Archive | Gender Issues RSS feed for this section

In defense of pedophilia

14 Mar



So I ended up in this completely retarded conversation on Facebook in reference to this case in Sweden, in which a 27 year old had sex with a very physically mature  13 year old whom he thought was much older. Sweden, believe it or not, is relatively sane about this sort of this thing, and refused to prosecute the man for “child rape”.

Cue the idiots on Facebook.

Before we begin, I want to give you two thought experiments to consider as we try to make our way rationally through a topic that a whole lot of people cannot think clearly on.

Experiment 1:

A 35 year old woman, with the mental capacity of a 35 year old, has a medical condition which renders her body identical to a 10 year old girl. She has no secondary sex characteristics. No pubic hair, no armpit hair, no breasts, no hips. She looks like a child. She sets herself up as a prostitute to appeal to pedophiles: men and women who are sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children.

Is this pedophilia? Are the clients who pay to fuck a body that belongs to a child, with the mind of a fully cognizant, aware adult,  pedophiles?


 Experiment 2:

Heechy-keechy We have the ability to create a robot that looks and mimics the physical characteristics of child, and we have programmed that robot to sexually satisfy pedophiles. There is no way to tell the difference between a real child and the robot. Are people who pay to fuck the robot pedophiles?

If you haven’t read Paolo Bacigalupi’s Wind-Up Girl, I highly recommend it! It deals with a lot of these issues and is just an incredible story.


Just for good measure, make your way through this, too. In Game of Thrones, George R. R. Martin sends very young men and women into situations we would consider decidedly adult. Rob Stark is fifteen when he goes into battle as the King of the North. His sister Sansa Stark is betrothed to Joffrey Baratheon when she is eleven years old, but her marriage cannot take place until she has her first period, as she is not considered an adult until that happens. In Martin’s world, girls become women at menarche and only women can marry. Is he writing child porn?


It comes down to this: what is a child? Is it a number arbitrarily assigned by the government? At X years and 364 days, you are a child. The next day – PRESTO – you are an adult!


Or is it a physical state of being? Adult = physically capable of reproduction?


Obviously, there are issues of maturity and preparation and understanding and cognition, but those are not something you can detect visually. Physical, adult characteristics, on the other hand, ARE indeed something you can detect visually.


Here’s the essence of my argument on Facebook: being attracted to secondary sexual characteristics is normal human sexuality regardless of the physical age of the person involved and not only is this not pedophilia, it’s the fucking opposite!!!!


The SJW hysterics that erupted around this seemingly innocuous declaration were truly surprising. SJWs are completely and utterly dedicated to understanding all men who find young men or women under the age of X pedophiles, and they seem incapable of seeing their own irrationality.


Gee, Jane Doe is hot.



Wait 24 hours.


Gee, Jane Doe is hot.



What the fuck???


SJWs and their allies like to throw out “why is it hard to understand you don’t fuck children” as the ultimate in moral authority, because really, who agrees adults should fuck children?  The key issue revolves around whom SJWs are counting as children.

A 13 year old male or female with a sexually mature body still has issues of maturity and understanding that a responsible adult will notice and take into consideration. Some 20 year old males and females are immature as fuck, and that should be taken into consideration as well.


Being attracted to the body of a sexually mature 13 year old male or female is not pedophilia by definition!


Why is this even hard to understand? How fucking stupid do you have to be to get that human beings are sexually attracted to other sexually mature human beings? Obviously there are considerations about experience and maturity and understanding, but guess what? Those considerations do not magically disappear once an individual reaches the magic age of X. Twitter had a meltdown over a 25 year old rapper dating a 17 year old model because that’s a CHILD. Her birthday is in 48 days, and after that date, she will magically be NOT A CHILD.

What pisses me off about this kind of idiocy and pedo-hysteria is that it makes it easy for real pedophiles to hide. Pedophilia is a mental disorder in which normal human sexuality is twisted so that non-reproductive bodies become sexually desirable. It’s completely counter to normal human sexuality, and obviously, when acted upon, it causes enormous harm to victims, both male and female. When everyone stands around shrieking about sexually mature 15 year olds, pedophiles get access to six year olds and no one notices because they are too busy tweeting nonsense about how 48 days is the difference between pedophilia and acceptable desire.


