So young, you need a word of protection
I noticed that the latest program of Derb Radio is up. I'd better go practice my British accent!
The best thing about this best man that National Review has to offer is certainly his ability to make leftists go bat-shit insane by saying something that everyone knows to be true, such as the fact that no Americans cared about some passenger ship sinking when Americans were not involved. His essay "February Fooled the Forsythia" on Lolita once again illustrates this, evoking the response "Pedophiliac rape fantasies are the sign of a cultivated mind" at the top femo-socialist site Pandagon. The enraged leftist and feminist commenters go as far to demand that Child Protective Services should take away Derb's daughter, because Derb is a "pedophile" and a "sick fuck". (None of them, of course, actually does contact such services, but is content with anonymous slander.)
It's hard to know where to even begin, but let me try. Americans are just so adorable when they, in their hillbilly ignorance about the rest of the world, imagine that their age of consent of 18 years is some kind of universal law of nature of all cultures, so that an adult man who has sex with a jailbait girl under 18 is a "pedophile" who belongs to prison to be anally raped for the rest of his life. Every person under 18 is a child, period! But I guess that I must be a pedophile then, since when I was 19, I once had sex with a girl who was only 16. And by God, was she ever smoking hot. Mmmm, those tits. The hottest fortysomething women anywhere, way past their salad days, can only dream of looking that good. And this was, of course, in Finland, where the age of consent is 16. In my present age of 33, I would do her (or any willing 16-year-old who was equally hot) again in a heartbeat, were I not married. So am I a pedophile?
Go on, Americans, look it up. In the sophisticated European countries, the legal age of consent tends to be even lower than the Finnish "sweet sixteen", and may I point out that you can usually thank the efforts of leftists for this, not some right-wing patriarchal plot! In fact, it is the gay rights groups who have historically been the major lobbyists in lowering the age of consent! And hoo boy, let's move away from Europe and things get even worse. In Canada, the age of consent is 14, and in Japan, it is only 13! (Personally, I think that this is way too low: in my opinion, 16 is the appropriate age of consent.) We should especially note that these were the civilized and industrialized countries. Assuming that I have understood it correctly, most of the Third World doesn't even have the concept of "age of consent" at all!
So pray tell me, American leftists: can you really take your extremely weird definition of "pedophilia" to its logical conclusion, and conclude that most men in the world are sick fucks who should be castrated? If you really go as far as to call death or at least imprisonment for a man who says that 16-year-old girls are beautiful, why is it that you never loudly condemn your beloved Third World cultures in which it is totally normal and socially acceptable that girls are married to older men by that age, and call all men of these cultures "sick fucks"? (Rhetorical. We all know perfectly well why you use one strict standard for the Western men, and another loose standard of "anything goes" for the Third World men.)
Now, I know very well from personal experience how unhinged feminists and profeminist men can become when somebody points out that slender 18-year-old women are vastly more attractive sexually in the eyes of the vast majority of men than obese 50-year-old women, mentally ill granny-fuckers excluded. So in that sense I am not exactly surprised by their reaction to Derb's opinions. But what are they, some kind of ageists? If it is OK for a willing 16-year-old girl to have sex with a willing 19-year-old man, as it is in all countries that American leftists are otherwise so very desperate to emulate, why not with a willing 50-year-old man? Saying otherwise is just ageism, pure and simple. Tut tut. So very uncharacteristic of the left that normally champions the unadulterated sexual freedom between consenting adults.
Go on, read through the comments in the post I linked to, to get an idea of these people. Of course, leftists have no duty to be civil with their opponents because leftists are oppressed, as Chris Clarke explains in his recent post "Fuck your civility". Since I can't possibly compete with Chris's progressive and intellectual standing and credentials, I can't really argue with this idea. Although I would note that anything that Chimpy W. Hitler has done to Americans, such as not allowing them to make phone calls to terrorists without the NSA listening in (and pray tell, what other country would, during wartime?), is in the end rather insignificant next to the oppression perpetrated by leftists during the 20th century, when they killed about 100 million people and condemned hundreds of millions of their unfortunate subjects to lives of absolutely unimaginable misery. True, a typical leftist intellectual didn't get his hands dirty and did his work in a comfortable office. But they worked to help kill people nonetheless. So I don't personally feel that much need to be civil with leftists either. It is not civil to discuss things quietly and collegially while people are shot at the border by their own fellow countrymen for trying to escape the hellhole they had the unfortunate luck of being born to, while the leftist intellectual in the West snootily explains that his "socialism" would never kill anybody but that everybody would have a pony and all health care and medicines that they ever need, completely free.
