men being attracted to 12-14 year old girls is not a mental illness, and it’s not even abnormal! Even if it is to the point of Hebephilia. Go read the Hebephilia discussions during the debate about DSM-5 (see, I actually read all that stuff). They threw out Hebephilia as a proposed paraphilia because they said it’s not a disorder and it’s not even abnormal.
I’ll tell you what. I’ll argue the science, and you all argue the hysteria, pseudoscience and unscientific bullshit. Deal?
And if i remember right, he said hes a doctor/psychiatrist.??
I work in mental health as a counselor or whatever else you want to call me. We work on a strictly scientific basis too. And I actually specialize, among other things, in people who are getting wrapped up in worries about sex with children. And yes I have worked with a couple of actual pedophiles, and I understand the condition very well. Big hint here: They don’t get turned on by mature humans! They only like little children, under 13. I’ve worked with two of them so far, and neither had an interest in teenagers. Teenagers were too old for them.

at one point had posted a near-tutorial about how to seduce one

What? Why would I post something like that?! I can’t even touch those girls for God’s sake and I almost never even talk to them. I can tell you right now how to seduce a teenage girl though, having done so many times. You do it pretty much like how you seduce a woman. A teenage girl is a woman in a sense. What works for women works for JB’s. It’s not rocket science, folks.
how attracted to **him** these children were.
What! Hell no. I mean sure, for most of my life, some of them were, of course, but at my age almost none of them are. Newsflash to all the idiot women out there! Teenage girls like men! JB’s like men! Even older men. 18-40. Some of them do anyway. Anyone knows that except stupid women who lie to themselves and everyone else.
This makes me conclude he is a girl attracted hebephile himself.
Really you dumbass woman? Do you even know what that word means? If I were like that, it would mean that I am only attracted to 12-15 year old girls and I am not attracted to mature females at all. I would see a 16 year old girl and call her a grandma. That’s what hebephiles do. You really believe I think like this? You dumb bitch.

His so called “crime scene photos” were merely pics of searchers and natural flora that were so pixelated that the subjects could not be identified.

No one knows what those photos are of. There are many camera flashes going off right in the area of those photos. Does the brilliant Gray Hughes have any explanation for all those camera flashes? Those flashes are from a crime scene. They are being caused by detectives shooting photos of a crime scene. No way are there searchers in those photos. Searchers in a circle shooting photo after photo? Please. How stupid are you, woman?
Anyway, I think you have reading comprehension problems. In my last post, I said I didn’t know what those were photos of.

In short, if there is a rumor about that Lindsey hears, he will expound on it ad nauseum, no matter how far-fetched. I believe he never met a speculation he didn’t like

That’s funny. You realize that the ISP specifically contacted us and asked to see a lot of our photos and data? But no worry, obviously I’m full of it and ISP are idiots.

With the amount of information that he claims to have about the case there are only a few logical conclusions 1) He is LE attached to the case, but for some reason is leaking all of the information that is supposed to be kept secret or 2) He is the actual killer (only other way he could possibly know this much detailed info) or 3) A pathological liar / fraud.

None of them are true.
Of course I’m not the killer, but thank you for crediting my intuitive, profiling, and cold reading skills. Also I’ve already been investigated and cleared by Indiana State Police. Go ask the FBI. A friend of mine did, and the FBI told them, “Lindsay hasn’t left California in years.”
Of course I don’t make up anything. If I did, I would tell me group and ask them if they want to dissolve the group because I would be so ashamed of myself.
Oh boy, the clowns and haters over on Reddit are going round and round again lying about me. Some of these lies are truly pernicious though and as many times as I have refuted them, I always have to go back and do it again.
First of all, a couple of the comments are fairly respectful, as far as such things go. My regards to those commenters for keeping it clean and real. I will deal with most of it in another post.

When he first started turning up on sites discussing Delphi, because of the type of comments he was making & his blog content, people were wondering if he was an RSO trolling crime forums under a pseudonym he took from the other notorious Robert Lindsay

Whoa! One of us Robert Lindsays is a sex offender! Well, I’ll be. I always knew we can came from an illustrious family line.

I’ve definitely seen Lindsay describe himself as an extremely attractive man in the looks dept.

Gong! Wrong again. I’m not that tone-deaf. I would never say I was goodlooking because no one can be objective about that. Instead I say that other people have been saying for many years that I was goodlooking or very goodlooking. And at age 24, I did get two offers to be a model, but I turned them down because I’m so damned homophobic. Now that I think of it, that really was the peak of my looks. What I would give to have that face back!
Alas, when you bet on the body, you bet on a losing horse, as the Buddhists say. The handsomest men and the most beautiful women will all see their looks fade. I am 60 years old. Most women won’t even look at me anymore. But women my age still rave about how hot I am, so I guess I’ve still got something. Honestly though, I hate my most recent photos.

He is certainly preoccupied with his appearance and intelligence (such as it is).

It’s an IQ blog. We talk IQ on here. It’s what we do. If it offends you, leave. There’s really no need to talk about my intelligence. If you’re bright, it’s obvious to all around you. Just read the site. There’s nothing more to say.
I would like to say though that I did absolutely nothing to earn either my looks or my brains. I simply lucked out in the genetic lottery. I don’t see how that makes me better than anyone else. How am I better? Because I was smart enough before I was born to pick the right parents?
And in case you are wondering, my father was a very handsome man. I saw a photo of him at 35 when he married and he could have been a Hollywood actor. No wonder he slayed so much. And my mother has always been beautiful of course. My father had a near-gifted IQ (129), and my mother has a genius IQ (~147). She also graduated second in her class at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Law School. That’s pretty damned hard to do. All my siblings have genius IQ’s of 140+.
I guess we all got lucky.

His prose is the literary analog of explosive diarrhea.

Well, let’s see you do better, ok?
I won Best Column for a High School Newspaper in California in 1974 at the USC High School Journalism Awards. I wrote for my school paper and school magazine at university. Out of 50 submissions to the magazine, five were chosen, and mine was one of the five. I am a former Assistant Editor of a magazine. I have worked as a freelance writer. I have published literary fiction (short story). Gary Snyder, a very famous writer – look him up on Wikipedia – was at that literary conference, and he was telling people how much he liked my story.
I write for a peer reviewed linguistics journal and referee on the same journal. I also write books. I’m a published author. Most recently, I published an 81 page chapter in a linguistics book printed out of a university in Turkey. And that had to get through two murderous peer reviews – one for the journal and one for the book – including one that included the top scholars in that field.
So anyway, you don’t like my writing? Let’s see you do better.

The guy is a pervert and shows no regard for others and their comments. He constantly asks for money.

Pervert? Well, of course I am. Thank you very much. As long as I get those testosterone shots anyway.
No regard for others and their comments? Not so. Come to our forum some time and see if it’s true.
I don’t constantly ask for money. But this is a pay site. It’s not a free site! We hit you up of course in the first two posts on the front page, but after that, we leave you tight pikers alone most of the time. How bout if you tell me why I should work for free? Do you work for free?

I am saddened to think that anyone would believe anything he writes.

Ask the ISP. They requested to see a lot of our data and photos, and we sent it to them. I sure hope they don’t believe us!

He seems to me like a sad, lonely, messed up man with nothing but time on his hands.

Not sad.
Not lonely.
Messed up? Hey, we all are. But I work in mental health, so I’m not allowed to be too nuts, or I won’t be able to work with my “messed up” clients.
Time on my hands? I live off a trust fund. I don’t have to work. Eat your heart out!

I personally feel like he should be ashamed of himself for all of the nonsense he spews.

Of course not. They’re all rumors and nowadays at least we check the rumors out extensively before we even run them. A lot of rumors come from such unreliable sources that we never run them. Rumors are rumors. A lot of them will go bad. That’s just how rumors are. But usually some will end up being correct.

He’s banned him and deserves to be sued…How he hasn’t been sued and found guilty of defamation is beyond me.

I am certainly not banned from the Delphi forum. I posted there not long ago in fact. No one will sue me. I am a Journalism major. In order to prove libel, the statement must be:

  1. False
  2. Known to be false by the person who made it.
  3. Made with malice aforethought.

Of course I don’t print anything that I know is false. Anyway, you can’t get sued for libel for printing a rumor.
BA Journalism. Had to take Law of Mass Communications, run exactly like a law school class. We spent a lot of time on libel law. I know it better than you all ever will. I can’t be sued for libel because I haven’t committed any.

People that use tragedies like this to exploit others are the lowest of the low.

Ha ha. Well the police found some of our information valuable. That’s worth something. And the families don’t care what I write here. We have contacts with people who are very close to both families and they told us this.

I’m pretty certain that he is an Aspie (Aspergers syndrome) which is through lack of a better term high functioning autism.

Assburgers?! I’ve been seen by plenty of clinicians over time, psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, MSW’s, LCSW’s. I’ve gotten a few diagnoses but I definitely never got that one! I’ve dated maybe 200 females in my life. There’s no way I could have done that if I had Assburgers. I hear those guys are practically Walking Chick Repellent.

He is extremely intelligent from what I can see, and a lot of what he says is either stated fact or it’s talking about a rumor- that’s where he falls over, he is a bit time deaf and awkward to the mood.

Lots of people are tone-deaf, especially men. The vast majority of them certainly don’t have this massively overdiagnosed condition. Actually I am the opposite of socially clueless. I can almost read your damned mind! That’s how socially with it I am. That’s just about a diagnosis of Anti-Assburgers, if there is such a thing.

Same reason he spends his days on Quora answering questions.

Queera banned me. Thank God! Why is answering questions on Queera all the time imply being tone-deaf? There are hundreds or thousands of people who do just that.

The part I have a problem with is not only does he obsess about pedo vs. hebe., he said he went into chat rooms with little girls and also went on and on about how sexual 9 yr old girls were.

This is so wrong! I have never gone into chat rooms where there were little girls. Why would I go into a place like that? I’d be ashamed to anywhere near a place like that.
As part of some anti-pedophile research I was doing to try to disprove some common arguments pedophiles use to support having sex with kids, I did go into bulletin boards where teenage girls were talking about developmental milestones, which I was doing research on as the age of pubertal markers is said to be dropping. It just so happened that  they were discussing their sexual behavior too. They were just bulletin boards like Reddit, sitting on the Net for anyone to see. No one was chatting in real time. You can go read them yourself if you wish.
I wasn’t there for that, but I got out a pen and tallied it up anyway. It’s good research. Underage teenage sex is problematic in a lot of ways and causes some society problems. We need to learn as much about it as possible. It’s a public health matter.
That nine year old girl stuff is some real slander. Pedophiles argue that little children have strong sex drive, want to have sex with adults and  try to seduce adults all the time. That argument seemed dubious to me, so I was out to disprove it. That’s why I was on the bulletin board. And on the contrary, my research determined that pre-pubertal children do not have much of a real sex drive at all.
The sex drive comes on in girls at age 13 nowadays, and at that time, many start masturbating, fantasizing about sex, and desiring to have sex with other humans. I found little of that behavior before age 13. So this person has completely misrepresented my position. In fact, they have turned it completely upside down.
I’m getting called a pedophile for doing anti-pedophile research! What in God’s name is wrong with you?

“hot girls throw themselves at me”

LOL wut. Baby, I’m 60 years old. That was way back in the old days, and those days are long gone, never to come again. But yes, it was like that for a bit. People just don’t understand how good handsome men can have it if they play their cards right and perfect their charm, Game, personality, etc. You would not believe the type of lives they can live and the crazy things that can happen to them. It’s the sort of stuff you hear about it and say, “That never happens to anyone!” except it does happen to Chad. I have known many young men like this, and oh boy, the stories I could tell you.

it is NOT okay to be discussing little girls(9 freaking trs old!) Sexuality.

It is ok. I will do it again just to piss you off. As far as the sexuality of 9 year old girls goes, as a good rule, they don’t have any! They don’t have  any real sex drive the way we adults do. They do not have the physical sex drive that mature females do. There are physical sensations of the mature female sex drive that I will not go into here, but girls have none of these. Furthermore, little girls do not seem to have any interest in having sex with other humans.
This is the psychological component of the mature female sex drive. One of my best woman friends once described it to me as a feeling of “hunger.” Well, little girls don’t have that. Yes, little girls do engage in sex play. We call it childhood sex play and it is extremely common. I hear about it from clients all the time. This seems to be more exploratory or curiosity seeking as opposed to the type of actual physical and psychological sex drive of a mature adult.
You happy now?

He admitted going into CHILDREN’S chat sites and discussing sexuality with them…He crossed the line with his “research” and I didn’t care to support someone who would blur those kinds of lines for any reason…they were still trying to explain the problem wasn’t him being specific about age or development preferences in child sex offenders, it was his activities and methods of getting information.

We already discussed this, well, libel. Of course I did no such thing and would not ever do such a thing. I’d rather kill myself.

Oh, ugh, I forgot he was talking about underage girls being attracted to him.

Haha! Baby, I am 60 years old. Come on, please. How many 60 year old men are able to attract underage teenage girls? .01%? I wish they were still attracted to me. That would be so great for my ego. I would not feel so old. But really? This does still happen to me, but almost never, maybe only once a year. The last time was nine months ago, she was a 15 year old girl, and she was a total knockout. You’re welcome. I am so proud of myself! Eat your hearts out, haters.

As someone who is usually called a “hot girl “ you’d never see me ever hit on him let alone lie and say he’s attractive.

Evangitron baby doll, I wouldn’t touch your hot ass with a 10 foot pole and an 11 foot extension!

He should be looked at for at least the creepy research with young girls.

Turn me in, Evangitron, for reading bulletin boards on the Internet! I dare you.

Honestly, it his was what he wrote in his blog about the pre-teen sex drive and his own ‘studies’ that creeped me out more than anything he ever posted about Delphi.

Sigh. Here we go again. My studies determined that “preteens” don’t have any damned sex drive, for Chrissake! That blows up one of the pedos’ biggest justifications for molesting kids! You happy now?

Haven’t looked for a long time, but I see he still has some of his milder views re teenage girls on his older blog posts

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/10/13/test-to-see-if-a-man-is-gay-or-not/

I love it! One of my favorite posts of all time! Thank you so much for linking to that. And yes it is a gay test, and all you guys who say that girl doesn’t turn you on, well, you’re all a bunch of faggots, ok? Have fun in Frisco, boys!

…he came into the biggest fb group posting such unusually graphic sexual assault scenarios to explain the crime scene, that he got himself banned from the group within a few days + mass-reported to the Delphi tip line (he ranted about being questioned by police on his blog not long after being booted from the group)…Being kicked out of the group & questioned by LE was what set off his first round of blog rants.

I don’t care about those silly bitches and their hen party groups. They can have them.
Sheesh. Ranted? How would you like to get reported to the police 50 times for no good reason as a suspect in one of the most notorious modern murder cases? Would you be happy with that?

and it was so sensationalized because he wanted/needed people to pay him.

Not really. Some of the rumors were quite gruesome and nasty as far as how the girls were killed, but we had to report them, as they were good rumors that had a lot of traction.