It’s stupid. And stupidly dangerous.


I look forward to all the idiots who will now plaster social media with the message that “Janet Bloomfield defends men’s right to fuck children”, which conveniently ignores female pedophiles and male victims, and of course, is the exact opposite of what I am actually saying. I’ve written on this subject before, and I still think age of consent laws need two caveats:

  1. Age difference
  2. Mistaken identity

Two teenagers exploring their sexuality, consensually, should never end up on a sex offender registry, which is meant to identify sexual predators, simply because they failed to meet an arbitrary age set by the government. There is a world of difference between and 13 year old boy and his 15 year old girlfriend and a 13 year old boy and a 40 year old woman. But of course, that is not the scenario pedo-hysterics envision, is it?

It’s always the men who are older and the women who are younger.


Mistaken age, as in the situation in Sweden, is also a legitimate defense. A 25 year old woman who meets a hot guy at a bar has every reason to believe that guy is of legal age because he’s in a bar. If it turns out he is only 17, she has not willingly had sex with a minor.


But once again, not the scenario SJW warriors are concerned with, is it?


Pedo-hysteria has absolutely nothing to do with “protecting” children and everything to do with demonizing male sexuality. It is perfectly natural for adult humans to find other adult humans who have matured to the point that secondary sex characteristics are visible, sexually attractive. Germaine Greer herself had no problem perving out on extremely young men and most of North America continues to turn a blind eye to women who sample very young men sexually.


The hysterics only come out when men are involved, and generally only when those men are heterosexual. Gay men seem to get a pass when it comes to “protecting children” from dangerous male sexuality.

Let’s go back to those thought experiments.


The 35 year old woman with the body of a 10 year old: pedophilia or just a fetish? In my opinion, it’s pedophilia, literally. Her clients are sexually attracted to the fact that she looks like a child. But she is, in fact, an adult, and may therefore do as she pleases.


The robot? Also pedophilia, but a robot is not a human and what the robot’s owners choose to do with the robot is no one’s business, as long as they stick with the robot.


There. I just defended the practice of pedophilia in two different scenarios. Have fun SJW nitwits. Cherry pick to your heart’s content. I have literally described two scenarios in which I find the sexual desire for children’s bodies to be none of my, or anyone else’s, business.



Sexually mature young men and women are not children. And desiring them is not pedophilia. It’s creepy as fuck, and Germaine and her boytoy send shivers down my spine, but I don’t need to approve of whatever happened after that photoshoot.


That’s their business.


They’re adults.


They do not require my, or anyone else’s, approval.


Lots of love,



Karen Straughan wants to know how to create a society that is forced to care about men. I have some ideas…..

12 Mar

Updated to add: my Facebook feed shows that the video is from that crazy RazorBladeCandy guy who dedicated five hours of his life to describing how much I hate men and wish to enslave them. Apparently he is obsessed with Karen, too. 

Karen’s comments are still gold and worth reading. 






Someone posted a link on my Facebook page to comments the fabulous Karen Straughan made on a video on YouTube. I didn’t watch the video, so I don’t specifically know what she was responding to, but I found her comments to be very interesting. I’m going to reprint them at length and then try to answer her question.

This is Karen talking:

Here’s why I attack feminism: feminism bills itself as a progressive movement, yet it employs traditional conservative tropes in order to achieve its ends, and characterizes its appeals to the traditional as “progressive”.

 Actual conservatism (whether you agree with it or not) is more honest. It says “women are incapable of X, therefore women need protection from Y, and men must provide that protection”. Feminism says “women are every bit as capable of X as men, but men are monsters whose agenda is to keep women subordinate, therefore women need protection from Y”.

 Traditionalism says that sex is something men do to women, therefore rape is something men do to women. Feminism says that sex is something that men and women do to each other, but because of the malicious and malfeasant “Patriarchy” and all the men in charge of it and benefitting from it, rape is not just something men do to women, but a conscious process by which all men keep all women in a state of fear. Also, because of the political context, yada yada, it’s just not the same when a woman forces a man to have sex. Yes, we think men and women are equal, but it’s still different, because reasons, most of which have to do with how men created a system that oppresses women for the benefit of men.”