I would, in addition, like to point out the hilarious way that Chris gets hoisted on his own petard with his incivility principle in "Matters of weight". A lefty profeminist man suffers from obesity? Ha ha, say it ain't so! This post also links to an interesting earlier post "Retarding the discourse", in which I would actually honestly applaud him for pointing out the hypocrisy of his fellow travellers for their use of words that refer to mental retardation to slur their opponents. As I keep quoting one Go book that I once read, when chasing the rabbit, the hunter is blind to mountains. That is, in their enthusiasm to attack their opponents to score some minor immediate point, short-sighted ideologues often accidentally reveal their real thoughts about the big picture, and thus concede many vastly more important points to the opposition in an extremely silly fashion.
However, the most interesting thing about this post is noting how very difficult it must be for an intelligent leftist who understands perfectly the value that his intelligence has had in his own life then to follow the party line and deny that intelligence could ever be important in any way. (Except when it comes to executing murderers whose IQ is 64, or in a civil trial about lead paint that lowered children's IQ's by 5 points, of course.) Of all the self-built ideological prisons of the left, this is perhaps the dumbest. And I have seen this denial happening so many times that it's not really even funny anymore.
It's the same story every time: intelligent people are evil and selfish, whereas the lower half of the Bell curve is the good, kind and loving salt of the Earth. As you can personally verify by visiting a neighbourhood in which the average IQ is 130, and after that visiting another neighbourhood in which the average IQ is 80, I guess. Bu to Chris's credit, at least the semi-compulsory "I was intelligent and didn't do well at school or in life, so intelligence is totally meaningless" wasn't included in his post. But riddle me this: If intelligence is a good thing, the more the better, is the lack of intelligence then not a bad thing?
The best thing about this best man that National Review has to offer is certainly his ability to make leftists go bat-shit insane by saying something that everyone knows to be true, such as the fact that no Americans cared about some passenger ship sinking when Americans were not involved. His essay "February Fooled the Forsythia" on Lolita once again illustrates this, evoking the response "Pedophiliac rape fantasies are the sign of a cultivated mind" at the top femo-socialist site Pandagon. The enraged leftist and feminist commenters go as far to demand that Child Protective Services should take away Derb's daughter, because Derb is a "pedophile" and a "sick fuck". (None of them, of course, actually does contact such services, but is content with anonymous slander.)
It's hard to know where to even begin, but let me try. Americans are just so adorable when they, in their hillbilly ignorance about the rest of the world, imagine that their age of consent of 18 years is some kind of universal law of nature of all cultures, so that an adult man who has sex with a jailbait girl under 18 is a "pedophile" who belongs to prison to be anally raped for the rest of his life. Every person under 18 is a child, period! But I guess that I must be a pedophile then, since when I was 19, I once had sex with a girl who was only 16. And by God, was she ever smoking hot. Mmmm, those tits. The hottest fortysomething women anywhere, way past their salad days, can only dream of looking that good. And this was, of course, in Finland, where the age of consent is 16. In my present age of 33, I would do her (or any willing 16-year-old who was equally hot) again in a heartbeat, were I not married. So am I a pedophile?
Go on, Americans, look it up. In the sophisticated European countries, the legal age of consent tends to be even lower than the Finnish "sweet sixteen", and may I point out that you can usually thank the efforts of leftists for this, not some right-wing patriarchal plot! In fact, it is the gay rights groups who have historically been the major lobbyists in lowering the age of consent! And hoo boy, let's move away from Europe and things get even worse. In Canada, the age of consent is 14, and in Japan, it is only 13! (Personally, I think that this is way too low: in my opinion, 16 is the appropriate age of consent.) We should especially note that these were the civilized and industrialized countries. Assuming that I have understood it correctly, most of the Third World doesn't even have the concept of "age of consent" at all!
So pray tell me, American leftists: can you really take your extremely weird definition of "pedophilia" to its logical conclusion, and conclude that most men in the world are sick fucks who should be castrated? If you really go as far as to call death or at least imprisonment for a man who says that 16-year-old girls are beautiful, why is it that you never loudly condemn your beloved Third World cultures in which it is totally normal and socially acceptable that girls are married to older men by that age, and call all men of these cultures "sick fucks"? (Rhetorical. We all know perfectly well why you use one strict standard for the Western men, and another loose standard of "anything goes" for the Third World men.)
Now, I know very well from personal experience how unhinged feminists and profeminist men can become when somebody points out that slender 18-year-old women are vastly more attractive sexually in the eyes of the vast majority of men than obese 50-year-old women, mentally ill granny-fuckers excluded. So in that sense I am not exactly surprised by their reaction to Derb's opinions. But what are they, some kind of ageists? If it is OK for a willing 16-year-old girl to have sex with a willing 19-year-old man, as it is in all countries that American leftists are otherwise so very desperate to emulate, why not with a willing 50-year-old man? Saying otherwise is just ageism, pure and simple. Tut tut. So very uncharacteristic of the left that normally champions the unadulterated sexual freedom between consenting adults.
Go on, read through the comments in the post I linked to, to get an idea of these people. Of course, leftists have no duty to be civil with their opponents because leftists are oppressed, as Chris Clarke explains in his recent post "Fuck your civility". Since I can't possibly compete with Chris's progressive and intellectual standing and credentials, I can't really argue with this idea. Although I would note that anything that Chimpy W. Hitler has done to Americans, such as not allowing them to make phone calls to terrorists without the NSA listening in (and pray tell, what other country would, during wartime?), is in the end rather insignificant next to the oppression perpetrated by leftists during the 20th century, when they killed about 100 million people and condemned hundreds of millions of their unfortunate subjects to lives of absolutely unimaginable misery. True, a typical leftist intellectual didn't get his hands dirty and did his work in a comfortable office. But they worked to help kill people nonetheless. So I don't personally feel that much need to be civil with leftists either. It is not civil to discuss things quietly and collegially while people are shot at the border by their own fellow countrymen for trying to escape the hellhole they had the unfortunate luck of being born to, while the leftist intellectual in the West snootily explains that his "socialism" would never kill anybody but that everybody would have a pony and all health care and medicines that they ever need, completely free.
I would, in addition, like to point out the hilarious way that Chris gets hoisted on his own petard with his incivility principle in "Matters of weight". A lefty profeminist man suffers from obesity? Ha ha, say it ain't so! This post also links to an interesting earlier post "Retarding the discourse", in which I would actually honestly applaud him for pointing out the hypocrisy of his fellow travellers for their use of words that refer to mental retardation to slur their opponents. As I keep quoting one Go book that I once read, when chasing the rabbit, the hunter is blind to mountains. That is, in their enthusiasm to attack their opponents to score some minor immediate point, short-sighted ideologues often accidentally reveal their real thoughts about the big picture, and thus concede many vastly more important points to the opposition in an extremely silly fashion.
However, the most interesting thing about this post is noting how very difficult it must be for an intelligent leftist who understands perfectly the value that his intelligence has had in his own life then to follow the party line and deny that intelligence could ever be important in any way. (Except when it comes to executing murderers whose IQ is 64, or in a civil trial about lead paint that lowered children's IQ's by 5 points, of course.) Of all the self-built ideological prisons of the left, this is perhaps the dumbest. And I have seen this denial happening so many times that it's not really even funny anymore.
It's the same story every time: intelligent people are evil and selfish, whereas the lower half of the Bell curve is the good, kind and loving salt of the Earth. As you can personally verify by visiting a neighbourhood in which the average IQ is 130, and after that visiting another neighbourhood in which the average IQ is 80, I guess. Bu to Chris's credit, at least the semi-compulsory "I was intelligent and didn't do well at school or in life, so intelligence is totally meaningless" wasn't included in his post. But riddle me this: If intelligence is a good thing, the more the better, is the lack of intelligence then not a bad thing?
when I was 19, I once had sex with a girl who was only 16. And by God, was she ever smoking hot. Mmmm, those tits.
I do not want to sound cheeky, Ilkka, but if you fucked a hot sixteen-year-old when you were nineteen, I fail to see how that squares with your public image as a traumatized omega-male who could rescue himself only by escaping to other, better-than-Finland parts of the world. Have you been such a ladies' man all the time?
Posted by Panu | 9:13 AM
33 yrs? I guessed something like that. And already needing regular exercise and carefull dieting to counter extra pounds accumalating to the waist, oh ever so easily? I'm in somewhat doubt whether the power of will can prevail in the end. With androgen levels falling, insulin resistance growing and all those ominous signs of age related MBO emerging demandingly I predict a losing uphill battle. Perhaps we'll see an ardent supporter of fat acceptance in a few years or decades.
Says one who still after thirty years easily can wear his pre army jeans without ever giving it a thought. Even my unscious individual cells are morally superior.
Posted by Catilina | 10:16 AM
Panu: the said event did happen, as a one-night stand. Even the average non-violent male can have his day, especially if the girl is a wild child (we're talking about someone who had dropped out of junior high at the age of 14, which is quite rare in Finland) who doesn't know you beforehand and takes the initiative.
Of course, I would never have started a serious long-term relationship with a girl like her, let alone marry her. To be able to find a good woman for a long-term relationship I had to look abroad.
In this whole light I also can't help but think that as Tommi once suggested, the world would actually be a lot better if women were clearly divided to madonnas and whores, the way they used to be. 80% madonnas and 20% whores might pretty much be the societally optimal division.
Catilina: I predict a losing uphill battle.
I am hoping that that won't happen, but if it does, I just need to somehow find the willpower to eat less.
Posted by Ilkka Kokkarinen | 2:30 PM
Even the average non-violent male can have his day, especially if the girl is a wild child (we're talking about someone who had dropped out of junior high at the age of 14, which is quite rare in Finland) who doesn't know you beforehand and takes the initiative.
I see. This explains a lot. I guess she also smelled tobacco like an old ashtray.
In this whole light I also can't help but think that as Tommi once suggested, the world would actually be a lot better if women were clearly divided to madonnas and whores, the way they used to be. 80% madonnas and 20% whores might pretty much be the societally optimal division.
Now, this is what I call a delightful piece of political incorrectness. :D
Posted by Panu | 4:27 PM
I guess she also smelled tobacco like an old ashtray.
You know, surprisingly enough not too badly, that I can recall. Can't say if that's still true today, of course.
Posted by Ilkka Kokkarinen | 6:27 PM
It appears that, in addition to giving leftists a well deserved drubbing for their inconsistency, you are advocating a drop in the legal age of consent. I will concede that there is some merit in this position.
However, one of the advantages of the current age of consent being set at 18 (although I am pretty sure that the age varies by state) is that it matches the age at which a girl is no longer the legal responsibility of her parents. I believe these two ages should be the same. For reasons I can't quite articulate, I think there is something fundamentally incongruous about saying that a 16 year old has the "right" to be sexually active and at the same time requiring her parents to provide for her. That's not to say that they shouldn't do so, only that they shouldn't be made to.
As an imperfect analogy, imagine that there were no legal impediments to your wife committing adultery, yet you were forbidden to divorce her. Something like that.
Posted by Φ | 3:55 PM
Esther Vilar noted that women spend much of their lives trying to look and behave as much like children as possible: vacant, simple, pliable, manipulative, irresponsible. Much about the female mind becomes clear when you realize that most women are emotionally stunted to the age of 12 or 13.
I cannot account for the appeal. It is like being attracted to someone who is mildly retarded. True, almost any 16 year old girl is going to be prettier than the same person 40 years later (made grotesque by possessing the same childish habits), but I still regard having sex with someone that inferior in age, experience, and maturity to be rather creepy.
How do you read these left-wing blogs without going insane though? The cow who cackled on about Derbyshire was my limit. Good God I hope she aborts early and often.
Posted by Udolpho | 4:40 PM
Usually, when an article about intelligence is published in the local newspaper (Helsinskaya Gazeta), there is a backslash in the letters to the editor trying to convice everybody that we are all equally intelligent and should form a ring and sing kumbayah...
Posted by Anonymous | 3:33 PM