Against Preventive Detention: It's Not Against the Law to Be Dangerous

You cannot lock people up for “Dangerousness.” It’s not a crime to be dangerous. People can be as dangerous as they want to within certain limits. It’s a free country and you are free to be as dangerous as you want to be. People aren’t criminals until the commit a crime. If we want to lock someone up, we have to wait until they commit a crime first. It’s seems awful, but it’s only fair, don’t you think? Why not lock me up because I might rob a bank some day. After all, I have thought about it before.
There are many men now locked up on the charge of Dangerousness because of new laws that allow sex offenders, and sex offenders only mind you, to be imprisoned on preventive detention forever all because they have a mental disorder that supposedly makes them dangerous.
This is a grotesque misuse of the laws locking up the Criminally Insane. Those people need to be legitimately crazy, generally speaking psychotic, and they generally need to have a chronic psychotic disorder that won’t get better, to be locked away as Dangerous Due to Insanity. I have no qualms with locking up completely insane people who have also committed serious crimes and have an untreatable mental illness that makes them an out and out menace to society. They don’t have the faintest idea what they are doing most of the time, and that combined with a propensity for violent crime means that people like that have to be locked up at least until they are stabilized.
So because we were locking up the psychotically violent criminals in preventive detention (which is rational), the authorities opened up the damned DSM and noted that the DSM had made the error of labeling certain paraphilias as mental disorders, which they probably are not.
How does merely having a paraphilia make you nuts? Some guy has foot fetish. No one knows about it other than some woman who might sleep with him. Otherwise he’s completely normal. Show me how this man is crazy. I can’t see it.
So they started diagnosing a number of sex offenders with paraphilias as a way to keep them locked up forever even after they had served their full term in prison and had paid their debt to society!
These “Mentally Disordered Sex Offenders” being locked away forever because they might maybe commit a crime if they are released are what boils down to thought criminals being prosecuted for thought crimes.
People allow it because they hate pedos so much, but now that people have said it’s OK to lock people away forever on preventive detention on the basis of dangerousness, what’s preventing the authorities from coming out and arresting you for “Dangerousness?” What’s preventive the expansion of these crazy Dangerousness laws? Nothing. People are idiots. They allowed their hatred for pedos to cloud their judgement, and now they have set themselves up for some very nasty preventive detention nonsense. That 5-4 Supreme Court case that legalized this preventive detention nonsense was one of the worst cases ever. Scalia wrote the final opinion, so that ought to tell you something.

Pedophile Test: How Do You Score?

14730715_524877024376429_2062956037324931072_n
Pedophile Test. If you get aroused by looking at these girls, you are a pedophile! A shorteyes, a chomo, a Chester. We need to lock you up pre-emptively on a charge of Dangerousness because you might commit a pedo crime in the future. On the other hand, if you don’t find these girls attractive, you’re either a fag or you’re dead. Take your pick, lads!

Kill, kill, kill the pedophiles!

Extremely Disturbing "Pedophilia" Video


There is actually some truth to this. Quite a few minors who were “victims” of “pedophiles” feel this way, male and female. However, to be fair, most of the accounts that I have read were from people who were teenagers at the time having sex with adults. It is quite common for people who had sexual relationships with adults as teens to feel that the experience was positive. I have read quite a few such accounts.
However, this is the first account I have read from someone who was an actual child – under the age of 13 – who said that they enjoyed the experience. She was 12 and he was 23 when they met. The relationship continued for a year until she was 13 and he was 24, and they forced him to move.
I do not think kids (people under age 13) ever really want to have sex with anyone much, especially adults. They do engage in childhood sex play a lot, but they’re not doing that because they’re horny, and they want to get laid. They’re doing it because they’re curious.
However, when I was 20, a 12 year old girl propositioned me, that is, she asked me to have sex with her. I worked as a janitor at an elementary school and as a 6th grader at age 11, she was my little “best friend.” She was my “little helper.” She befriended me for some reason and used to go on my rounds with me “helping me” on my job.
She talked a lot about what was going on in her life. She was the child of a single Mom, and she told me about how her Mom used to get drunk and have different men over to have sex with them. So she was pretty worldly, 11 going on 20, in that respect.
If you ask me if I had any sexual feelings for this 11 year old girl, I would not know how to answer because honestly I am not aware if I ever saw her in a sexual way. 11 years old girls are not something I think of as sexual beings or sex objects. To me, they seem “sexless.”
I saw her that summer in the park where we both were running. Now she was 12 going on 25. We got to talking, and she out and out more or less asked me to have sex with her.
Her: I’ve been thinking about sex a lot lately.
Me: Um, uh, yeah, ok…
Her: I’m thinking I want to do it.
Me: Uh, yeah, um, well, uhhh…
Her: And I’m thinking I want to do it with you!
I forget what I said afterwards, but it was something like thanks but no thanks.
Because she asked me to have sex with her, that turned into a sexual type experience in my Sexual History file in my brain. Although she was beautiful and interesting in other ways (top student, star athlete), I wasn’t really interested in having sex with her, and it was not just because of the law. She just didn’t seem like someone I could have sex with at that age. She was just way too young.
In later years, I used to try to fantasize about having sex with her, not because I am into 12 year old girls (I absolutely am not) but more because I am a pervert and I love to think about all sorts of weird, perverted sexual stuff just for the heck of it and as a way of telling society to go to Hell.
The weird thing is I could never make the fantasy work. In the fantasy, we would both be naked next to a bed and I would go to have sex with her, and it never worked. I simply could not and to this day cannot imagine having sex with such a young girl. I do not know what it is. She’s too little and I’m too big. Her vagina is too small and my penis is too big. She has almost zero tits. Or maybe just I’m too old and she’s too young. Whatever it is, the two parts of that fantasy, her and me, are like oil and water.
Anyway, this is an extremely disturbing video that adds a very weird new angle to the whole insane Pedophile debate, an angle that is sure ti ignite a lot of hot emotions.
If you ask me what I think should be done in such cases, I really have no idea. My basic view is men should not be messing with 12 year old girls. It’s just too much of a little girl. It’s just about real pedophilia, and the Hell with pedophilia.
If I think about it more, maybe we should look at this stuff at least with regard to teens and adults more on a case by case basis, and if the minor is totally fine with it, that is, if it is completely consensual, maybe we should not prosecute. But maybe in a case this this, we should tell them to knock it off. Which is precisely how the police dealt with it in this case. But I am not sure of those opinions either, as my feelings are pretty embryonic about this sort of thing.
Right now the law is pretty clear, and any man messing with a 12 year old girl, consensual or not, deserves whatever is coming to him. Not because he’s a bad guy necessarily but more because he’s an idiot. The laws are deadly about this sort of thing, and any man breaking those laws is insanely reckless and I have no sympathy for him or reckless fools in general. I generally feel that reckless fools deserve whatever comes to them, good or bad. They’re asking for it.

TheBluePill Posts One of My Posts

Here.
You can see how much they hate me. They have posted a number of my articles, and boy do they hate my guts.
Blue Pillers are feminists and their male feminist men. They are literally the most retarded bunch of idiots on the planet. Almost nothing they say is even remotely true. They totally hate TheRedPill on Reddit and it is true that those guys are hardcore dicks, like you find on most PUA and Game sites. Don’t get me wrong, a lot of the stuff those tools say is true, but I just find them nasty, ugly and misogynistic. I will say that TheBluePill has some good critiques of TheRedPill. A lot of those redpillers are just promoting abuse. I don’t abuse the women I date and love. If the only way I can have a relationship is to abuse the woman, I guess I will date my right hand for the rest of my life.
The blue pill sucks and the red pill sucks too. The Hell with both of them! It’s like so many other things in US politics. There are two views – one more or less rightwing view and one more or less leftwing view, and they are like the two slices of bread in a shit sandwich. They’re both horrible! Not only that, but there’s pretty much nothing in between. So many things in US politics are like this: the Left is insane, the Right is evil, and there’s nothing in between! US politics is polarized in the most senseless of ways. I think it is due to the fake liberal-conservative divide and the demands for ideological purity.
Because of this Trump vs. Clinton reality of gender politics, a new concept has sprung up of ThePurplePill. These are pretty much the only sane people in the gender politics debate.

Test to See if a Man Is Gay or Not

Self-explanatory.
Self-explanatory.

There are huge numbers of men in our society, millions to tens of millions, who would insist that they are not turned on by that female at all. They would also insist that a man who is turned on by this female is a “pedophile,” a “predator” who needs to be beat up, killed or imprisoned.

I have some news for you. All of you men who say that female doesn’t turn you on and say any man who likes that pic is a pedophile…guess what? You’re all gay! Every single man who thinks like this is gay. Gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay! Only a gay man is not aroused by that female.

We need to start attacking all these idiots running around screaming “Pedophile!” at every man who looks at a teenage girl. Next time a man says that to you, laugh in his face and call him a faggot. Tell him he’s gay. A homosexual. A queer. A nancyboy. A fruit. A swish. A girl. A woman. Tell him he’s not a man. We need to start shaming these men who are working for the enemy – the women.

Sure women say any man aroused by this female is a pedophile, but what does that prove? It proves that on certain subjects, the vast majority of females are dumb cunts. But you already knew that. Nothing to see here, move along.

Is This Child Pornography?

Justin Y writes:

YouTube might ban the video cause they don’t want a bad image, but the movie and images aren’t illegal in the United States. In other words, videos like that are “bad for business”.RL: That video was illegal.

The video in question was discussed here in a previous post. A commenter posted it to Youtube and linked it to the comments section of this site, I was suspicious of it especially after his description, so I went to Youtube and looked at it. I watched the video, and then I reported it to Youtube as child pornography. I doubt if I had to do that, but I felt compelled to for some reason. Also I sort of wanted to protect myself for watching it to see what the content was. Youtube took it down within 24 hours.

Video was shot by a White American man with a taste for pubescent girls. He also liked older females and women. Whether he counts as a hebephile or not is not known, but his intense interest in Lolitas probably qualifies him as one alone, since honestly most older adult men are just not particularly interested in Lolis. It’s not true that they have no interest in them at all – studies show that normal men are attracted to 12-14, but only at a lesser rate than to mature females whom they prefer. The attitude of many men towards a girl that age is, yes, there is something to be attracted to there, but it’s not much, and the general POV is something like, “Meh.”

This man traveled around the world so he could have sex with 12-14 year old girls in countries around the world where no one cares about this stuff. He told me he met a lot of other men in these places who were doing the same thing as he was. He told me, “A lot of men will pay good money to have sex with a 12-14 year old girl.” That doesn’t surprise me at all, as I know my gender pretty well. But it’s not something that interests me now, that’s for sure.

The video was shot in the back of a bar in Colombia. The videographer had drunk half a bottle of hard liquor and was pretty loaded. Apparently he got a 12 year old girl to get up on a stage and do a striptease. Perhaps he paid her. I have no idea. Anyway, the video is an account of this striptease. Her sex drive has already come on (this is obvious – don’t ask me how I can tell) and she seems to be enjoying herself. The video is very lascivious with a lot of closeup shots of the genitalia.

Later she gets in the shower for a bit where she is joined by a boy who is maybe 14-16. The mess around a bit in the shower and then retire to a bed where they play around a bit sexually, but no sex occurs.

Is the video illegal?

It is indeed.

Child porn laws are completely nuts, and it often very had to tell if something is illegal or not. However many cases are clear-cut.

Simple nudity of minors is not illegal. There are photos of naked kids all over the Internet. These photos also include many pics of naked teenage girls, many of whom are underage. You can go look at them to your heart’s content – it’s completely legal. Those photos are all in the context of “nudist photos.” They are generally taken outdoors, the minors are often accompanied by other naked minors, and not uncommonly there are adults walking around too. Just kids and adults walking about naked in the outdoors in all sorts of scenes, often at beaches, near bodies of water, or in wooded areas.

That’s all completely legal because simple nudity of anyone of any age is not illegal. Nude pictures of minors are only illegal if there is some sort of lascivious sexual display involved.

It’s hard to say what that might be, but the video of the 12 year old girl doing a lascivious striptease, especially with all the closeups, clearly qualifies. It’s not that she’s naked, no one cares about that. It’s more how she is being naked. This is what is important.

When she’s in the shower, that’s probably legal. When the boy joins her in the shower, things get a bit dicier. See what I mean when I say it’s hard to figure out what’s legal and what’s not? When the two retire to the bed naked and play around, that’s probably illegal. You probably can’t show a minor couple aged 12-15 naked in a bed doing sexual things to each other even if they don’t have sex.

The video poses some important questions. First of all, no one gets hurt. The girl’s having a blast the whole time. The boy doesn’t get hurt either. He’s having a blast himself. If no one got hurt, why is it illegal? And I do think it should be illegal.

I think society is not so much bothered by what is going on in the video (which is just harmless fun) but by the idea that adult men are sitting around in front of computers with their dicks in their hands masturbating to this 12 year old girl doing a striptease. That’s really upsetting to people. Society thinks that men should not be able to have this sort of material as a masturbation aid. There’s something creepy and unseemly about it. I would have to agree with society on this point.

Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with the video per se. Suppose the girl herself had the video and only watched it herself, with the boy, or with her friends?

Any harm? Nope.

Should it be illegal? Maybe not. Maybe minors can make sexual photos and videos of themselves and pass them around to their friends. I certainly don’t think it’s child porn. They don’t belong in jails or prisons for possessing this stuff. But society doesn’t seem to like it anyway. In that case, perhaps society ought to simply seize the material when they find it in the hands of the minors.

There may be other problems.

Some enterprising minors may take photography of themselves or their friends naked or having sex and then try to sell the videos on the market, especially to adults. Now these kids are pretty much manufacturing and selling child pornography. I don’t know what to do about them, but it shouldn’t be legal.

Here’s another one.

Suppose as a minor, you and your friends made and accessed a lot of sexual material of minors nude and having sex with other minors. You kept it around, and now you are an adult male. You continue to look at this old material from your teenage days as you age, to age 20 to 30 to 40. Now you have a 40 year old man masturbating to videos of what is legally child porn produced by his friends during his teen years. Now what?

I have not the faintest idea what to do here as it opens up a lot of interesting legal and philosophical issues.

Naked 12 Year Old Girls Are Evil

If you ever want to see a naked 12 year old girl, here’s how to find one. Go look up the video of the scene with Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby. It’s on the Net. For some reason apparently it’s not child porn yet. Brooke is working or living in some whorehouse and someone walks in on her in the bath. She stands up and tries to cover herself up with a bath curtain.

This video scene is considered very underground and it’s much whispered about as some sort of “hard to believe it’s legal” shock video on the Net. But a funny thing happens if you go and watch it, which you can do, perfectly legally too I might add.

You watch it and you think, “Wow. Is that all it is? Why is everyone so excited about this. This is nothing. This is bullshit. This is stupid. Why would anyone get turned on by this?”

That’s because even though it’s Brooke Shields, yes, to any normal man who sees that video, it doesn’t look like much anything. You can’t see a whole lot and there’s not much to see anyway. She has no breasts. No body hair. Her body is shaped like a stick. The long legs are nice because that’s starting to look like a woman, but the rest is just a joke. It’s not exciting. It’s not a turn-on. It’s actually stupid. You watch it, shrug your shoulders and say, “Meh? What’s the fuss?” Because there’s nothing even slightly erotic about that video.

I will confess to something now. Some put a link to what has to be classed as “child porn” in my comments section. They uploaded it to Youtube and linked to the Youtube video on my site. I followed it to Youtube, was disturbed and wanted to check out just what this highly dubious and maybe illegal video was that this guy linked to. He said he shot the video in the back of a bar in Colombia, and the girl was 12 years old.

So I watched. It’s a 12 year old Colombian girl doing a striptease in the back of the bar. The camera angle is pretty lascivious, so that’s legally child porn. She seems to be enjoying herself as she is doing this striptease. She’s finally all the way naked, and there’s not much there. Her breasts are there, but they are so small it is ludicrous. Nothing attractive. Her body is stick-like. She has a little girl face, and she acts like a kid. She has a tiny bit of pubic hair, but they’re shaving that off now anyway.

After she does her little show, she gets in the shower and washes off. A teenage boy maybe 14 years old joins her in the shower. Later they retire to a bed where they mess around a bit but don’t have anything resembling sex.

I watched it and the whole time I was thinking, “This isn’t even erotic. This girl doesn’t even turn me on. Why would anyone get turned on by this?” and most importantly, “Why is this evil? Why is this horrible? Why is it sick, vile and diabolical?” because that is what everyone tells us “child porn” is.

The video is not sick, evil, diabolical, horrific or awful. Mostly it’s just boring. You’re lucky if you can stay awake.

But more importantly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what this girl is doing. Yes, she is doing a striptease. At that age, her sex drive may well be coming on, and surely teenage girls probably like to do stripteases in their bedrooms? Or for their boyfriends? Or with their girlfriends? Is that evil? Why is a pubertal girl doing a striptease and obviously having a blast “evil?” How did she get harmed by doing this striptease? We need to know this because anti-CP folks insist that this girl was obviously “harmed” by this video. How did the video hurt her? How did the striptease hurt her? Was the striptease harmful in some way?

Why is it evil to show a 12 year old girl in a shower? 12 year old girls get in the shower every day, right? Is that evil or something? Is it sick? It’s “sick” for 12 year old girls to take showers? Why? Did this girl get hurt by taking a shower (because anti-CP folks say she got hurt by this filming so apparently the shower was harmful)?

Yes, she plays with the boy in the shower. A couple of pubertal kids having some sex fun.Yes, later they retire to the bed and mess around sexually a bit, like 12-14 year old’s do all over the damn world every single day. Is it “sick” for her and the boy to mess around in the shower? Is “sick, evil and horrible” for them to play around in bed? Why? Was she harmed by playing with the boy in the shower or the bed (because anti-CP folks say she got hurt)? How? How did messing with the boy hurt her horribly, perhaps irreparably?

Ok, so after I watched the video, what did I do? I reported it to Youtube as child pornography, as is my duty as a citizen. I checked back in a day, and it was gone.Then I banned the idiot who put that on my page and blasted him in the comments for putting CP on my website. He apologized profusely and soon circumvented the ban. I let him stay because he promised to be good.

But I was still disturbed. Yes I watched it, determined it was CP and turned it in, but did I break the law by doing just that? Once you see it, you break the law, right? Ok, so how is anyone supposed to turn this stuff in ever, considering that by merely seeing it they are committing a serious crime?

Are there not anti-CP groups who range around the net finding CP and reporting it? Indeed there are, and I have been to some of these pages where  you can sometimes follow their links to what they call “CP” (really just naked young girls). But everyone in that vigilante group had to look at that page in order to turn it in, right? Did they break the law by looking at the page, even though they had to in order to turn it in?

Society acts like a video of a naked 12 year old girl is the most evil thing on the planet, and anyone who sees one is a diabolical pedophile scum. We all must be shielded from the Satanic evil videos of naked 12 year old girls, the sickest, most vile, most disgusting and perverted and twisted photography on Earth!

Can someone explain to me why society is so freaked out about this sort of thing? There’s nothing to get excited about, there’s nothing even to get interested in, but if some man glimpses this ultimate abyss of boredom, we act like he needs to be shot on site, beaten to death or sentenced to 50 years in prison? What for? For looking at one of the least interesting things known to man? What’s wrong with people?

I do not think this sort of thing should be legal, but is is really sick, evil, horrific, monstrous, diabolical, and vile? Why? It’s a naked girl. So what? Is that a bad thing?

Who Is Behind Pedophile Mass Hysteria (Criminalization of Teenage Female Sexuality)?

Hasbrudal writes:

Good point. Parents are the primary reason for a lot of these laws. Parents don’t want their 16 year old daughters having sex with anyone. Parents more than feminists are why a 24 year old gets convicted for having sex with a 16 year old.

Sure but if parents have always opposed such things why are we seeing such a crazed breakout of Pedophile Mass Hysteria, which boils down to little more than the criminalization of the sexuality of teenage girls? So why the sudden explosion in this? Society was actually saner on this question in the past, even in the 70’s and 80’s when I was growing up.

What’s different now is feminism. There was hardly any feminist movement before, so these laws were relatively sane. My articles get linked fairly often to feminist forums, and male and female feminists both are absolutely insane on the subject of Jailbait sexuality, especially Jailbaits having sex with adult men. Nothing drives them more bonkers.

Feminism is Puritanism. Both male and female feminists are flat out Puritans.

And it’s not “parents.” Generally speaking, it is the father and the father only who is trying to protect his daughter from the evil men and boys out to molest his special little snowflake. I have no idea why fathers are so bonkers on this question. It’s like the girl is their property or something.

The mothers, on the other hand, were all teenage girls themselves so know how insanely horny most teenage girls are. Mothers get it. Usually the daughter will start having sex, confide in the mother, and Mom will help keep daughter supplied with birth control pills and whatnot. Then the girl and Mom make a silence pact to keep the dirty little secret from Dad.

Source: I have known many women with teenage daughters, and they pretty much all had this attitude. Also I knew a lot of teenage girls back in the day, and generally the mother was hip to the girl’s sexual activity and silently supporting her in some way or another while also urging her to be cautious.

Men Arrested for Having Sex with Underage Dolls

I wrote about this insanity earlier. I told you that feminists were already working to try to ban sex dolls. Now it turns out they are already doing it.

Two men, one in Canada and one in Australia, have been arrested and charged with possession of child pornography for owning dolls that are shaped like 12-14 year old Lolis.

Yep, you read that right. Two men were arrested for owning underage dolls. That’s so stupid it’s not even real. You see, underage dolls are harmed when men own them and use them for sex because while adult dolls are capable of consent, underage dolls are simply not capable of consenting due to the immaturity of their plastic brains.

I am surprised they didn’t charge these guys with child molesting for fucking these ridiculous dolls. That’s probably coming next. Nothing’s too bizarre for Pedophile Mass Hysteria, brought to you by the feminists.

Both of these men are apparently going to get off because while child pornography laws are absolutely insane, they are not quite this insane yet. And yes, child pornography laws are insane. For instance, in some cases drawings of children having sex with adults are illegal.

The whole argument against child pornography is based on the notion that a child was harmed in making the images. The images show the commission of a crime along with a criminal perpetrator and a crime victim. By viewing these images (dubious argument) and certainly by collecting, trading and selling them for sexual gratification (better argument) you are re-victimizing the child. The girl who got molested at age 10 gets “molested” over and over again each time her images are collected, traded or sold. I suppose there is some sort of a rational argument in there somewhere. Anyway, true child pornography is so awful that society is completely within its means to ban the stuff.

But drawings? What’s the argument? The girl in the drawing got harmed? The girl in the drawing is a crime victim? The man in the drawing is a criminal? The drawing shows the commission of an actual crime which definitely occurred? Every time you collect, trade of sell that drawing, the poor little girl in that drawing is victimized over and over again?

What the Hell?

True pedophiles have an actual sexual orientation like homosexuality or heterosexuality. They can’t help their orientation any more than any of us can. I say let the pedos have their drawings, stories and dolls but now their images or actual humans being victimized. After all, they have a right to satisfy their sexual urges in some manner, do they not?

Feminists Try to Ban Sex Robots

Here.

Every week it seems like there is some new outrage from these feminist maniacs. They don’t even pretend to be about fairness or fair play or equality or any of that anymore. They’ve already achieved equality in most areas anyway. Now they are blatantly trying to persecute men so they can Lord it over us, which we all knew was always the plan in the first place. None of these Identity Politics groups have ever wanted equality anyway.

The gall of these bitches. They are obviously trying to legally ban the competition. It’s also so clear that chaos and drama filled women know that they can’t compete against these placid dolls.

Bottom line is this: women use sex to control men. They always have and always will. Sex is their primary tool in controlling us. Now a competitor has come along that threatens to take away women’s primary manipulation tool. Without sex, women have basically nothing, and they have no way to control us at all. Women must be terrified of these damn dolls.

Here is the ugly truth. Women run something that I call the Pussy Mafia. It’s like a cartel designed to push out any competition. I honestly think that this is what is behind women’s increasingly insane push for crazier and crazier “pedophilia” laws, where a 20 year old man can go to prison for screwing a 16 year old girl.

What’s behind all of these laws is the sheer terror that women have for Jailbaits. These Jailbaits are some of the worst competition that the Pussy Mafia has. This is why the Mafia is trying to “put them out of business” with these increasingly bizarre and even sadistic laws. It’s called “controlling the competition.”

The Pussy Mafia works hand in hand with the feminists’ favorite tool: The Prison-Industrial complex that the feminists are in large part responsible for. This dual edifice is used by the Mafia to inflate the value of their pussies as high as possible. It’s like any other business that engages in price-fixing. Think of OPEC. The Pussy Mafia is trying to keep the Pussy Price as high as possible on the Pussy Market.

Women don’t believe in fairness anyway, and feminists are even worse. The Pussy Mafia will do literally anything to keep the value of their pussies high no matter how many people suffer. No lie is too big and no law is too totalitarian for the Pussy Mafia to use in its single-handed drive to keep the Pussy Price as high as possible.

I am absolutely convinced that the feminists will soon try to ban fleshlights. After all, fleshlights are some serious competition for the Pussy Mafia. They don’t throw tantrums and won’t call the cops on you to get you thrown out of your own home for defending yourself. A fleshlight gives you all the joys of sex with a woman with none of the bullshit you have to go through to get it.

The feminists will probably use their “pedophile” argument against fleshlights. After all the “pedophile” campaign was largely created by the Pussy Mafia in order to ward of the threat that competing business from the jailbaits would lower the Pussy Price.

They will probably make the anti-“pedophile” argument that we can’t tell the age of the fleshlight. I mean, how do we know how old that fleshlight is anyway? Sure the guy says the fleshlight is over 18, but how do we know he isn’t lying?

Maybe the fleshlight is really designed to be a 15 year old Jailbait fleshlight, in which case it’s pedophilia for fucking an underage fleshlight that is not capable of consent.

I know you are probably laughing, but most of the laws, rules and mores thought up by feminists for use by the Feminist Totalitarian State aren’t very much less insane than that.

Women don’t care if an argument makes sense or not. For women, a “true” argument is “one that makes me feel good,” and a “false” argument is “one that makes me feel bad.”

All Men Are Pedophiles

Pic related.
Pic related.

Brooke Shields, age 16, from one of her famous movies. According to a vast number of idiotic females and mangina/White knight/Save-a-ho gender sellout “men,” if you as a man get turned on by the girl in this photo, that proves that you are a “pedophile.”

This is because the female in the photo above is supposed a “child,” and that means you get turned on by “children.” I have been looking at that photo for some time now, and whatever it is that is in that photo, it sure as Hell isn’t a child. I have no idea what that female Homo Sapiens is.

She’s not a child. Is she an adult? She doesn’t look much different from many adults 2-3 years her junior, so she sure looks like an adult. What about her mind and maturity? Well, that female is probably as mature as a male of at least 20, because adolescent and college aged females are often dramatically more emotionally mature than their male peers. I am going to pass on whether or not she is an adult. In the UK, for certain things, she sure would be. For instance, in the UK, this female would be judged a woman, and she could have legal sex with any male adult of any age, and she might just want to do just that.

But I know for sure that she’s not a kid.

I don’t know if she’s an adult either to be honest, but she sure is getting there. Party of me wants to call that female a woman. A very, very, very young woman for sure, but a woman nevertheless. And many people would agree with me. Note the widespread use of  “young man” and “young woman” when adults address adolescents around this age, as well they should. Do we call little boys and little girls young men and young women? Of course not, or you shouldn’t because it’s silly. A kid is a kid. Don’t call kids adults. It’s idiotic.

Is the female above mature? Of course not. This is about as young as a woman gets, you know. The very youngest women of all are of course the least mature. That’s always the case.

Probably the best way to describe this female is to say that she’s not a child, and she’s not exactly an adult either. She’s somewhere in between, floating around.

I think whether or not this female is a child, adult or in between is not really a scientific question. It is probably more in the realm of sociology or even philosophy. Science cannot answer such things very well, despite the widespread idiotic notion that it can.

Anyway, 80% of US society says if this chick turns you on, you’re a pedophile.

Not if you print out her picture and jerk off to it. Not if you try to fuck her. Not if you do fuck her. But instead if you think about her in some illegal way. Indeed, society is so stupid nowadays that most “adults” believe in the existence of thought crimes.

Let me tell you something. Every single man on Earth is turned on by this female.

If he’s not, he must be at least one of the options below:

  • Lying
  • Blind
  • Gay
  • Dead

So I guess any time any of us men sees a female like this, we have to start up the lie machine. Or we could whip on dark glasses and start calling our seeing eye dog. Or we could always just pretend to be gay. Or we could lie down on the ground and pretend to be dead. Otherwise the thought police are coming.

There’s another way to look at this. If getting turned on by this little hottie is indeed pedophilia, then I must say pedophilia is looking better and better all the time.

25 Ways Feminists Systematically Oppress Men

Tulio writes:

Not that I’m saying you’re wrong per se, but can you list concrete examples of how men are systematically oppressed? While I don’t like feminism, I also don’t feel oppressed in any way as a man. I find feminists to be more of an annoyance than a threat.

Here is a list of 20. See if you can come up with more.

  1. Conflation of statutory rape and pedophilia created by feminists is causing a lot of harm to teenage boys and especially young men.
  2. Insane anti-rape laws in Sweden and the UK written by feminists that including rape definition creep expanding towards more and more traditional non-rapes.
  3. Anti-rape inquisitions created by feminists on campuses where a woman can file rape charges against you months to years after the fact, the man is considered guilty until proven innocent and the prosecution and judges are completely rigged against the man. For instance, a man was recently thrown out of a university back East on “rape” charges. What happened? The man was blacked out drunk, lying on his back on a bed, and a female student gave him a blowjob. She sucked his cock while he was blacked out. If anyone got raped, it might have been him. She feared for her reputation after the incident and the feminist dorm adviser suggested she file rape charges to preserve her reputation. Another man was thrown out of school for raping his own girlfriend. Charges were filed many months after they broke up and the court was a Kangaroo Court stacked with feminists.
  4. Rape rules on campus created by feminists requiring assent for each escalation of sex acts undertaken.
  5. Crazy campus rape rules created by feminists whereby a man can be accused of rape even if the woman never said no if she “thought no in her head.” In this case, the man can be accused of rape because he’s not a mindreader.
  6. Crazy rape law in Washington State written by feminists whereby a teacher was convicted of rape of a female student who was 18 years old, an adult, when it happened. The sex was 100% consensual. He now must go on the Sex Offender Registry for life.
  7. Crazy rape laws written by feminists where sex with a drunken woman is “rape.”
  8. Fake campus rape crisis created by feminists whereby feminists make up lies like 20% of college girls are raped during college that make all college men seem like rapists. Real figure is .6%.
  9. Fake “rape culture” crisis US created by feminists in the US, probably the most anti-rape culture on Earth, where all men are seen as potential rapists.
  10. Insane rape laws in the UK written by feminists whereby apparently there is no statute of limitations for rape, sexual assault and “pedophilia” whereby men are going down for grabbing a grown woman’s tits 45 years ago, feeling up a 14 year old girl’s ass 35 years ago and other lunacy.
  11. Feminists making up lies like “fake rape charges are very rare.” The figure of 8% is tossed about. The true rate is near 50%. The ugly truth is that women cry rape and press fake rape charges against men all the time. I have been falsely accused of rape myself. A 14 year old girl accused me of raping her once. The sex was 100% consensual. She didn’t file charges, but the allegation went around to our friend circle. Incredibly, the rape charge made me much more popular with her girlfriends a number of whom started openly flirting with me after they heard I was a rapist!
  12. Insane sexual harassment rules in most employment locations whereby feminists are apparently trying to outlaw all heterosexual conduct in the workplace. I worked at a workplace where I was told that dating between coworkers was banned by the company’s sexual harassment policies.
  13. Sexual harassment madness on university campuses created by feminists whereby female students constantly file Title 9 complaints against male professions for every fake infraction in the book. One of the crimes is criticizing feminism or Women’s Studies Departments. Male teachers have had Title 9 complaints filed against them for doing just that.
  14. New laws in France and Germany created by feminists whereby men are forbidden from paternity testing their own babies.
  15. Pedophile Mass Hysteria promoted by feminists whereby any man who looks at a teenage girl is a “pedophile” and a “predator,” and men can’t even talk to any children of either sex anymore. Single men are particularly victimized by this. I have had single men tell me that all single White men past a certain age are automatically considered “pedophiles.” They also tell me how terrified they are of girls and how they take off every time they see one.
  16. Pedophile Mass Hysteria created by feminists causing men to be arrested for merely talking to teenage girls. A man was recently arrested and charged with “grooming” for talking to two 15 year old girls, apparently runaways, in a pet store in California. In California, this “anti-grooming” law is called “annoying or molesting a child.” Under this extremely vague offense, you can be charged with “grooming” for merely talking to a teenage girl.
  17. Pedophile Mass Hysteria caused by feminists resulting in men getting convicted of “child molesting” for having sex with underage girls who lied about their age and said they were 18-19, created Facebook pages with fake ages on them, and openly seduced older men. When people found out about it, the girls’ parents filed child molesting charges. The men had no idea the girls were underage. They were convicted and go on the Sex Offender Registry for life because a girl lied to them and they naively believed her lie.
  18. Pedophile Mass Hysteria caused by feminists expanding to adults -> a man recently told me online that if he saw a 50 year old man talking to a 20 year old woman, he would punch the man in the face. Recall how many women called Clinton a “pedophile” for having sex with 23 year old Monica.
  19. Pedophile Mass Hysteria created by feminists whereby evil girls mostly aged 9-13 are mass charging male teachers with child molesting under blatantly fake charges. A friend of mine had an entire classroom of evil 9 years old girls charge him with molesting them in a single day (!). The charge went into his record, parents threatened to beat him up, and he was not allowed to teach at that district ever again. My own father was charged with molesting a 13 year old Black girl for breaking up a fight between her and some other girl.
  20. Feminists making up lies like “children never lie about being molested” which result in mass fake molesting charges against men.
  21. Creep shaming created by feminists and women whereby many men are terrified to even approach females anywhere for fear of being called a creep.
  22. Crazy fake “street harassment” crisis created by feminists whereby selling hello to a woman on the street or trying to talk to a woman on a train is apparently “harassment.”
  23. Insane domestic violence laws written by feminists in the 1990’s whereby the woman gets to hit the man as much as she wants, but if the man hits back one time, he’s going to jail -> men are not allowed to fight back against women.
  24. Crazy domestic violence law written by feminists whereby if you hit a woman (even if you hit her back) in your own home which you own and she stays in as a perma-guest, even after you get out of jail, the woman can file a restraining order against you, continue to live in your home (!), and you will be homeless and banned from living in your own home while some leech lives there for free. You will have to find temporary lodging or go homeless.
  25. Crazy alimony laws written by feminists whereby the woman gets half your paycheck for years, maybe forever, no matter how high your check is and how much she really needs, even if she initiates the divorce.

In the US, Public School Teachers Are Put Through the Grinder

I worked in public education for six years as a substitute teacher, and I can tell you, they really put us through the grinder. Even as subs, we were under incredible pressure to teach those kids well and not screw up in any way.
The administrators were monsters and were always looking for a reason to bust us or get us in trouble so they could fire us. We were under the gun all the time, and we could not slack off or mess up in any way. PC was enforced savagely, and you had to watch everything you said. Kids would continuously try to bait you into saying un-PC things so they could bust you to the administrators or parents.
At the White schools, the parents run the show and the administrators work for the parents who stand up for their spoiled brats.
Hispanic schools are much better and the parents have the attitude of, “You brat! You better obey that teacher or else!”
Black schools are ok, but there is a heavy PC environment, and some of the Blacks hate Whites and try to bait you into saying un-PC stuff so they can get rid of you. Administrators are supportive and grateful to any White teachers insane or suicidal enough to venture into a Black school, so they will always back you up no matter what.
Basic problem in Black schools is that many students simply refuse to learn. In the ghetto, many Hispanics also refuse to learn.
In White schools, brats try to get away with murder. For instance, at a White school, kids were eating in class. I told them to knock it off, and they told me that their parents had petitioned the administration to allow kids to eat in class and the admins caved. I said, “So what. I don’t care what the administration or your parents say. I’m the teacher, and you won’t be eating in my class!” That’s the sort of BS you have to go through at a White school.
Of all schools, a middle income Hispanic school is probably best of all. The kids are scared of the teacher and you basically terrorize them into obeying you, but that’s what they want to do anyway. They are raised in authoritarian family structures where the parents are to be obeyed, and many feel that teachers must be obeyed too. They don’t expect you to be nice, and they just hunker down, grumble and get to it when you hammer them for not working. You can basically Boot Camp the work right out of them.
You really have to do this, even as a sub.
For instance, as a sub, you show up, and the teacher will write, “Here is their assignment. Students will do these pages in the book.” The assignment is basically designed to take up the whole period.
If you come into that class as a sub and don’t get some semblance of that assignment completed by the class, you’ve basically failed, and the administration or the teacher may try to make you pay for that. You really you need to bang that assignment out of them if only to save their own skin. That’s where the Drill Inspector bit comes in.
Elementary schools are great in a way. Almost all the teachers are women, and a lot of them are single or divorced and looking for a man. There are almost no male teachers, and the male teachers that exist at all are usually queers! There might be a few straight guys, but they are probably married.
You go into the break room, and it’s like you, one other guy, and a whole room full of young women, many good-looking, and a lot of them looking for a guy. Even the married teachers like to come around and “chat with the sexy teacher.” So if you’re a good-looking straight male, you basically landed in paradise.
In addition, in the White areas, the mothers come around a lot after school, especially in the younger grades. A lot of them are single or divorced too, and many like to “flirt with the cute teacher” for some reason.
On the other hand, with Pedophile Mass Hysteria nowadays, I am not sure I would want to teach in an elementary school.
Junior high is Hellish with all ethnicities. There are a lot more male teachers, but a lot of them are still queer, just not nearly as many as elementary school.
At high school level, you have almost 50-50 male and female teachers. There are a few queers, but really not that many, so most of the male teachers are straight, and a lot of them are married. However, at high school is where the PC crap is at the very worst due to extreme parental involvement. And this is where the kids play, “Bust the teacher” worst of all because they are older and smarter.

The Feminist Enemy Fires Another Shot at Men

Here.
Virgin Airlines has decided that if you are a male and only if you are a male, you are not allowed to sit next to unaccompanied children who are not related to you on a flight. Women of course may sit next to children any time.
Although this was a policy formulated by Richard Branson’s Virgin Airlines, it obviously has its roots in feminism. Gender feminism states that all men are potential rapists and child molesters. The Pedophile Mass Hysteria sweeping the US right now is being caused by a number of factors, but some of the perpetrators are gender feminists and femiservatives.
Femiservatives are basically conservative feminists or conservatives who do the feminists’ bidding for them. For instance, around 1920, a femiservative outfit called the Women’s Temperance Union put into place California’s age of consent laws, putting them at 18, which was very high for the time in an era when many females were marrying at 14 or 15. This same WTU was also responsible for the atrocity of Prohibition.
Prohibition is a prime example of how Female Rule always fails. Male Rule produces more or less workable and functional societies, whereas Female Rule always produces dysfunction and chaos.
Male Rule versus Female Rule means whose thinking will rule society. Will male thinking or female thinking dominate the public sphere?
The Virgin Airlines rule is a prime example of the chaos caused by Female Rule. The idea that men may not sit next to children for fear they might molest them is classic female thinking.

New Sex Poll

Repost from the old site.
A sex poll came out 2 1/2 years ago, but I am only just now hearing about it. Oh, well, it seems like sex is always leaving me standing at the station these days.
The articles on the poll deal with teenagers having lots of oral sex, apparently instead of intercourse. The article all act like this is horrible, but I actually think it is good. Despite my feast or famine bachelor life, I actually do love sex, and I am a sexual liberationist. The articles mostly fuss on and on about all of the diseases one can acquire from oral sex.
First of all, this is part of an insane national neurosis we have long had in this nation about sex. Europeans have long commented on it. We are Puritans, yet we demand that Americans be having sex continuously. Even if they are not married. Even if they are not 18.
Yes, it is true. There’s a $6 billion dollar a year porn industry, and we are in the midst of a Mass Hysteria called Child Molester Hysteria. Although there are reasons to worry about adult sex abuse of children, I really fear that this is part of our neurosis about teenagers, especially teenage girls, having sex.
Child Molester Hysteria, the way I understand it, pretty much makes it illegal for teenage girls to get laid. If she does it, the guy’s a molester, no matter what his age is. It is understandable that conservatives, Christians, married men and vaginized males of all types would be behind this Protect Our Teenage Girls! bullshit. What doesn’t add up is that the feminists are behind it too.
Yep, feminists, the very women who ought to supporting teenage girls who choose to have sex, who ought to even be urging girls to learn to have an orgasm by age 15 since science shows waiting longer increases the odds she will never get one, are leading the charge of this preposterously chivalrous, putting girls on a pedestal, nonsense.
Anyway, on the article. Article says, teenagers not screwing so much, good. Having oral sex instead, bad. Why is it bad? Because, the article worries, you can get VD. What sorts of VD can you get? Well, syphilis, warts (HPV), gonorrhea and herpes. Well, let us look at this notion.
As far as cunnilingus goes, it would be quite hard to catch much of anything from doing that. You would be better off to worry about getting hit by a meteor. So go ahead and do it! To your heart’s content! She’ll love ya for it, guys!
Now, onto fellatio. It is true that one can get gonorrhea of the throat from doing this, but it’s not a common problem, except maybe in the gay community. Syphilis is quite rare outside the gay community, and you always just very noticeable symptoms. So it’s not much to worry about.
About herpes, well, one out of every six adults has it anyway, and it won’t kill you. It comes on strong at first, then it fades to an annoyance, and there are drugs that take out the flareups. So no worries.
HPV is much more troubling here since research shows that you can catch it in your throat, and it apparently can lead to throat cancer. I’m at a loss for words about this, but I don’t think it’s the worry of the century.
Lesbianism got a lot of writeup in the study. Apparently 14.4% of young women aged 20-24 have tried it with another female. That’s interesting, but it’s got to be higher than that. Only 6.5% of males that age have done it with another guy. Those figures have got to be wrong.
What’s interesting is that whenever they go out and do these face to face surveys about sex and dope, they come with some very low figures for both gay sex and dope. No one wants to fess up to being a fag or a doper, even if they were only gay for a day or they didn’t inhale.
But recently a new study allowed persons to answer questions about sex and dope anonymously via computer in a locked room. They were assured repeatedly that there would be no way to link up their computer answers with their actual selves, since the testers themselves were not grading the tests.
As one might expect, scores for sex and drug use for young Canadians were much higher when the answers were submitted via computer privacy than via face to face.
The authors considered that maybe people were making stuff up on the tests, but rejected that. Testers had been closely questioned before about the importance of being honest on their answers. If they were inclined to make stuff up, they were asked not to take the test.
The numbers for current homosexual behavior among this group of young Canadian males were about 13-14%. Most of it seemed to be what we would call opportunistic homosexuality, or bisexuality, among single males. I don’t intend to have sex with males myself, but as a young man, I saw epidemic levels of opportunistic male homosexuality all around me among young males, especially single ones.
This was in Southern California in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.
Other studies have shown some fairly high levels of males experimenting with homosexuality. Kinsey got 37% lifetime, but his work has been questioned. The Playboy Survey of the 1970’s got 25% lifetime, and I always thought that was about right.
The same computer surveys above also found remarkably higher drug use among respondents than face to face surveys found, especially of hard drugs like PCP or heroin.
One of the major findings of the study was that more and more straight folks are getting into anal sex. 40% of men have tried it, and 35% of women have. That’s about double previous surveys. Gay men have always gone in for this kind of sex bigtime for obvious reasons. I’m not going to say much about this for myself except to say I don’t have much interest in that sex act.
Porn has made anal sex very popular, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea.
As a sexual liberationist, I really don’t care how people do it. I think people ought to consider that there may be a health downside to this type of sex. I have seen reports on bulletin boards of women aged 30 or so who had lots of anal sex in their 20’s who now have to wear a type of diaper because they have lost some control over their bowels. That’s called anal incontinence.
I don’t know how much anal sex you have to have before something terrible like this happens to you, but it’s something people might want to think about before they jump into anal sex too much.
There are all sorts of gay rights types and sex educators that say there is no way this can happen to you if you practice anal sex the right way, but I wish they would spell out their theory in clear science so it’s something more than a crap shoot.

Child Molester Mass Hysteria

Repost from the old site.
Due to the fallout from the Groene case, Steve Groene is pushing a One Strike Law in Washington State, where he now resides. I don’t blame him, and a lot of crime victims lash out like this.
As you can see on the page explaining the law, the law is constructed so Joseph Duncan would never have been freed to kill Steve’s ex-wife and two kids and rape his daughter. So the tragic past would never have occurred.
California’s 3 Strikes Law was written by Mike Reynolds in such a way that the 2-bit thugs who killed his daughter (who merely had lengthy records for petty crime) would have been imprisoned and would have been able to kill his daughter.
In this way, surviving crime victims, or usually relatives of crime victims, are able to time travel. They can go back in time, and in their imaginations, wipe out the past.
The problem is that this is all an illusion.
Mike Reynolds’ crazy 3 Strikes Law didn’t bring back his daughter, and the guys who did it are going down bigtime anyway. Steve’s One Strike Law won’t bring back Dylan or Slade, or wipe out what was done to Shasta.
Sure, it might prevent it from happening to others, but to be completely frank, I don’t think that’s the purpose of these laws. The purpose of these laws is to enable their enraged and vengeful authors-relatives of victims to imaginarily go back in time and prevent the past from occurring by passing a new law in the future.
It’s the stuff of science fiction. It’s magical thinking, but magical thinking is not just for kids and crazies. Adults do it all the time too, especially traumatized adults. Like relatives of murder victims.
First of all, I will say that this law is not as nuts as I assumed it would be. Some of my friends know Steve, and they did not think he would write a law as stupid as California’s 3 Strikes Law, especially since his own son has a record as a 2-bit petty criminal. I’m not even sure about Steve’s own history, but my friends say he ran with a rough crowd.
The proposed One-Strike law says that anyone guilty of child molestation (wisely put at under 12) and anyone guilty of forcible rape through the use of violence needs to go away for life. Now, most people would sit back and cheer.
To the authors’ credit, the law seems to exclude the “date rape” bullshit by requiring that the rape be forcible and violent. It also rules out the “statutory rape” bullshit by requiring ruling out sex with minors aged 12 and up.
So where does that leave us? With a bunch of pedos and rapists. So why is this not a good idea?
Because right here in my town, we have 133 people on the sex offender list. Fresno, a city of 440,000, probably has 1,000 people on the list. They’re either all or almost all men.
Nationally, with the ever-expanding definitions of sex offenders, there are now 2 million people on sex offender lists! Surely they are almost all males.
This is starting to look less like a war on “sex offenders” and more like just a war on males.
Here in my town, most of the guys on the list are guilty of rape, child molesting under the age of 14 or even rape of a child under the age of 14. That’s probably 100 out of 133. You’re going to throw all 100 of these guys away for life?
In Fresno, I bet 800 out of the 1000 are on for rape or molesting a child under the age of 14. You’re going to throw 800 guys away for life?
How many of the 2 million on the sex offender lists nationwide would be covered under this One Strike Law? That’s an interesting bit of research.
This law isn’t going to work. Implemented nationally, it will easily result in life sentences for hundreds of thousands, and possibly over 1 million, people, almost all men. Even if it’s a good idea, it’s not doable.

Interesting Comments on Sex Offenders

Repost from the old site.
From the comments section, a commenter writes:

Incest and friends of the family make up approximately 98% of all sex offenses (I think they mean child molestation and not rape, but I’m not sure). There has been estimated that 60 million individuals in this country that has experienced child sexual abuse. 50%, 30 million will go on to abuse a child. This is the crux of the problem, and we are not addressing it.Instead, law makers are creating laws that do more harm than good. For example:
The public registries: 98% of those come from the family and friends of the family. It is a fact, that once caught, 95% of them never repeat another sex crime. And that’s without therapy.
The remaining 5% are hiding in the registries. Those who did not know their victims, the violent rapists and the repeat offender.
And, approximately, 95% of all new sex offenses are committed by individuals NOT on the registries. Is it no wonder, because law makers have totally ignored the fact that Incest and friends of the family are the crux of the problem. There are 30 million abusers out there and lawmakers have done nothing to address prevention through education.
By ignoring incest and friends of the family, law makers have created a greater risk to children and society. If we do not openly discuss it, do not propose any educational models to better inform ourselves and keep ourselves afflicted with guilt and shame which washes over all concerned, perpetrators, victims, and other family members alike, we all help shield and perpetuate the crime.
These sex offender laws are being passed without advice of the experts. They are knee-jerk regulatory reaction which is just another way of saying, additional punishment is justified. Congress and the Legislatures have ignored the experts in the field.
But when it comes to light bulbs, they clamor for expert testimony. There is something very fundamentally wrong with their approach when it comes to sex offender laws.
Randy Lopp, treatment subcommittee chairman of the Oklahoma Sex Offender Management Team said, ”Most people who know anything about this are frustrated. It is just not helpful — the laws as they are now.
“I think if the general public understood the research, they would be willing to back the legislators to change the laws to make more sense and to protect children, because the laws as they are written are not protecting children,” he said. “They are doing more harm than good.”
US Department of Justice, 2003
• Sample size – 9,700 sex offenders
• Length of time – 3 years
• Re-offense trigger – reconviction (Doesn’t mean a new sex crime)
• Results – 5.3% sexual offense. 3.3% child molestation.
Arizona, Department of Corrections, 2006
• Length of time – Ten years
• Sample size – 2,444 sex offenders
• Results – 3.2% returned for a new felony sex offense, 1.4% returned for a new felony case of child molestation
• Reoffense trigger – new conviction (Any conviction)
And there are many more studies and they have the same results. Low recidivism rates for first time sex offenses.
Law makers pass these laws as non-controversial. Without debate and there is nothing I can think of that is more controversial.
Constitutional rights are being side stepped and it has been said that when you deny the constitution to one, you deny it to everyone. Please, look at the real problem. Incest and friends of the family and Prevent through education. Do away with these draconian laws that protect no one but endangers every child.

I don’t really know what to say to any of this stuff. I don’t have much personal interest in it.
I’d be interested to see how these laws are endangering kids and doing more harm than good.
Surely life is often Hell for these sex offenders. And you can see here that these insane laws are being used against all sorts of 18-21 year old guys messing around with 15-17 year old girls. The guys are totally normal, and now their lives are fucked forever.
They’re on Sex Offender Lists, it’s hard to work anywhere, they go to jail and get threatened by other inmates as “pedos” (that’s weird, I figured most prison inmates would gladly fuck a 16 year old girl if they could get away with it). They can hardly live anywhere and often have to move back home.
Their career dreams are shot, and the military won’t take you (I guess fucking a 16 year old girl is evil, but actually killing human beings, albeit towelheads, is cool). Lots of guys are also going down due to lying little girls telling tall tales of fake molestations and teenage bitches screaming rape.
I thank God I’m not on one of those blasted lists! I have enough problems as it is; I couldn’t imagine what Hell my life would be if I was on one of those things.

Parents Beware! Pedobear Is Real and Is Coming After Your Kids!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_lmMmYAyow&feature=player_embedded]
Pedobear scares the Hell out of everyone, the sensitive, stupid and female in particular. One of my own relatives was outraged by the existence of Pedobear. I don’t know what she wanted done. Maybe she wanted God to kill him.
I tried to reassure this idiot. “But Pedobear isn’t real!” I pleaded, but it was no use.
Now our worst fears have come true. For Pedobear is not just an Internet meme, he’s a real bear, and he’s coming for the kids! As you can see in the clip above, Pedobear was filmed at a comics festival. He was handing out candy? What else? There is an interview with a way too serious cop on there. He points out that some say that Pedobear is just an Internet meme, but according to this cop, he’s not an Internet meme, he’s a fucking child molester!
Jeez, just when you thought Fox News couldn’t get anymore retarded.

Roman Polanski gives this post 9 Backstreet Boys posters, a medium high rating.

What Do The "Psychos" Look Like?

Repost from the old site.
For about 25 years now, I’ve been hearing people tell me that so and so is a child molester, so and so is a psycho, so and so is a pervert, so and so is a predator, so and so looks like a rapist, so and so is a serial killer, or looks like a serial killer.
I’ve been checking these guys out the best I can for decades now, and not one of them has turned up dangerous yet. Every one I met was just a harmless neurotic.
I find this whole exercise bizarre. I really do want to know what the Hell a child molester looks like. People keep telling me that so and so looks like a child molester, but this makes no sense to me. Can someone tell me precisely what a child molester looks like?
Let me tell you geniuses something, all you clowns who think you can “spot the pedo.” Tell you what, idiots. You can’t. Not only that, you can’t even “spot the dangerous person.” I’d wager a lot of the folks everyone insists are such a menace are probably the most harmless people out there.
Take that notion, that you can “spot the pedo” or even “spot the dangerous people,” into the office of anyone who really knows what they are doing, say, a clinical psychologist, and they will laugh you right out of the office.
Mental health professionals will inform you that there is no way to “spot the pedo” or “spot the psycho” based on appearances. Furthermore, you’re going to get such a tidal wave of false positives that the whole exercise is absurd.
I can honestly say that I’ve never met anyone who “looked like a child molester.” I’ve seen all sorts of guys who looked “weird” in one way or another, but I if I observe them for a while, I can usually figure out somewhat what’s going on with them mentally.
There’s weird-looking people everywhere in this world. I just give em the benefit of the doubt and move on. I don’t equate weird with “psycho,” “pedo,” “serial killer,” “rapist.” The world’s full of strange-looking people, but in most cases, they’re harmless. Plus I can actually read people pretty well.
I did meet one guy who “looked like a child molester,” but that was due to behavior, not appearance . I was teaching school at an elementary school in Compton in 1989 when I saw a guy parked in a van at lunch. He had long hair and an extremely strange, haunted look in his eyes.
And I swear to God I thought he was looking at the kids. It freaked me out so much that I got his license plate and called the cops. That’s the only “pedo” I’ve ever spotted, and I don’t even know if he was a pedo.
I’m even more mystified by what a rapist looks like. Way back in 1980, at age 22, I was coming out of a porn theater in downtown Long Beach very late at night, 1 AM.
Yeah, I used to go watch the porns back in the day. So fuck me, Puritans and feminazis.
Well, this movie was sick. The basic premise of it was rape. It consisted of a main character who wore gloves and a ski mask, and he was going around raping women. I didn’t really enjoy it. I think it was called “Obsession.”
I was coming out of the theater to the parking lot, and there was this young White guy, tough-looking, working class. He looked very, very angry. He was seething and looked like he was ready to kill. The energy was radiating off him like heat in a desert. He was wearing shorts and had a knife in a sheath on his waist. And he was coming out of a sick rape flick.
I don’t know if he “looked like a rapist,” but he didn’t seem like a very psychologically healthy young man, and I worried about what he might do in the future.
Other than that, “looking like a rapist” means nothing to me. There are dangerous looking characters all over the place, especially in working class White neighborhoods, Black ghettos and Hispanic barrios. I figure 50% of the Hispanic immigrant males walking around my neighborhood look like they’re capable of rape. Big deal.
I know one guy in the mountains who did time for rape of a child under age 14. He’s an Indian and hangs out in the library drawing pictures. He’s seriously anti-social and refuses to talk to anyone. He’s lived up there for 16 years, and he hasn’t re-offended. I knew the guy for a long time before I found out about his offense. I don’t think he “looks like a rapist.” I just think he looks like an antisocial asshole, that’s all.
Even more peculiar is the notion that someone “looks like a serial killer.” Wow. What does a serial killer look like anyway?
I can honestly say that I have never met anyone who “looked like a serial killer,” nor have I ever known any serial killers, nor have I ever known any killers period, and I wouldn’t know what they look like anyway. Do they look dangerous? The world is full of dangerous looking men, mostly younger men. Do they all “look like serial killers?”
I knew one of the local guys on the Sex Offender list here. He was on there for molesting a child under the age of 14. I don’t know the details. He’s kind of a sleazy-looking Mexican immigrant guy, but that describes about 50% of the Mexican guys in my neighborhood.
He worked at the local market, and I never thought there was anything wrong with him. In fact, I thought I was weird, and he was normal. Only later did I find the guy on the list.
I knew another guy who went down on a sex offender law. He lived in Oakhurst, California, and he was in his mid-30’s. He had really long hair – hippie type – and worked in a computer store. He was absolutely normal in every sense of the word. Once again, I thought he was normal, and I was weird.
He went down for “child molesting” – what he did was he shacked up with a 15 year old girl. He went down for 4 years or so. Now, they’d give him 10 or even 20 years. Not good judgment on his part, but whatever. They also found “child pornography” on his computer. In our Modern Bullshit World, that could very well have been naked pics of his 15 year old girlfriend.
For example, this fire inspector just got 20 years in prison (!?) for getting local 15 year old girls to pose nude for him. That’s called “production of child pornography.” I don’t call that “producing child pornography;” I call it “getting a teenage girl to pose naked and snapping pics.”
Incredibly, the judge says he’s a “pedophile,” and he will have to go on the stupid Sex Offender list for the rest of his life. I don’t call this guy a “pedophile” for taking pictures of naked 15 and 16 year old girls. That’s a perfectly healthy and normal desire for a male of any age. I do think that he broke the law and was stupid and careless.
Whether this stuff should be illegal, I’m not sure, but it ain’t worth no 20 years.
Studies show that all normal males have an extremely high, though not maximal, attraction for 14-15 year old girls. They have maximal attraction for 16 year old girls.
That is, they react as strongly to 16 year old girls as to females of any age 16+. The reaction to 15 year old girls is about 90% of maximum (still very high) and to 14 year old girls, it’s about 80% of maximum (still quite high). So it’s absolutely normal for males of any age to get really turned on by 14-16 year old girls. It’s not “pedophilia” or any of that crap. It’s just…normal.
Now, in our crazy modern world, guys over 24 at least need to be real careful about girls aged 14-16. Mess around with em, and you are likely to get pounded for 10 years, or even 20. So though your desires are normal, healthy, and certainly non-pedophiliac, it’s best to control yourself and not give in to temptation.
The whole crazy idea that we can “spot the sickos” is complete nonsense, but people believe it anyway. But it’s comforting. The notion that we can’t spot the psychos makes the world a pretty terrifying place.

Sex Offenders: Second Thoughts

Repost from the old site.
After I posted a couple of pieces on child molester mass hysteria, they got linked to some sex offender support groups and I got some comments. I started doing a lot more research, and I must say, I am not impressed with the sex offender support groups or their research. One of their favorite papers claims to show only 5% recidivism rate over 3 years or 10 years or 15 years or whatever, but apparently that’s fraudulent.
One good study did find a 25% recidivism rate after 15 years. This is the same study that the RSO (registered sex offender) supporters quote as having a 5% relapse rate. At that’s only for re-offenses.
While at Fresno State University in the early 1990’s, I did a ton of reading in journals. I liked the psychology journals a lot.
In one I found a study that used confidential interview procedures to determine the true rate of recidivism, because a lot of these guys reoffend and don’t get caught. Anyway, these guys can admit to molesting kids online or in an interview, and there’s usually nothing that can be done, since we don’t know who the victim is, when the crime occurred, etc.
That study found a re-offense rate (not a re-arrest rate) for child molesters of 50% over 25 years. I think that’s about right.
There’s tremendous debate about what constitutes pedophilia, but this site, Wikisposure, ought to give you a pretty good idea. It’s an anti-pedophile site set up the To Catch a Predator folks (Perverted Justice), and it profiles lots of sex offenders, most of whom are out and out pedophiles. Looking through the profiles gives you a pretty good idea of what these guys are all about.
I’m even listed in the “articles to be done” category, which is either scary or hilarious, since I signed a petition calling for reform of these crazy laws. So anyone who wants to go there and say a bunch of evil stuff about me, just get yourself an account and log on .
According to the FBI, a large number, possibly a majority of cases, are not committed by opportunistic non-pedophilic molesters, but by males who are actually pedophilic in one way or another. To what degree, I’m not sure, but most of those profiled at Wikisposure are obviously preferential molesters.
The sex offender propaganda says that 90% of molestations are just opportunistic crimes by non-pedophilic males. Apparently that’s just not true.
However, all normal heterosexual adult males are maximally attracted to females aged 16, 17 and up into adulthood, so I strongly disagree with calling men who have sex with these girls pedophiles or even sex offenders. It’s not called “pedophilia”; it’s called “fucking a teenage girl.”
All males also have very high, though not maximal, attraction to girls aged 14 and 15, so that’s not really abnormal or pedophilia either. Once you get into girls aged 13 and below, no adult of any age should be messing with them, period. They’re just too young, and at some point, it is out and out child molesting. However, I do not think that persons under age 18 having sex with a 13 year old is abnormal.
Main thing about pedophiles, if you look at Wikisposure, is that it’s obvious that the vast majority really don’t have much interest in adults. A few do, but those are the minority. What turns em on is kids, and they usually have a preferential AoA, or age of attraction . It’s usually phrased something like, “My AoA is 6-11.”
A few of these guys are completely out and well-known in the community. Some have admitted to molesting kids and just got away with it. That’s not enough to arrest or convict someone. A number of the older ones are roaming around the world. Mexico seems to be a favorite place. Boylovers do seem to dramatically outnumber the girllovers, despite the gay rights protestations.
I’m very sympathetic to teens going down for consensual sex and to young men aged 18-21 going down for sex with girls 14-17. The Romeo and Juliet cases are the most tragic of all. I’m also sympathetic to guys aged 21-29 going down sex with girls aged 15-17. The latter is surely illegal, and you’re a fool if you do it, but whatever it is, it’s not pedophilia.
I would prefer to see the age of consent lowered to 15 for both sexes.
For 14 year olds, sex with 14-21 year olds should be legal. Adults having sex with those 13 and under would be a crime. For 13 year olds, sex with 13-17 yr olds should be legal. These are Romeo and Juliet cases.
I’m primarily opposed to the conflation of this sort of sex with actual pedophilia and child molesting.
I also find the whole Child Molester Mass Hysteria thing very alarming. People are being accused of being child molesters merely because others regard them as odd or eccentric, for trying to make pleasant conversation with teenage girls, even when the girls have jobs that require them to interface with the public, or for ogling older attractive teenage girls.
These people have not been convicted or accused of any sex crimes whatsoever, and these are the most tragic cases of all. It’s normal to try to talk to anyone who has a job interfacing with the public. All normal males are attracted to pretty 16-17 year old females. In this way, utterly normal behavior is insanely conflated with “child molesting” by a puritanical, man-hating public.
Teens trading naked pics of themselves on videophones are going down on child porn trafficking charges. 15 year old girls take crotch shots of their pussies and send them to 18 year old males, and the guy goes down on child porn charges.
How bout the girl? One thing I noticed about all this stuff above: it’s always the boy who goes down, never the little teenage slut running to the cops. Some justice.
Nor do I think pics of naked 14-17 yr old girls, having sex or not, is the same thing as “child porn”. I imagine your average male would like to look at something like that. But please, if any of you guys out there have any such pics on your computer, get rid of them. Society has gone insane about this stuff these days.
I still think that the residence and lifestyle restrictions for these guys is absurd. Screw a 15 year old girl, and you can never be in any place where “children” are present! That means Starbucks. That means the supermarket. That means anywhere. What a bunch of police state bullshit. GMAB.
I think Perverted Justice, which puts real adults behind fake profiles of mostly 13-15 year old girls, is silly. Most of these guys aren’t “pedophiles” anyway. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin when he was in his 20’s.
They arrange a meeting with the guy, the guy shows up, and he gets busted, and he never bopped any girl, and there was no girl anyway. The guy gets 3-16 years (WTH?) in prison. Entrapment anyone? Adult males, don’t talk sex to teenage girls on the Net. Don’t go meet them for sex. There are traps everywhere.
But I’m not particularly sympathetic to guys who committed what I consider actual sex offenses. You guys messed up, and a lot of you have got a problem. You need to get it under control, quit blaming the victims, and try hard to make sure you don’t do that again. Yeah, it’s a witch hunt, but there’s also a bunch of twisted idiots out there we need to watch, and a bunch of others who fucked up bad and need to clean up or else.

More Sex Offender Mass Hysteria

Repost from the old site.
Good article, and the comments are great too. The article and comments go beyond the sex offender bit into other ridiculous and absurd excesses of law enforcement and punishment.
Reading stuff like this, I am starting to understand why the libertarians and anarchists hate the state so much. It seems we do have an out of control Injustice System in this country. It’s not just sex offenders, it’s all sorts of offenders. Little did I know that a felony conviction nearly screws you for life.
Little did I know that the system is set up for the purpose of making money – that the entire law enforcement, corrections, treatment, monitoring and parole system is designed to milk money out of people who are mostly too poor to pay for it. As if the conviction wasn’t bad enough, the system extracts profit from you like a slave on a plantation.
When I lived in the mountains a couple of years ago, a friend downstairs did 6 weeks in jail. For what? For being poor. He had some old DUI, and he had to pay all these $1000’s in fines, and I guess he was just too poor to pay them. He got pulled over and hauled into jail essentially for the crime of being poor .
There’s a fellow here in the complex who has a similar mess. He was driving a car without a license. Why? He didn’t have the money to pay for the license. He kept driving the car anyway, because he needed it to get to work. He got a ticket for driving without a license. Now he’s apparently got a felony conviction.
Both of these guys are White. I shudder to think of what Blacks and Hispanics must go through.
We are one of the world’s leaders in imprisoning people. You can say what you want about that, but that the criminal justice system has been turned into just another capitalist industry, making its money off convicts and parolees, is downright sickening.

Another View of Sex Offenders

Repost from the old site.
From the comments section, a commenter answers my question, “Can you all please explain to me why these new laws are making these worse, and endangering kids even more? That doesn’t seem to add up from the data that you have given to me.”
Magister:

The experts tell us that offenders need stability, a home, a job, a support system and a feeling of connection to a community. Stress affects offending behavior. If one feels helpless and hopeless it, of course, increases stress levels to an unbelievable amount.
There have been hundreds, if not thousands of studies looking at offending behavior and the conditions and circumstances predating it. America has a world record amount of people in prison. It is like a revolving door.
It does not take much imagination to realize that if you warehouse people in a prison with people even worse than they are, in an antisocial environment, release them back to a society where they have no home or job, their offending behavior is likely to occur again.
Now, add to that, for sex offenders the fact that they are dehumanized by society, called garbage, monsters, they are being killed, beaten, their families are shunned, their children are picked on mercilessly, they have to pay an exorbitant amount of fines for probation, sex offender treatment, GPS monitoring, all while greatly restricted on what kind of job they have.
Many states are now putting their employers on the Registry which pretty much guarantees that no one will hire them. Residency restrictions make it almost impossible to find a place to live. NIMBY is rampant. When they do find a small area to live in, a great hue and cry goes up about “clustering” and the problem starts all over again.
They are denied many of the social services that our other poor citizens have. They are not even allowed in a hurricane shelter!
I would think being treated like a monster, told over and over again that you are a monster, would make any person likely to commit desperate acts. It amazes me that in the present circumstances, there ares not more re-offenses than there are. I think the fact that re-offense is still low, shows just how repentant the vast majority of these people are.
There is not one study that shows that residency restrictions work, not one. In fact there are multiple studies that show that they do not work. Again it just takes common sense to tell you that if a person is going to re-offend they are going to go away from their home, the area they are most likely to be recognized, to offend.
Studies prove this out. Several states, which bothered to listen to the experts and do comprehensive studies of their own, declined to implement residency restrictions.
Iowa, which has statewide 2000 ft restrictions, is a perfect example. The prosecutors ‘association and the sheriffs’ association have come out against these restrictions. They see that they do no good, and have caused many offenders to abscond because of the conditions.
The police and parole officers cannot find the homeless men and women. So instead of allowing for increased monitoring of those who are most dangerous, there is less monitoring of everyone.
But the people of Iowa, who have been fed false information like everyone else will not allow these restrictions to be stopped. That just boggles my mind.
Everything that the experts tell us reduces re-offense, we do the opposite. We stubbornly hold on to our misinformation like a life raft in the ocean. It is like we need a group of people to hate and denigrate.
Most states have expanded the definition of crimes to be called a sex offense until almost anyone could fit into the category. The registries are so watered down by no risk, low risk offenders until our law enforcement cannot keep up. The state of California just did a recidivism study that mirrored the one the Department of Justice did. They got the same results. Re-offense rate overall between 3.5 and 5%.
The American people do not know this! Either that or they stubbornly refuse to believe it. Yes, there are groups or types of offenders who have a much higher rate of re-offense. We have experience and tests to know which ones these are.
To me, that means that those who are not in any of those high risk groups have almost no risk of re-offending and even the high risk groups have a lower rate of re-offense than other types of criminals. Treatment does work. Treatment has been refined over the years and there is a success rate of over 40%. Some studies show success in the 90% range.
When all our attention and resources are being focused on once caught offenders we are developing a false sense of security and ignoring the 90% of the population that are the next molesters of our children. Who are they? They are family and friends who are not on the registry. We are not learning how to recognize warning signs and keeping our eyes focused on the Registry.
What a disservice we are doing our children. Victim advocacy groups and child protection groups, are saying the same things, residency restrictions and making monsters of these people do more harm than good.
Victim advocacy groups are getting involved in creating transitional housing and mentoring for the higher risk offenders. This is how we create a lower recidivism rate. It only makes sense. This is such a complicated issue that one could talk for hours and not make a dent in the truth and the harm our society is doing.
All I can say is the Internet is a fount of information. Studies from the professionals and our own government can be found just by Googling. You can find many studies here .

I don’t really know what to say about all this. This isn’t exactly my favorite subject, but the purpose of this blog is to piss people off, and nothing pisses people off more than being soft on pedos. Obviously, it’s a position I just have to take. It’s just too irresistible.
I’ve noticed that if you know anything about pedophilia and child molesting, as I do, people get really, really worried and think you must be one. It’s like if you know anything about homosexuality, you must be a fag. If you know about heroin, you must shoot dope. If not now, you’re going to do one of these things in the future.
The only thing you can say about child molesting in polite company is “Kill all the pedos!”
I got most of my information from John Douglas’ books and writings. I figure if he can get interested in this stuff from a criminological point of view without going out and molesting kids, hey, so can I.
I don’t think we are going to get anywhere as a society with this issue as long as all rational conversations about it are shut down with a horrified look of, “You’re not a pedo yourself, are you!?”
If it’s true that 90% of child molesting is a family member or friend of the family, that 90% of those on the Registries are this type of molester, that’s very interesting. The 60 million molested figure and 50% of them (30 million) are going to do it themselves is fascinating. The notion that residency restrictions don’t work and may do more harm than good and that only 5% re-offend over 10 years is also fascinating.
It’s important to distinguish between pedophiles and non-pedophilic child molesters. Non-pedophilic molesters are probably the vast majority. They have no particular interest in kids; they are just opportunists who do it for various reasons.
Probably 10% of molesters are real pedophiles. These guys either prefer or require kids to get off. Some may never act on it, but I bet most will. These people will be impossible to cure. All you can do is get them to not act on their urges, and that may be quite difficult. The conflation of pedophilic molesters with non-pedophilic molesters is unfortunate and makes no sense scientifically or societally.

Transcript of My Latest Interview on Voice of Reason Radio

This runs pretty long – it runs to 48 pages on the Net – so be forewarned. In case you didn’t listen to it, here it is. The audio is here, with some comments, mostly silly as usual.

Robert Stark: We’re going to be discussing something a little bit different. The topic tonight is The War on Men. Robert, I’ve just got to say that you’ve gotten a lot of slack for some of your views on this show.

Robert Lindsay: That’s true. I’m going a little easy on the Jews I guess.

Robert Stark: Kevin MacDonald uses the term, “a hostile elite” to refer to the elite, and he’s talking about the Jews, but you could say that the whole elite in general is dangerous when it has no loyalty to the nation-state whatsoever.

Robert Lindsay: The multinational corporations – and these White people in America, they love these corporations so much – they are a hostile elite. The elite is not just the Jews in America, it’s these hundreds of millions of very wealthy people – of rich people – all over the world. They are hostile not just to Americans but they’re hostile to their own people. They’re only out for themselves, and they’re sending the whole world down the tubes really.

You see, every one of them will sell out their own country. The elite of India will sell out India. The elite of Pakistan will sell out Pakistan. They will all sell their own countries down the tubes.

Robert Stark: I don’t think the elite in Israel has really sold out their country. That would be the one exception.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, they are patriotic in a sense I suppose. But what these elites will do is they will ruin their countries’ economies in the name of getting richer. They don’t care about their own country’s economy.

Robert Stark: The people who call themselves patriots, they often defend these sorts of people.

Robert Lindsay: The patriots, you mean the Tea Party types?

Robert Stark: Yes.

Robert Lindsay: The Tea Parties are simply an arm of the corporations. The Tea Partiers really are rootless cosmopolitans. They’re effectively all “Jews” if you want to put it that way. They’re a Judaized people; they’re infected with the Jewish spirit.

Robert Stark: Yes, Sarah Palin, she made some comments that she considered herself to be a Jew, and she has an Israeli flag in her office, and she’s the leader of the Tea Party movement.

Robert Lindsay: Sarah Palin is a Jew! All the Tea Partiers are Jews! And they’re also shilling for the multinational corporations too, so if you think about it, the Tea Parties are just the forward movement of these multinationals. They’re like the army of the multinationals, and they’re also shilling for the elite. They’re like this Brownshirt White army for the richest people in America, and I just fail to see how that’s a progressive working class movement in any way, shape or form, forget it.

Robert Stark: Yes, it’s definitely been co-opted. But let’s move on to our issue for tonight, the War on Men. So can you introduce us to our topic and talk about how feminism has really changed our society? You support equity feminism, but you are critical of the movement in a lot of other ways. You are saying that it has really destroyed marriage.

Robert Lindsay: It has in a way because we used to have mandatory marriage in America, and in most societies have mandatory marriage or especially mandatory early marriage. And what happens with mandatory early marriage is that just about everyone gets married in their early 20’s or so, and that takes care of the sexual problem. Here in the US, everyone got married, everyone. And then, in marriage, apparently, there was sex, I guess, or there was or there wasn’t – many women didn’t like it that much, but back then, I think they just put up with it.

And back then, most men got plenty of sex in marriage, or at any rate, there wasn’t a big issue about guys being sexually frustrated. You’ve got the Alphas, that’s like 15% of the guys, those are the guys who get all the women, and even they all got married. You’ve got the Betas, that’s like 70% of the guys, they all got married too.

Robert Stark: Yes, it was sort of like sexual socialism. You can talk about wealth, but when it comes to the mating market, it’s a zero-sum game, because there is one person of the opposite sex for every person of the other sex, and with marriage, you can distribute that evenly.

Robert Lindsay: Exactly. It is sexual socialism. There’s also a group called the Omegas. There are the Betas, who are like 70%, and they are just the ordinary guys, and then there are the Omegas, who are like 15%, and they are essentially getting no women at all. In the old days, even these Omegas would find a woman, maybe who was not all that attractive. These guys who nowadays are total losers with women, back then, they all got married!

Robert Stark: So they would marry a woman in their own league.

Robert Lindsay: Right.

Robert Stark: What’s happening now is that with the destruction of marriage, we are reverting back to caveman times when we had more of a polygamous society. The idea is that women are hypergamous, and they go for men who are above their status. Whereas biologically, women can only have a limited number of children, men can impregnate large numbers of women, so men want to impregnate as many women as possible.

I think in the past before feminism, women were not allowed to work. Women do have an advantage over men in the mating market. So in a society where men controlled the wealth, that sort of evened things out because women were dependent on men for money. Now, middle and upper class women have good jobs, and lower class women are taken care of by the welfare state, so they don’t really need men anymore. So we are reverting back to this really primitive system.

Robert Lindsay: If you study primitive agricultural societies in Africa and New Guinea, what you find is polygamous societies. You find the head man thing. African Blacks evolved in this polygamous society. There’s a Head Man and maybe his buddies – they get all the women. And then, a whole lot of the rest of the guys, apparently, they don’t get any. So with the African Blacks, they’ve evolved for 9,000 years with these Head Man type guys impregnating all the women, and so Blacks have gotten bigger and stronger, with high testosterone, etc.

Robert Stark: That’s probably a factor in why there is so much crime and violence in their societies because if they can’t have a woman and reproduce, they have no incentive to contribute anything to society, so they all just become criminals, and that’s probably why there is such a high rate of sex crime in Africa.

Robert Lindsay: Well, I’m not sure if the setup is like that anymore, with the Head Man thing, but the thing is they’ve evolved this big huge super-athletic bodies over time because it’s only been the most macho, masculine, roughest, toughest and most high testosterone man has been impregnating most of the women for like 9,000 years and so what we’ve ended up with is that Blacks have high testosterone, they’re really big, strong and aggressive because they’re all descended for 9,000 years from the biggest, baddest, roughest, toughest guy around.

Robert Stark: One of the main problems in the Black community, what happened was, in the past, even though they were poor, there was some level of decency because there was an incentive for Black men to go out and get a job in order to get a woman, recently what happened was the Great Society came in with the welfare state, and Black women were dependent on the government, so there was no incentive for the men to be decent.

And then their culture glorifies being a thug and a criminal. It’s seen a lot with rap culture, but it goes back a lot further than that. Well, the women favor the men who are criminals. So the whole system is subsidizing criminal behavior, and there’s no incentive to be decent anymore if you want to get a mate.

Robert Lindsay: Well, I’m a liberal, so I don’t agree with that analysis of the Great Society. I think the Great Society was a great thing. Furthermore, welfare was put in by FDR in the mid-30’s – AFDC. So we had welfare all through the 1930’s, 40’s, 50’s and early 1960’s, and hardly anyone was on it because everybody had a job.

But it looks like what happened was the jobs all took off in the industrial areas of the North. All those Blacks had moved up to there to those cities, and then the factories started shutting down, and then the Blacks were out of work, and apparently the women started going on welfare. Welfare has always been there.

Robert Stark: You’re right that the best manufacturing jobs have all gone overseas. Then you have the sexual revolution, and men were lied to, like Playboy Magazine sold that idea to men that the sexual revolution would benefit them, but that turned out to be a total lie. You were at your prime during that era back in the 1970’s. Can you go over some of the trends that you saw and what it was like back then?

Robert Lindsay: Back then, that was the sexual revolution that we were growing up with, and there weren’t many sexual diseases. I think Herpes wasn’t really around that much. The worst STD seemed to be crabs. I never knew anyone who was catching anything other than that one. A lot of people were having a lot of sex. I went to a White high school, and all the girls were on the pill, every single one of them. Not one White girl at my school had a baby.

There were pregnancies – one of my girlfriends got pregnant, but it wasn’t me. It was some other guy. They would automatically have an abortion. Back then there was not much controversy about abortion, and the anti-abortion people were not around so much like they are now. If girls were pregnant, they automatically got an abortion, no ifs ands or buts about it.

We had a White society there and a White point of view, and where I was growing up, for a White high school girl to have a kid out of wedlock, that was like the lowest, worst, most disgusting thing you could possibly do. You were thought to be acting like a Black or a Mexican, and you just weren’t supposed to do that. So we had no girls with babies at my high school. There was a lot of screwing around back then, it’s true. This was the hippie era, and it was free love. I suppose there were guys that didn’t have a lot of fun, but I did.

Robert Stark: But you see the destruction of marriage as a negative trend?

Robert Lindsay: It has been, because that whole hippie free love thing seems to have gone out, and now, it’s been replaced by a sort of a consumerist sexual culture, and women have reverted back to Cavewoman tendencies. Now that we’ve gotten rid of marriage, and women can survive on their own, women don’t need men anymore. See, back in the old days, women needed men to survive.

So a woman would hook up with a guy, and the guy would support her, and she’d have kids by the guy. The truth is, she stuck around with him for the support. And in return for the support, she gave him sex. It was a trade-off. The guy was satisfied. He was getting the sex, love and companionship of marriage, and the woman was also satisfied, she was getting support and then the love and companionship of marriage.

And now, women can have sex, have babies and raise children. That’s what the single Mom’s are all about. They don’t need men to support them anymore, so they’re simply not marrying.

And so what you have is we are reverting back to Cavewoman times. In Cavewoman times, the Alphas get all the women. It was Head Man times, just like in Africa and New Guinea. The Alphas are 15% of all guys, and all the women want them.

He’s The Man With the Golden Sperm. He’s the guy with the best genes. See, women think biologically. At a very subconscious level, they all want the guy who has the best genes. They all want to have his baby, to have his kid and pass on his superior genes. Even if they are on the birth control pill, and they are not going to be having any babies, they are still thinking that way.

I mean, I knew guys in junior college…my idol in junior college, he would have say 3 or 4 dates in a day. He would have a morning date, then an afternoon date, then an evening date, then at midnight, he would climb into some girl’s window at her parent’s house. And he would have sex with all of them. And this was how he lived. And every girl and woman wanted this guy. They were basically lining up outside of his door, and it was like take a number. They would have sex with him, and they would walk out of the door with a big smile on their face, and they were quite satisfied.

He used to live on the beach in the summer, and those guys would go through like 3 different girls or women every single day. They would have a keg of beer, an ounce of Thai weed, and they would surf all day. That’s the environment that I grew up in on the beach in Southern California with a bunch of hippie stoner surfers.

Robert Stark: What effect do you see this having on society if as you say, a large portion of men are being kept out of the mating market? Society could collapse. For instance, that guy Sodini, I think he had psychological problems, but his situation is symbolic of this phenomenon. If you look at what’s happening in China, how there is this huge shortage of women in China, and you see rising crime there and other problems that this is leading to, due to the shortage of women. This could be problematic in the future if this trend continues.

Robert Lindsay: They are having a lot of Sodini-type mass killings over there too. A lot of these guys apparently are not married and not getting any women, and they’re going crazy with bulldozers, tractors, guns and knives and whatnot and mass murdering people. Just like Sodini. Probably because they aren’t getting any. Back in my parents’ generation, Sodini would have gotten married. There were no Sodinis, not really anyway.

So what’s going on nowadays is that these 15% of the Alphas, they are monopolizing all of the best women. And every woman now wants an Alpha. You see, when you get rid of marriage, then you take the brakes off. When you have institutionalized marriage, women still want an Alpha, but they realize that they can’t get one, and they all have to get married anyway. So they settle for a Beta or an Omega when they are 23 years old, and that’s the way it goes. But now that there’s no marriage, women are free to become Cavewomen. And they all want the Alphas.

Robert Stark: Some of them will settle for a regular guy when they are past their prime. In a sense, who wants someone else’s leftovers?

Robert Lindsay: So now they all want Alphas. At least the White women that I see around here, they are all looking for the Alphas. And the Alphas, they are all pretty much taken. And by age 30 or so, the Alphas are all just gone. And these women, they don’t want Betas. So you have all of the best women going for say 15% of the guys. And the Betas, they’re not really getting all that much. And the Omegas, these guys are just getting zero. The Omegas are the guys who are just not attractive to women at all. These are the Sodinis. So you have 15% of guys, the Omegas, who are getting absolutely zero.

Robert Stark: What’s ironic about this is that the feminists got rid of sexual socialism, and in other ways, the feminists aligned themselves with socialism economically, but at the same time, they don’t want the real free market to work in terms of sex. I know a lot of people have moral issues with prostitution, I can understand that. I’ve had concerns too, but with the current situation, I think it would be the fair thing to legalize prostitution but only based on the current situation.

Another thing, the feminist Senator from Washington, Maria Cantwell, she co-introduced this bill with this neocon Senator Sam Brownback which would make it difficult for men to find wives from overseas. So they use socialism and get rid of the free market in certain cases where it suits their agenda. So you don’t have a problem with feminism if it’s about gender equity. But they use the government to rig the system when it suits their own interests.

Robert Lindsay: Well, the problem is that radical feminism has become Female Rule. You can probably never have true equality in a society sexually. It’s probably the case that you either have Male Rule or you have Female Rule. And there are a lot of problems with Male Rule, which is Patriarchy, but at least it seems to work. It’s not very fair to women in a lot of ways. But it’s a zero-sum game.

Robert Stark: It’s the same with race relations. I think that very rarely will you ever have true racial equality. One group will always end up dominating the other. That’s just human nature.

Robert Lindsay: It seems that way. If the men don’t rule, then the women are going to rule. And that’s the way it is in relationships. I’ve concluded that in relationships, the man has to dominate the woman. I came out of the 1970’s, and we were into this hazy gender role thing, and we were all supposed to be androgynous, and we were the New Men and the Feminist Men. And we were into not being macho and all that.

Thing is, that stuff doesn’t really work, because women do seem to want a macho guy who takes charge and who frankly dominates them. Women get off on being dominated. They enjoy it. That’s an essential part of their sexual nature. The man must be the dominant partner, and the woman must be the submissive partner in marriage or in any kind of a sexual relationship or love relationship.

If you don’t wear the pants in the relationship, she’s going to take those pants right off of you and put them on herself. Either the man dominates the woman, or the woman dominates the man. And if you look around at marriages and relationships, you notice that that’s how it works. If the guy doesn’t dominate the woman – if he’s a really wimpy guy – have you ever noticed that the woman ends up playing the male role and dominating him. Then you have these situations where the woman is playing the role of the man and being really nasty to the guy and lording it over him and the guy being all cringing and wimpy.

Robert Stark: The social conservatives haven’t really tackled any of these issues. The problem with them is that they the two issues that they are obsessed with are abortion and gay marriage. Gay marriage is purely a symbolic issue – it doesn’t have any really strong negative effect on society. As far as abortion goes, I know that you are pro-choice…

Robert Lindsay: Definitely!

Robert Stark: The thing is that women no longer have responsibility, and they can be promiscuous and not depend on a man. Social conservatives focus on these two issues, but they are not really offering any alternatives. Then we have the conservative feminists. For instance, I believe that Sarah Palin calls herself a conservative feminist. They want the men to go back to being chivalrous and be the traditional men, but then the women will enjoy the perks that liberal feminism has brought them.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, they want it both ways, don’t they? Equity feminism is a good thing. I want equality for women in all of the important ways. I’m on the mailing list for many of the big feminist organizations in the US. I used to be a member of NOW.

The only thing that I don’t like about these organizations is that they’ve been taken over by radical feminists. And a lot of them are lesbians; a lot of them hate men. And there’s a real animus in this movement against male sexuality, towards what it means to be male. What they prefer is female sexuality. There are two types of sexuality. There’s female sexuality, and there’s male sexuality. I don’t really have to define them. Every guy around knows what male sexuality is.

Robert Stark: You’ve defined the War on Men as a War on Male Sexuality.

Robert Lindsay: Exactly, because females want female sexuality to be the dominant paradigm in society. Female society is ruled by female sexuality. That’s what females want; that’s what their lives are ruled by. Male society is ruled by male sexuality.

And typically, male sexuality has been privileged at least somewhat in society as far as our rules go. And most societies tend to be more or less dominated by male sexuality. On the other hand, most societies tend to temper male sexuality by instituting early marriage because if you totally allowed male sexuality to take over, most guys probably wouldn’t even get married.

But the feminist movement attempts to make female sexuality the dominant paradigm for all of society, for all of public space. So all males must live under the rules of female sexuality.

That’s why they hate what they call the exploitation of women in porn, in advertising. Any advertisement that shows a sexy girl in any way whatsoever is evil according to them because that represents male sexuality. To them, male sexuality is all about the objectification and the use and abuse of women. For instance, porn is all about the objectification of women and the use and abuse of women, and to guys, it’s just sex, that’s all it is. Porn is all about getting off.

Female sexuality hates pornography, they hate erotica, they hate any sexuality at all being displayed in the media, in advertising, or in movies or TV. They want a completely desexualized public space. They want to desexualize the media, advertisements, consumer culture, movies and TV. Female sexuality is basically puritanical!

Robert Stark: That’s true, but if you look at our popular culture, it has gotten a lot more sexualized over the years, so we have these contradictory factors in our society. But one thing that you have been talking about is this mass hysteria where all men are being viewed as potential sexual predators.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, that’s right. The radical feminists – that’s their thing. Male sexuality is all about rape! And males are all about rape, and we are all rapists. And they can’t stop talking about rape. You talk to these radical feminists, and they’re just rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape. And these are White women! And their claim is that the men who are the rapists are White guys like you and me. Well, if you know much about rape in this country, White guys like you and me, we don’t run around raping women.

Robert Stark: I don’t know what the statistics are, but Blacks are about 13% of the population, and they commit almost ½ of the rapes in the country.

Robert Lindsay: All I know is that they commit rape at about 6 times the White rate.

Robert Stark: So you are trying to say that a lot of the propaganda that they put out is to try to show White men as being sexual predators.

Robert Lindsay: The feminist movement never talks about the fact that Blacks and Latinos are six times more likely to rape a woman than a White man is. Their whole thing is that White men like you and me are these evil sexual predator rapists. And their definition of rape keeps on expanding and expanding. Now, if you have sex with a woman who is intoxicated in any way whatsoever, I suppose if she even has one glass of wine, if she’s high, if she smoked a joint, if she did a line of coke or speed or if she’s on acid, then that’s rape.

Well, then there must be hundreds of millions of instances of rape occurring every week in this country. Because lots of women are having sex when they are intoxicated. And I simply do not believe that that’s rape.

Robert Stark: So you think that they are promoting a lot of these false accusations.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, and to them, any kind of coercion that leads to sex, especially verbal coercion, really, seduction itself…The feminists are now claiming that seduction itself is rape because the seducers are supposedly brainwashing women and tricking and fooling them into bed. Well, that’s what seduction is all about. Seduction is all about brainwashing women and tricking and fooling women, casting a spell on them, and more or less lying to them, in order to get them into bed. And men have been doing this for 100’s, or probably 1000’s of years.

And the whole idea of being a woman…mothers and fathers are supposed to raise their daughters with the idea that guys are just dogs, they’re no good. Guys will say and do anything to get you into bed. And an aware and savvy woman knows that guys are like this, she’s aware of it, and she’s got all of her defenses up to keep this guy from putting one over on her and seducing her and getting her into bed when she doesn’t want to.

So, seduction is not rape. Seduction is just the normal human way of going about sex, and it’s normal male sexuality to seduce women. So when they say seduction is rape, they’re saying that all us guys are rapists. And most radical feminists theorists, not just Andrea Dworkin or Katharine McKinney, but really all of them, they all say that we live under a system of patriarchy, and under patriarchy, all male-female sex is rape.

Robert Stark: Another thing is that they vilify large age ranges in relationships such as an older man dating a younger woman. One thing that I noticed is that Alphas can get good-looking younger women early on, but other men who are not Alphas can build up their wealth and get them later on. Historically, women would often marry a much older man because they were dependent on them economically.

Robert Lindsay: Another thing about female sexuality is that women age quicker than men. They live longer than we do. I don’t know why it is, but if you have a woman and a man, and they’re both married, and they’re both around 50-60 or so, the woman is going to look 10-15 years older than the man.

Robert Stark: Women have a huge advantage in their 20’s, but once they get past 30, men have the advantage. That’s why the feminists are trying to pathologize men who are dating women who are much younger than they are.

Robert Lindsay: This has been going on forever and ever and ever. If you read literature all down through the centuries or even millennia, the theme over and over is that a man, as he’s aging, continues to want younger women. And an older woman has a hard time keeping her husband around because as she starts getting into her 40’s and 50’s, he starts wanting to chase younger women.

So one of the prime aspects of female sexuality is this hatred for this aspect of male sexuality in that aging males want to chase young women. And it’s hard for an older woman to keep her man around. How do you keep him around? And in many cases, middle-aged men leave their older wives and go for young women. And women hate that; female sexuality hates that, so feminism hates that. And that’s the reason for this law that Maria Cantwell and Brownback passed…is it Brownback?

Robert Stark: Sam Brownback is this social conservative…

Robert Lindsay: Right, so what’s going on is that American guys who’ve just had it up to here with nasty Western women are heading off to the 3rd World, and they are picking up younger 3rd World women, and they are marrying them.

Robert Stark: What’s really strange about this is that Cantwell and Brownback and both very much pro-immigration Open Borders types.

Robert Lindsay: Cantwell represents female sexuality, she represents feminism, actually radical feminism and the rage of feminists and aging women over the fact that a lot of White guys are shining on these nasty feminist witches here in America, and they’re going to get women overseas. And also middle aged guys are blowing off their older White spouses and going to get some young hottie overseas. This is all just about – “cut off the competition.”

And it’s the institutionalization of female sexuality in law. This is one of the things that the feminists are tying to do – they are trying to make law and the legal code that we all live under in our public space to be an institutionalization of female sexuality.

Robert Stark: Yet at the same time, they got rid of marriage, which was a fair form of socialism. I’ve analyzed these various movements, not just the feminist movement but also various economic movements, and it’s way too complex to say that this person is a capitalist and this person is a socialist if people pick and choose either free markets or government intervention when it suits their own interests. That’s why I object to these people who break everyone up into, “You’re either for free markets or you’re not.”

Robert Lindsay: And the sexual harassment thing, this is another one. The feminist movement, as I noted, wants to remove all sexuality from the pubic space because female sexuality hates sexual expression in the public space. If you’re a good-looking woman, apparently as soon as you walk outside the door, you have guys after you all day long. And women don’t like this. Female sexuality doesn’t like this hyper-aggressive nature of male sexuality in which we are always raping them with our eyes and chasing after them and all.

What they would really like, in their female sexual utopia, is to ban us from looking at them, they would like to have us arrested and sent to jail for “illegal looking.”

Robert Stark: This was targeted against pedophiles, but there was a law in Maine making it a felony for adults to stare at minors in public. I think what the radical feminists – I think the woman who introduced that law was a radical feminist – what they would like is to make it a crime to men to stare at adult women in public as well. So this looks like a slippery slope.

Robert Lindsay: This is one of the aspects of sexual harassment. Now, if you’re in a workplace, or even outside of a workplace, you can be accused of sexual harassment just for looking at women. A friend of mine, he’s an older guy, and he was in a coffee shop, and the young women didn’t like the fact that he was an older guy and he was looking at them so they complained, and the management told him to quit looking at the girls or they were going to throw him out.

So it’s not just happening in the workplace, although in the workplace, if you look at the women too much, if you check out the women, they call that sexual harassment and a “sexually hostile workplace.” I think they also want to remove all sexual commentary, sexual banter, sexual wording and flirtation from the public space.

But after all, people have a very strong sex drive, at least males, and the entirety of public space is where we spend most of our time. We go out in public all the time doing this or that, and the workplace is a large part our lives now, a lot of us are spending almost all of our time at work. And female sexuality and radical feminism wants to completely remove all sexual expression from the public space, where we are spending so much of our time.

I don’t think they even want us talking to women, honestly. They certainly don’t want us talking to them about anything sexual in any way whatsoever. For women, to remove all sexuality from the pubic space makes that a friendly space.

But I came out of 1970’s, remember, I came out of the hippie movement, I’m a liberal, I came out of the New Left, I’m a sexual revolutionary and a libertine. And I don’t believe in any kind of Puritanism at all. My attitude is, “Do it in the streets.” Not literally of course, but I’m very pro-sex. And it really bothers me how anti-sex the feminists are. And that they are trying to reproduce their view of female sexuality, which is very anti-sex, it’s very puritanical, onto the whole of society.

Robert Stark: What is strange is that if you look at some aspects of our society, they have become much more sexualized. If you look at commercials…I really don’t know what to make of the whole thing.

Robert Lindsay: This is strange, the extreme sexualization of our society – although the feminists would love to get rid of all that too, but they haven’t been able to yet…on the one hand, we have this hypersexualized society…

Robert Stark: One thing I’ve also noticed if that teen sexuality has been really glorified, like teenage girls, one the one hand, they are encouraged to act slutty, but on the other hand, if a man so much as looks at a teenage girl nowadays, they are being called pedos. So what do you think of these two polar extremes?

Robert Lindsay: Well, on the one hand, you have this hypersexualized media space in terms of advertising and consumer culture and the corporations and then in our popular entertainment…

Robert Stark: Yes, because sex sells, they want to make money.

Robert Lindsay: Music, TV, movies and all that, the sexual mores have been loosened down. So if you’re a person who is immersed in our consumer and entertainment culture, you are being bombarded with sexual messages all day long. And after a while, it’s probably going to make you pretty horny. If you’re a young man, you’re probably pretty horny as it is, but all this media sex stuff really gets you thinking about sex all the time.

And then as soon as you step out your front door and go out into the public space, now you’re out in this feminist world where the feminists are trying to put their Female Rule (matriarchy) over everything, and you can’t look at women, you can’t talk to women, you can’t say anything sexual, you can’t do anything sexual…

Robert Stark: What are some of your thoughts on the racial component of the dating market?

Robert Lindsay: Well, like I said, the White women, they all want an Alpha guy. And then by the time they’re 30, almost all of them, they didn’t get him, and so they’re angry. And then they either hook up with a Beta, and they’re not really all that happy about it, and they try to dominate him, and they’re aggressive and mean towards him. Or they get married, and then they get divorced at some point.

For instance, I have a Yahoo group for people who are fighting the Internet love scammers. The group is about ½ women. Most of the women are middle aged White women, and a very large % of these women are involved with Black men. What I did not understand for a long was that these women are filled with rage and hatred towards White men.

We’re macho pigs, we’re jerks…and they are filled with hatred towards male sexuality. We don’t treat them right, we’re mean, macho jerks. And all of them are radical feminists. And then at the same time…they’re all going for Black guys! And I didn’t understand that at all!

Robert Stark: The Black men would probably treat them a lot worse than a White man would.

Robert Lindsay: They will treat them a lot worse! But I finally figured it out, and I finally understand it. These White women who are going for Black guys, it’s a way of giving the finger to the White man. It’s a way of saying “F- you” to the White man, screw you to the White man. That’s the ultimate way of insulting a White man. Saying, “The heck with you, White men, here I am, I’m going to go for a Black guy!” And I think that Black males and White females share a common enemy. Remember that guy in Connecticut who shot up the beer factory when they accused him of stealing beer? And he said he “shot the racists?”

Robert Stark: I think you told me about it…

Robert Lindsay: He said he shot the racists, and he killed like 7 White people. He hated White people. We see over and over these Black guys who hate White people, and they’re attacking Whites, but then over and over, you see that this same guy has a White girlfriend!

Robert Stark: Yes! You’re familiar with the Knoxville Murders? They raped, tortured and killed two Whites, and their defense attorney tried to say that this guy’s not a racist because he had a White girlfriend.

Robert Lindsay: Right! Exactly! What’s going on there…I finally figured it out, is that the Black male and the White female share a common enemy. Their common enemy is the White man. So that’s how a Black man can hook up with a White woman and be happy, and they can have a common enemy, the White man, and how a Black man can have a White girlfriend and then go and shoot up 15 White guys at a beer distributing plant because they share a common enemy. These Black guys – they don’t hate White women. They hate White men.

Robert Stark: If you look through history at basic human tribalism, one tribe would try to steal the females from another tribe and yet be protective of their own women. And that’s why, to this day, a lot of men have double standards. They’ll date women of other groups, but they will get very defensive if someone tries to date their own women.

Robert Lindsay: Exactly! And in White society, the worst thing that a White woman can do is go out with Black guys. I know really liberal White guys, and they told me that if any White woman they know, if they find out that she dates Blacks, she’s through. She’s gone. They won’t even consider her. And a lot of White guys think this way. She’s history. She is basically evicted from the White race.

So this is a way that White males have of controlling and policing our women. This is how, just as you were saying, how we protect our women. We essentially banish them from the tribe, from the White tribe, for messing around with Black guys. Just like in the old days when tribal groups would evict you from the tribe for a transgression.

And at the same time, males of any race will have sex with females of the opposite race. Because then they are basically stealing the other tribe’s women, and if you impregnate them, you are forcing their women to bear your children. At the same time, you protect your own women, because your own women are your seed stock, and they are the continuity of your tribe. And you can’t allow them to be contaminated by the genes of these competing tribes because then your women are going to be raising the children of the competing tribes. And I still think that these ancient tribal ways are still ongoing in modern society.

Robert Stark: This is basic human instinct, but it’s not politically correct due to this Cultural Marxism has made these notions into something pathological to even discuss, but it’s still an essential human instinct nevertheless. So you see all of this as a part of the War on Men.

Robert Lindsay: It is, it is. It’s mostly a war on male sexuality. Even this sex offender thing and the pedophile thing, the Pedophile Mass Hysteria…have you noticed something? The pedophiles? They’re all men! And the victims are all women and girls.

Robert Stark: And the media portrays pedophiles as mostly White, which is also a myth. You were comparing it to Salem Witch Trials. There are dangerous people out there who we have to keep an eye on, but this whole pedophile hysteria, it’s gone way too far, and a lot of innocent people are being caught up in this and having their lives ruined. All men are being suspected that they are up to something no good sexually. This has just gone insane…

I Guess I Must Be a Pedophile

Repost from the old site.

This scholar, Tobias Hübinette, a doctoral student as Stockholm University, has written papers suggesting that Western men who are Asiaphiles, have Yellow Fever, etc. are actually pedophiles deep down inside. Or, as he puts it, “…what drives (Western man’s) fetishism with Asian women is quite simply paedophile tendencies.”

The usual PC morons are calling the poor guy a racist, and I haven’t even the foggiest idea why.

He also says that the hip trend of Whites adopting East Asian kids is part of a long tradition of colonial oppression.

The university’s legal department is investigating him and he may face charges of reverse racism, whatever the Hell that means. What does that mean, “face charges”?

I still don’t understand why this guy’s work is seen as racist, but to PC dolts, just about everything is. I guess the Sun is racist because it shines on those poor Third World countries so hard and makes them sweat and get tired and stuff.

All these years I’ve been romping around with Asian women, and it turns out I was really a serial child molester. I never realized that pedophilia could be so much fun.

More on Jack McClelland

Regarding the Witch Trials/Lynch Mobs in Modern America post, a commenter comments:

That guy is getting what he deserved. First off, adults having sex with children is the greatest existing taboo in our culture. This guy isn’t on stage saying he likes to look at girls that are 17 and a half. He admits too looking at girls down to age 3. You don’t have any kids I infer so perhaps you just can’t relate to the rage of all the people in that audience. If you did, maybe you’d feel differently.

I do happen to believe there’s probably a genetic component to pedophilia. Just like some people are born with genetics or psychological trauma that lead to homosexuality*, some people may have had the wiring go bad in their sexual attraction mechanism and their triggers of female attractiveness (such as large breast and .7 hip to waist ratio) are screwed up. In that case, they clearly aren’t to blame for their attraction anymore than someone born gay is to blame for being attracted to the same sex. If that’s what he is so be it. If that’s all it was, then I could almost feel sorry for him. However, when he goes putting up websites encouraging such behavior, that’s when he crosses the line and is encouraging people to get sexual pleasure by looking at pre-pubescent kids. And nobody forced him to go on that show. For the life of me I can’t understand why someone would even openly admit such a thing on TV.

Another interesting thing is just how disheveled and out of it that guy looks. Everything from his hair, to his clothes, to his posture and speech shows an extreme Omega male that is socially inept in every way. He may even be a candidate for Asperger’s syndrome. One of the symptoms of Asperger’s is unusual sensitivity to light, sound and other stimuli. That may have to do with why he was complaining about the stage lights and wearing sunglasses. I doubt it had to do with shame and hiding behind glasses as he wouldn’t have gone on the show in the first place if he was that ashamed.

First of all, the commenter believes that just because our culture has an insane, puritanical, Victorian and anti-sexual taboo about something sex-related, that somehow it deserves our respect. I’m sick and tired of puritanical, anti-sexual BS. We get enough of that day and day out as it is. There’s no reason that just because society has a lunatic hangup, the rest of us have climb on the board the Idiot Ship since everyone else is.

It’s hard to say. If I had a daughter, I might even let him take pics of her, if that’s all he wants to do, provided he doesn’t put them on the web. He could look at pics of my daughter and jerk off all he wants to for all I care, assuming that’s all he’s going to do.

The problem is that condemning this guy for liking to look at girls is like condemning you and me for liking to look at females 16+. It’s like condemning gay men for liking to look at males 16+. The behavior is normal for the individual. Of course straight men like to look at women. Of course gay men like to look at men. Of course pedos like to look at kids. Why should he be condemned for looking at kids? Why don’t we beat up guys who ogle women or beat up gays who check out guys in West Hollywood instead?

The rage of the parents is senseless. The guy hasn’t molested anyone. All he’s doing is looking at girls. Big deal! Are the girls going to be traumatized for life by some guy looking at them? Get real.

I’ve been studying this issue for almost 20 years now. It’s so clear to me that whatever the cause of it, these guys simply can’t help it. There’s no cure for pure pedophilia. I’m not so sure about the types who also have a decent attraction to adults. There’s also a group of nonprefentials who have no preference for kids. They can control their behavior, and there’s no reason for them to do what they do.

I actually did not feel that the guy was socially inept at all. Considering the extreme abuse he was experiencing, he showed little amazingly little anxiety and seemed to handle himself very well. I was surprised at how normal he came off.

He does have extreme sensitivity to light, sound and other sensations so he may be Aspie, but he seems awful normal for an Aspie.

The fact that this guy has come out is a good thing. More of them should be encouraged to do so. The guys who are out like this are the last ones who are going to do anything with a kid.

Your attack on his website is peculiar. You say he is “encouraging people to get off looking at little girls.” But honestly, the only people going to that site are going to be pedos anyway, right? Why would a non-pedo go to the site? Het pedos don’t need any encouragement to get pleasure by looking at girls. They already get that pleasure. So he’s not encouraging anything that’s not already there.

There may be other reasons the site is problematic, but I can’t think of any offhand.

Witch Trials/Lynch Mobs in Modern America

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJONFnhI_cc]

I’m going against the public mood here, but I’m getting seriously tired of this Pedophile Mass Hysteria crap that’s been going around for some time now, particularly in the past five years or so. It seems to be getting worse and worse every year.

I wrote some articles on Pedophile OCD, which is not Pedophilia at all, it’s just an anxiety disorder by harmless normal people who worry that they are the bad people that they most certainly are not.

I get a lot mail from those folks, and I am also getting a lot of mail from people, all men, who are being accused of being pedophiles. In every single case, the person was definitely not a pedophile. All were normal heterosexual males, attracted to females 16+ and minimally if at all to girl children (that’s the normal male pattern). Many of them are older guys who have not married. It’s worse if they never married or if they don’t have kids. It’s worse yet if they are White, since dipshits think “most pedos are White,” although this is not true, as Blacks have a 1.9X elevated rate and Hispanics have the same rate as Whites.

Some of them told me that they are seen as rather strange people, mostly very shy and introverted. Some were nervous or had anxiety issues.

They tell me that they can’t look at kids or even talk to kids at all, otherwise people start staring and talking. Actually, quite a few regular guys who have been accused of nothing have told me this, and many have told me that they now avoiding kids altogether.

I am also hearing of a lot of cases of guys in their 40’s and 50’s who are being accused of being “pedophiles” for checking out or talking to underage teenage girls. And I am also hearing about guys in the same age range being called “perverts” and “pedophiles” for checking out and talking up young women aged 18-24.

Let’s be clear about this madness. First of all, it’s not abnormal for a man of any age to be highly attracted to females aged 15+. In fact, it’s the height of normality. Sure, it’s illegal to have sex with them, but it’s not illegal to look at them or talk to them, or not yet anyway! We also see that the definition of pedophilia is insanely expanding up into the range of adulthood. Now, a 50 year old man who does an 18-24 girl is miraculously transformed into “pedo.”

So in addition to the actual pedos being hounded, we’ve got a mini-epidemic of normal guys who are being accused of this shit on a false basis.

This idiocy is following the trajectory of all mass hysterias – anti-scientific basis, mass emotional response for the swarms of idiotic masses, a lynch mob mindset, persecution of innocent people, and an ever-expanding definition of “witchcraft.”

The guy on the video, Jack McClellan, is an actual pedophile. I felt sorry for him. I saw other videos where he seemed kind of weird, but he looked pretty cool in this one. It’s clear that the guy can’t help it.

Pedophilia strictly defined appears in adolescence. You can’t catch it in adulthood. It’s not contagious. As a good rule, the pedophile is attracted minimally if at all to adults. Pedophiles can be either homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. All three lack interest in adults of their gender preference.

The guy in the video is a bit interesting in that he has sex with adult females too, specifically prostitutes. I don’t think he’s much turned on by women though. He is probably just doing that to get his rocks off. It’s clear that he prefers girls.

McClellan, who is apparently harmless, has stirred up a hornet’s nest by coming out as a pedophile and running a webpage showing where to go to look at girls in various cities. The site lists whether or not there are cops around and other pertinent information. He also hangs around places where there are lots of girls, and sometimes he takes pictures of them. He’s not on the Sex Offender list and has never been arrested on sex charges. He says he’s never had sex with a child, and he doesn’t intend to under current laws.

The guy has a propensity for publicity, and he’s had to move around all over the West Coast as various lynch mobs chased him from town to town. He’s been banned from bus services. Cops question him all the time, but he never does anything arrestable.

A judge recently issued a constitutionally questionable restraining order against him. The restraining order orders him to stay 30 feet away from groupings of children at all times. He also can’t take pictures of kids. He recently said he was going to defy the order, and a couple of years ago, he was arrested for violating the RO. As he keeps moving around, states and cities keep inventing bizarre new weird-laws to try to deal with the guy and make his behavior illegal.

I am a sexual revolutionary, a libertine and a masculinist. My attitude about sex is, “Do it in the streets,” (not literally but you get the picture). What strikes me about this Mass Hysteria, especially as it expands, is that the roots of it seem to be anti-sexual, as all sexual hysterias are. The whole purpose is to put a damper on sexual expression, even glances and thoughts, in the public space. It feels like a war on male sexuality. And I suspect a lot of it is originating, as all sexual hysterias do, from women and fathers.

As I noted above, Jack McClellan’s harmless. He’s never molested a kid or even come close. He’s violated no sex laws. As far as I’m concerned, assuming that’s all he does, he can look at girls all he wants to.

After all, they are cute. Kids are a trip. Everyone likes to look at girls – parents, teachers, females of all ages, anyone with a soul who is delighted by the spirit of the child. McLellan takes it a bit further into the sexual realm, but his love for girls is not unusual in terms of human behavior.

Frankly, I find these lynch mobs, trials and insane new weird-laws way more creepy than this guy, who’s never hurt a soul  and probably never will.