 Conservatism said “women are temptresses, and it is a man’s responsibility to not succumb to the seductive nature of women, and if he does, then he’s at fault for defiling his own purity, oh and we’ll probably make him marry her.”

 Feminism says “women are helpless victims with no sexual agency even though they should be allowed to climb random guys like fire poles and grind on them because how dare you shame her for expressing her sexuality, and it’s a man’s responsibility to not succumb to his own predatory and rapey nature, and if he does, then he’s a rapist and needs to rot in prison.”

 Both ideologies hold men more to account than women. Both ruthlessly exploit conservative ideas about men and women. But only feminism says that it’s about treating both genders equally.

 When we are fighting feminism, we’re often also fighting conservatism. But I’m sorry, a shotgun wedding is less bad than 20 years in prison. The acknowledgement that women are “temptresses” (that is: women have sexual agency) is better than the assertion that a woman in an abbreviated latex dress and stripper heels shouldn’t have to endure the “male gaze”. The claim that women are dependent on men and should be appreciative and respectful of the men they’re dependent on is better than the claim that women are independent and need men like fish need bicycles, while women rake in 75%+ of available government benefits that are funded disproportionately by men.

 Marriage, even to a harpy, is better than being impoverished paying child support to a harpy who accused you of DV and got you jailed for it and who won’t let  you see your kids, and who has you thrown in prison for non-payment because your DV record got you fired from your job, and then claims that she’s all about “equality” between the sexes. I’m sorry, but it is.

 Feminism is traditionalism dialed up to 11. When we fight feminism, we’re fighting extreme traditionalism. Moderate traditionalism can wait.

She gets attacked pretty harshly by commenters who feel one must address feminism and traditionalism as mutually complicit in a culture that refuses to care about men. Karen goes on the explain her position a little more clearly:

I think perhaps my biggest beef with feminism is that it has convinced society in general that society hates women and has always hated women, when in reality all societies have largely served women. And they’ve essentially said that men created these societies that hate women for their own benefit and privilege.

 This is a smear on the characters of men that I have a great deal of trouble tolerating, and even more so because it is not remotely true, and I doubt it has ever been true.

 During the suffragette era, there were political cartoons that showed a sweating, distressed male politician sitting between two pretty young women, one wearing a sash that said “suffragette” and another wearing one that said “anti-suffragette”. Back when universal male suffrage was enduring its birthing pains, the UK put the question to women: do you want the vote? 70% of women said no. Yet Cenk Uygur acted in our interview as if there was no way male politicians would have given women the vote were it not for the suffragettes committing acts of domestic terrorism. He ignored the fact that women themselves opposed women’s suffrage, and that this was a major reason why women got the vote later than men. So literally, a government listening to women was a government that was oppressing them.

 I guess what I’m getting at is that both traditionalism and feminism require that men provide for, protect, and sacrifice for women. Traditionalists call that loving women. Feminists call that hating women. This is why I oppose feminism first and foremost–all feminist roads lead to misogyny.

 As for going back to traditionalism, I don’t think it’s possible. The toothpaste is out of the tube. As George RR Martin wrote once, the cow’s been milked, there’s no squirting the cream back up her udder.

Then Karen goes on to ask the million dollar question:

I never said traditionalists accept an individual man for what they are. I said “do X, Y and Z and you’ll get respect.”

 The difference between traditionalists and feminists is that they both demand you do X, Y and Z. Traditionalists will respect you for it. Feminists will spit on you for it.

 You can do what you want. I can understand why you’re upset with me. But I’m not going to lie to you. I’m not going to say there’s some world where you won’t be required to do X, Y and Z. I’m only saying that if you manage to do that, you should be respected rather than shit on.

 Like I said to some in this thread, show me an alternative. The alternative depends on convincing society to care about men as much as they care about women. So show me how to make society do that. Show me it’s possible. Show me a society in the boonies in Nepal that made that work, even on a small scale. Show me that it can happen, on a visceral, emotional level.

 Traditionalism is bad for men. Feminism is worse. If you were forced to choose between them, which would you pick?

Show me the alternative. How do we make society care about men as much as they care about women? Both Karen and another commenter mention the possibility of artificial wombs – remove women’s reproductive powers and suddenly the playing field gets a whole lot more level. There is something Matrix-like and creepy about the idea of gestating babies in machines, and obviously, that requires a massive amount of technology.


Instead of eradicating women’s reproductive powers, perhaps we should be considering making men’s reproductive powers equal to women’s? Birth control technology for men would go a long way towards achieving this, but we could affect this change tomorrow by changing two laws: 

  1. Reproductive rights for men
  2. Legal presumption of shared custody

I’ve written before about legal parental surrender and allowing men to walk away from children they have contributed genetic material to, just as women may do, but having given the issue more thought, I am convinced that will only lead to increased hatred of men, not less. For a law surrounding reproductive rights to create a society that genuinely cares about men, the law needs more bite. It needs as much bite as the reproductive rights women currently enjoy.

No human child may be born without the on going and affirmative consent of the adults involved.

Gender neutral and perfectly clear. To give birth to a child without the explicit consent of everyone who contributed genetic material should be a felony and the child should immediately be seized and placed for adoption by the state. In the beginning, to be sure, we are going to end up seizing a lot of babies under equal reproductive rights, but it will not take long for reality to sink in: make this choice and you will suffer for it.

And note that no one will be forced into abortions they do not want. If a woman falls pregnant with a child the father does not consent to, she will not be forced to abort that child. She is free to follow her conscience and give birth to that child. She will not be allowed to keep it, but she may give birth to it. Marital status will make no difference. If you do not have the consent of the father, the infant will be seized.

The most immediate effect of a law like this is that a market for male reproductive services emerges. A 35-year-old woman that no man on the planet has consented to reproduce with has a choice: she can pay a man to consent to parenthood. His consent means that he is obliged to support the resulting child so his fee will be:

Child support + ongoing expenses over 18 years + premium for looks, intelligence, height, etc.

That could be a very sweet deal, and men will suddenly be rather valued by women who choose to forgo any efforts towards attracting men into a mutually beneficial pair-bond.


Wanna be a bitch? Have at it. If you want kids, you will pay for it.

There’s step one in creating a society that values men: bring their reproductive value up to the same value as women’s by prohibiting the use of their genetic material without explicit consent.  Now on to step two: the presumption of shared parenting. Just as men and women are afforded equal reproductive rights, so too shall they be accorded equal parenting rights.

The genetic offspring of two individuals is the rightful custodial responsibility of both equally. 

Wanna break up your relationship? Have at it. But you will not take the children with you.

This also creates a market. Let’s say a woman whom no man has consented to have a child with desperately wants children. She will have to prove her worth to the man by parenting his existing children brilliantly. This is gender neutral, of course. A man who wishes to have more children will also have to parent a woman’s existing children very well to prove his worth.

Both of these laws instantly provide men with something they currently lack under feminist acknowledgements: worth. Of course, men are inherently worthwhile as human beings – I am simply highlighting the fact that feminists ascribe them no worth, and describing that truth, as Karen notes, is not endorsing it.

Women have gotten away with shit from time immemorial because we have the babies. No society can live without us. It is the sole source of our value and always will be. A society in which all women are brilliant engineers and not one of them will have children is a dead society.

Let’s give men the same value.


No human child may be born without the express and on-going consent of the adults involved.

The genetic offspring of two individuals is the rightful custodial responsibility of both equally. 

Well, what do you think?

Reproductive equality is the key to making a society that cares about men as much as women. Equality leads to more equality?


Lots of women ain’t gonna like that. Tough shit.

Lots of love,






I’m the serial rapist everyone’s talking about

9 Feb

serial rape


Lol, okay not everyone, but a good chunk of people are discussing what really constitutes rape over at Thought Catalog. The article has been shared over 350K times!

Are those stories true? Actually, they are. And neither of them were rape, at least not to any sane person. The first guy, John (yes, that really is his name) was taking things slow with me because he was in a guy quandary. Although he wasn’t a “hang out in the backyard” friend of my older brother, they had a lot of mutual friends, and he was skirting awfully close to the “don’t fuck my sister unless you are serious” rule.

I grew up in small town and my brothers were known for being “protective” of their sister, although they had little reason to be. I went on my first “date”, to a movie, the summer between Grade 8 and Grade 9 and that first date lasted until about halfway through Grade 12. I bypassed the entire drama of highschool dating by having the same boyfriend pretty much the entire time. And here’s a true confession – I wonder what you will all make of this. The relationship ended amicably and we remained friends, because my boyfriend was finally ready to admit he preferred the company of other men. Not only did I bypass the drama of teenage dating, I bypassed any potential sexual pressure because he really was more interested in being my friend and weaving daisies in my hair.



My brothers like to joke that I was so appealing as a girlfriend, I made my boyfriend gay, but the reality is much more harsh, I’m afraid. Most people were incredibly homophobic. I probably saved his life, although I was not aware I was doing so. I certainly saved him from years of torment, and sad to say, that torment is still visited on individuals who are open about their sexuality during adolescence. He really was a dream highschool boyfriend, though. The point of that story is that by the time I was dating John, my hormones were raging and I was ready.


I also really loved him.




John was, and still is, a terrific man. I have, on occasion, stalked him on Facebook, where I see images of him and his wife and their four children. They seem genuinely, deeply happy, and I am happy for them. He really did propose to me, and I turned him down because I thought we were too young. I bought the “go to college and find yourself – marriage is a trap and children suck” feminist rah rah rah you go girl Koolaid. That day in his backyard was not our first time, but he was twitchy as hell about my brothers knowing the extent of our relationship and it was the middle of the day! He wasn’t thrilled with the idea of his brothers showing up either. But I really did jump him and after that, we became very seriously involved, leading to the proposal. I’m not generally aggressive, but sometimes, especially when it’s unexpected, that can be fun!


The second guy, Ryan, is exactly as I described him and we played a mutual “you are gonna be late game”. I would get out of the shower and he would drag me into the bedroom, despite my protests that I had to go to class/work/the library/whatever. It was all by mutual arrangement. If I really was running late, especially for work, he wouldn’t even think of playing the game, and neither would I. As I wrote in the comments at Thought Catalog, those games allowed me all the thrills of being slutty without actually being a slut. I met Ryan when we both auditioned for a play a few weeks after we started college, and we dated all the way through college and stayed together for several months after graduation. Sounds obnoxious, but it’s true. Same guy all the way through highschool, same guy all the way through college. I think growing up in a house full of men gave me great instincts. I picked terrific men because that is all I’ve ever really known.


Ryan also proposed but I did not like his inherited wealth. I was seriously concerned that he would not be able to handle the sacrifices of parenthood since making sacrifices or doing without was not something he had ever really experienced. I was very, very wrong. His sister passed away about a year after we parted, leaving her two small children behind her, and their father had mental health issues that did not allow him to be a sole care-giver for them. Ryan sold his store and moved into his sister’s house and became the full time caregiver for his niece and nephew, who will have very few, if any memories of their life without Uncle Daddy. I guess I should have trusted my instincts.


No real harm done, though, as I went for a hat trick and met my husband the first day of the MBA program we were both enrolled in and here we are three children and sixteen years later. And yes, he gets “raped” the same way Ryan and John did. Not often. As he might say “not often enough” because well-timed and unexpected aggression can be quite … stimulating.


I honestly feel sorry for men and women on college campuses today, denied the ability to explore their sexuality and personalities in the way I was able to do because rape hysteria didn’t exist. Yes means yes affirmative consent laws are unambiguous. Under the law, I most certainly am a serial rapist.


Serial rapists no doubt love the feminist hysterics that have led to this insanity of making what amounts to ordinary human sex into rape, because when everything is rape, nothing is. When every man is a rapist, it makes it that much easier for a real rapist to hide. And the nasty, poorly thought out truth is that by feminist definitions, it’s not just every man who is a rapist.


Every woman is, too.


Peachy, ladies. Thanks for nothing.


Lots of love,





%d bloggers like this: