The Everyday Solipsism Project

mean-girls-bully-women
When Laura Bates started the Everyday Sexism Project, the story goes that she did it provide women with an outlet to talk about whatever they wanted. The project itself specifically only asks them to relay stories about sexism. Unsurprisingly this resulted in a website full of nothing but sexual assault accounts, making it appear that sexism is rampant in society. Now, having carefully manufactured her facts, Laura is insisting we have to listen.

Laura most certainly should be allowed to holler, shout, blubber, whine, stomp her feet and carry on like a shrill harpy with a hashtag. But we don’t have to listen. There is an important difference between those two attitudes: One is right and one is stupid.

While freedom of speech offers people the important ability to speak their minds and convey their ideas it does not mean that anyone need be forced to listen. Having the right to an opinion does not make your opinion right.

Laura, and her ilk, believe that filling a website with unverified descriptions of events which may or may not have happened, perpetrated by unknown assailants, and relayed to us by anonymous internet users, equates to legitimate social research. It’s not her fault though. Feminist so-called scholars have long been allowed to corrode academia to the point where statistics can be created through citation alone, and subjective anecdotes are renamed “lived experience” then treated like scientific data.

Laura Bates can hardly be held accountable for her incompetence since, as Laura explained, she didn’t even know what feminism meant two years ago but is now, miraculously, considered one of its leaders. This isn’t a big problem since Laura is a professional actor. Well, she didn’t quite make it as an actor in film and television but she certainly hit it big with the new fourth wave feminists. Their standards are apparently lower.

Laurie Penny, for example, wrote an article for the NewStatesman this week which informed us how the Patriarchy feels about her haircut. And people took her seriously.

These two feminists, Laura and Laurie, should get together and have a chat.

Laura claims that women don’t want male attention but Laurie asserts in her byline that “choosing to behave consciously as if the sexual attention of men is not [her] top priority has made more of a difference to how [her] life has turned out than [she] ever imagined.”

The key words here are “as if.” Laurie seems to be admitting that male attention is, in fact, her top priority and she must struggle to act as if it is not. I’m not convinced that Laurie intended to reveal this to her readership but the truth is out. Meanwhile, Laura insists that women are bothered by sexual attention and every evil male gaze, catcall, or graze of the hand is an assault of great magnitude. Both of them rely on “lived experience” (anecdotal evidence) to validate their claims.

Laurie’s problem, aside from considering pick up artists (PUAs) to be men’s rights advocates (MRAs), is that she has “rubbish” hair and can’t grow it long. She copes with her misfortune by recognizing that women put so much time into managing and grooming their tresses it’s amazing they can still hold down an outside job. So when feminists, like Laura Bates, claim that women do nothing to draw male attention, we have Laurie Penny to set us straight on the matter.

It takes energy and money and attention. …The point is to look like the performance of femininity matters enough to you that you’re prepared to work at it.

The Everyday Sexism Project is a fact-fabrication project, pure and simple. It takes the feminist-despised cover of internet anonymity to solicit vitriolic and disparaging comments for which the users reasonably feel they will never be held accountable. According to feminists, there is only one difference between the descriptions offered as proof of sexism on Laura’s project and the negative response emails she’s received from those who oppose her narrative: Anonymity for women is empowering and should be trusted, but anonymity for men is malevolent and turns them into dangerous predators.

To make sure we don’t discount her as an invested party in the outcome of her project, Laura assures us that she only expected to get about twenty-five or fifty replies. From her friends. The astounding response “proves” to Laura that her current world view is the correct one. She knows this because “lived experience” (anecdotal evidence) trumps research in the modern world.

Given that Laura didn’t know anything about feminism prior to starting her “original” idea it is forgivable that she didn’t know her idea had already been thought of many times. It had, in fact, already received much mainstream attention up to, and including, the former leader of the UK “holler back” campaign also helped promote slutwalk as an award winning activist. It’s forgivable because Vicky Simister mysteriously disappeared from the “Everyday Sexism” scene a couple of months before Laura Bates launched her own #shoutback hashtag to replace her.

What is surprising is that the mainstream media went all Orwell on us and erased history to pretend that Laura Bates was a pioneer of an event that they’d already hailed as “new” two time before.

It’s something between a circus and silly place.

Back to Laurie Penny for proof of absurdity:

While mocking an MRA argument that biological psychology explains attraction to long, luscious hair as a sign of health and fertility, she tries to refute this logic while simultaneously sharing the sad story of her sister who lost her long luscious hair because she became ill. If that wasn’t enough, she then goes on to describe the ideal woman she thinks MRAs are looking for:

The “ideal woman,” who wakes up looking like an underwear model, who is satisfied with her role as housewife and helpmeet but remains passionate enough to hold a man’s interest, who looks “bangable” but never actually bangs, because that would make her a slut, is almost entirely fictional.

You read that correctly. Ms Penny thinks that men covet women who tease but won’t fuck them. Yes, Laurie, you have successfully created a fictional man who loves a cock-teasing piece of slime.

If we are generous and exclude Laurie Penny as an anomaly in a sea of otherwise coherent women, we are still faced with the generalizations about men that every other feminist makes. Is it wrong to generalize about all members of a gender based on a single person’s lived experience?

Apparently, it’s only wrong if you’re someone like Samantha Brick.

Samantha caused a major hoopla when she accused women of being scathing bitches to each other. Ms. Brick published an article claiming that women hate her because of the male attention she receives. Samantha asserts that women are particularly vicious to each other and that they have a social problem.

This is Samantha Brick’s lived experience, but feminists lost no time expressing their lack of support for it.

According to psychologist Emma Kenny, a repetitive experience of negative responses is an indication that if everyone reacts to you in a negative way it’s probably something wrong with you instead of them.

Emma Kenny elaborated.

One of the big questions is; if, as a person, everywhere I go I am met with a certain reaction from people, for example that reaction is negative,…well if you just hear me out… If I get that reaction I have to in the end embrace the fact that actually it might be me that needs to change and not the society around me. The very fact that you are entertaining these relationships with people, you instantly have a paranoia.

Paranoia? Interesting she should say that. Paranoia is the base problem with the interpretation Everyday Sexism, Laura Bates, her predecessors, and feminists of all sorts, paint their descriptions with. All described events are coloured by their assumed motivations projected onto men.

Why is Samantha Brick delusional yet Laura Bates is not? The answer is simple: in Brick’s description women are the villains and we can’t have that. In the preferred narrative, men are the only aggressors.

When Samantha Brick explains, as the Everyday Sexism Project tries to assert, that her experiences absolutely happened even though they were spread out over the span of her life, now being 41, Emma responds “so what you’re actually saying then is is that this is a very minority of experiences… this doesn’t apply to the generic population, which is what you stated.”

Oh, really?

Where Samantha Brick is honest and acknowledges that her experiences didn’t happen all in one day, feminists are quite happy to make you think twenty or forty years worth of secretly harboured memories happened to them every day of their lives. It simply is not the case.

Samantha Brick is also not anonymous. She is prepared to face the multitude of women who attacked her, true to character, for telling them that they–women of all people!–ought to behave themselves in a more civil manner.

Half of the thousands of email responses Samantha received were from the very hateful women she sought to describe. The other half were from women who recognized the phenomenon Samantha outlined and thanked her for speaking out on their behalf. Who is listening to Samantha Brick? Certainly not the feminists.

So why does Laura Bates think the world now has to listen to her and the Everyday Solipsism Project? Has Laura Bates addressed Samantha Brick’s problems? Does Laura Bates not agree with Emma Kenny, the feminist psychologist, who thinks a woman who encounters daily negative experiences has a personal problem which she is projecting onto society?

Laurie Penny’s haircut will not be the answer to this problem.

Also posted on A Voice For Men

Women Don’t Own Sex

passion
Hardly a week goes by without the public being told how rape culture and victim blaming are being perpetrated by ‘the patriarchy’. Monday, September 23, 2013 offered us the mother lode of mythical feminist thinking in the form of Una Mullally in The Irish Times.

It’s not that Una said something unique, it’s that she managed to fit so many fallacies into one article that really makes her applause worthy.

Una begins with criticizing police for advising people to “protect yourself from violence” by exercising caution when meeting people online. The reason for this advisory is that a woman’s bones were discovered and the missing woman seems to have met someone via a dating site on the internet before turning up dead. Apparently this is ‘victim blaming’.

I used to get emails all the time from female friends who wanted to forward me the latest warning on how a man might kidnap me by hiding in the back seat of my parked car at the mall. The warnings always came from female friends and they always had my best interests in mind. I never once emailed them back “how dare you blame me for parking my car!” I did start sending all emails to spam if they had “fw:” in the message line but the proper, civilized response is “Thank you. I’ll pass the message along to everyone I know.”

Una, and her ilk, also need some basic lessons in Crime Solving For Dummies. If you watch television at all you might have come across shows like CSI or Criminal Minds in which they portray rather likable, well-meaning detectives who investigate crimes. The first thing they do is ask apparently bizarre questions like “Who, what, where, when, why… and how?”

The answers to these questions help solve crimes.

When a police force investigates someone’s online dating habits it can lead to information, like the identity of the killer. They can also help divulge the method of death, which can help police link one murder to other murders. While they do this investigative work they sometimes have microphones shoved in their faces asking for a public statement in order to inform the people who write and read the news.

The reason police offer warnings to the public are because the public wants to know how they can avoid showing up as a set of bones on the next news report. They get scared. This information is intended to help them feel safer.

“Societies are in a crisis over how men treat women,” Una claims. Now, this is news to me. Society is in a crisis over international wars, terrorism, bank fraud, the resulting economic collapse, and a general lack of faith in either the press, politicians or ‘God’. Most of the women I know are far more concerned with having a bad hair day and failing to look attractive than in having a day where too many men show them unwanted attention.

She claims “potential attackers are rarely instructed to exercise vigilance.” Yes, Una, they are reminded every day by the fucking law. It’s as illegal to commit a crime today as it was yesterday. They are told to not be violent by being faced with jail if they break the law. If we were to instruct them to “be vigilant” we’d be telling them to not get caught. Yelling at him “that’s illegal, you know!” will not solve the problem. You moron.

“Men, don’t rape” is Una’s next solution. This is part of the whole rape culture myth. For some reason, women, like Una, think that other men are in a unique position to give each other rules about sex. They aren’t. If men want sex from women, women are in the unique position to tell them how to go about achieving their goals. What feminists are doing when they tell men that only they can stop rape is basically like a teacher telling a class of inferiors that she will punish the whole class if they don’t tell her who put tacks on her seat.

According to international law, collective punishment is wrong.

The sentiment embedded in the demand for men to fix women’s problems is the idea that men are the problem. The error of this idea, and it’s not Una’s fault for believing this because feminism has ingrained it into her mind, is that men do not live in this world within a cocoon. Boys are born as helpless babies, just as girls are, and we are mostly raised by women.

Though men appear to rule the world, that is because women treat them like gophers: Go get me stuff.

A man’s worth in our world is not assessed on how much wealth he possesses, it is based on the level of happiness of his woman. Every politician knows he’ll do better if he has a happy wife at his side. Don’t be shallow, ask better questions. Why do men commit crimes? I’ll posit this: because they need more stuff to make a woman happy or because they have been rejected by a woman shaming them for not being good enough and feel they have nothing left to lose. Committing a crime has a penalty. They need a reason to risk that penalty. It’s going to be primal. Think… think… are you with me?

The man is the head of the house but the woman is the neck and she can turn the head any way she wants.

Feminists claim that men objectify women but it’s women who think that men are just walking, magical penises and that the penis has the mystical quality of getting them stuff. We’re less concerned with how they get us our stuff than in making sure we get the shit we’re after. One of those things is security so the problem for women is not in how to get men to stop being aggressive, it’s in how to get them to be aggressive but stay out of jail so they can keep providing the stuff that makes us happy.

The problem is not men. Men just want to be loved and respected. What women make them do for that respect is what drives some of them crazy.

“Men, stop hanging your threat of rape over dark streets.” This is Una’s impassioned plea. The streets are only dark if you decide that you have no agency, no power, to affect the world around you. The threat in walking out your door every day exists for both men and women. I’m sorry to inform you, Una, but you could die at any moment. Men face a much greater risk of physical assault every day than women do but they still keep walking out that door.

Being that women are equal, I think we should meet that threat on an equal basis.

What Una claims makes men more culpable is that they all know someone who is “dubious” and goes to strip clubs or pays for sex. Strip clubs are not illegal and I know quite a few women who married for money, so buying sex is apparently quite legal, too, as long as you get the proper paperwork. Una, you and I both know someone who had a baby to avoid having to get a job. You and I both know someone who married a man they didn’t love. Isn’t that just a little bit shady? ‘Dubious behaviour’, perhaps?

Saying that men can stop rape is like telling a driver they can stop all car accidents or investors that they can stop all fraud. Just because men enjoy sex or do it from time to time doesn’t place them in a unique position to police all other participants. Just like Una can’t stop other writers from saying things she disagrees with.

Una claims that “women should be free to talk to whomever they choose and go wherever they want without threat of assault.” That’s bullshit. No one is free to do that. A person is free to leave their home every day and enter the world of the unknown and they should be assured that if something bad happens society will come to their aid to help them heal. Unfortunately, women are not given this freedom because feminists are hell bent on maximizing the pain and trauma of every female experience.

They are busy convincing women who don’t even know if they’ve been raped to call it rape. If you aren’t sure: it didn’t happen. If the woman doesn’t know, how the hell is the guy supposed to have known? They tell women it’s a terrible thing and that they should go to support groups where they relive the pain over and over and over again until all they are is a rape victim. Some of these girls didn’t even know they were raped and could have moved on but now it’s their lifelong identity and they’ll never get over it. What kind of sick fucks are you?

We have become indoctrinated to believe that rape is the worst crime that can be committed. How the hell did that happen? I can think of a bunch of things that are worse: Murder, having my fingers cut off one at a time while I watch, having my limbs disconnected, waking up in an abandoned house with a tape recorder saying “Hello, Diana, I want you to make a choice…” The list can go on. I’ve seen a lot of films. I’ve been raped so that’s not fiction, but my mind (perhaps more creative than that of feminists) can imagine worse scenarios.

Some rapes are extremely violent, leaving women beaten and in hospital with damage to their reproductive organs. These crimes are not just rapes, they are brutal physical assaults that never go unreported and no one laughs. A man can end up with lifelong damage from getting kicked in the groin yet this is comedy to women. While feminists claim that a woman who is drunk can’t consent, they don’t want to address the problem that drunk women can become so sexually aggressive they assault men. I have a friend who has serious problems after a fall-down drunk friend he was trying to keep safe by taking her home grabbed his testicles in a sexual advance, squeezing so hard he had to go to the hospital. This guy wasn’t trying to rape her, he was trying to keep her from having sex.

Drunk girls are not fun and they are not weak.

Drunk women are responsible if they decide to drive themselves home and get in an accident while doing so. They are equally responsible if they make the decision to have sex. I hear Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is a crazy ass bunch of sisters if you try to challenge them on that.

While feminists claim that a rape culture exists which ‘normalizes’ rape, I insist that a feminist culture exists that ‘rape-ifies’ normal sex. The definition of rape has now been expanded to include when a woman doesn’t say no but thinks it, when a woman decides that sex didn’t go the way she wanted, when a woman has had a few drinks, when a woman is woken up with sex after falling asleep next to a man she has previously had sex with and decided to stay in the bed… The list will continue to grow until we stop it.

Perhaps this is too much information but, for me, sex is my favorite way to wake up. Men have every right to believe that a woman sleeping in the bed next to them is going to be happily awoken. If you don’t want sex, don’t sleep in their fucking bed. We are not children here.

Women don’t own sex, it’s something people do together. It requires communication. Women don’t like it when men lie to them to get sex and men don’t like it when women lie either. It happens both ways. “Yes, I’ll use a condom” or “Yes, I’m on birth control.” There is no one-sided game, it can happen to either gender. If a woman lies with her body language and her actions she is raping the man. Sex is not a written contract. It is something that only the people present can attest to, it happens organically, intuitively and it is something over which people can make mistakes. Men don’t need need an ’emphatic yes’ to avoid rape, you need to give them an emphatic ‘no’. If you think you didn’t have the option to say ‘stop’, you are wrong.

The original case in discussion with Una Mallally’s article (before she made it a rape culture issue) was a woman who decided to go to a fetish site (note that a woman ‘normalized’ SM fetishes with her book Fifty Shades of Grey, probably influencing the dead woman’s choices) and met with someone who ended up killing her. What we don’t know, and don’t need to know, is whether or not the murder was the prime objective or whether the fetish scene accidentally led to her death and the partner tried to cover it up. That’s a job for the police. What we do know is that meeting people in real life whom you only know from online is a dangerous prospect and that the police warnings are extremely good advice.

Women are not free to exit their doors and expect to return safely any more than men are. Every day you wake up and exit the house be happy that you are alive and be happy when you return safely. In the meantime, there are many things you can do to reduce your anxiety: choose to be fearless, choose to be cautious, choose to not leave your house… or the fifty shades of grey in between. The choice is yours and no one is taking that away from you. Women and men both face this risk but, for some reason, only women seem intent on blaming men for all their problems.

Also posted on A Voice For Men

The Battle Of The Beavers

Image

Feminism comes in different sexual positions.

One feminist, Deborah Tolman, converted the moment she discovered that the missionary position is least likely to give a woman an orgasm. (1) As it turns out, your literal sexual position can actually result in feminism. Never in history has there been a better argument for doing it doggy style.

After decades of clashing, sex-positive and sex-negative feminist battle-axes have given birth to the sex-confused. For such a mechanically straightforward human act, the amount of carnal confusion surrounding sex is quite astounding. Let’s look at the ins and outs.

In order to spare folks the visual of our anti-porn queen, Andrea Dworkin, let us imagine instead a rotund puppet with a clump of frizzy dark hair glued to it. The face is a frowny mouth under two lumps of coal and that’s all you need to know.

Doozy Dworkin, the sex-negative guru, had some strong opinions about how impossible it is for women to legitimately enjoy sex. Ever. Period. Regardless of position. Though she protested that her book Intercourse never actually stated all heterosexual sex is rape, she is quite clear that to her “[t]he normal fuck by a normal man is taken to be an act of invasion and ownership undertaken in a mode of predation.” To paraphrase, Dworkin’s irreparable problem involved the equipment. Women get stuck with a baseball glove while men get to wield a bat.

“In the experience of intercourse, she loses the capacity for integrity because her body—the basis of privacy and freedom in the material world for all human beings—is entered and occupied; the boundaries of her physical body are—neutrally speaking— violated.” (2)

I remember playing baseball in grade seven and a fly ball was headed straight towards me in the outfield. I lined up, stuck my glove in the air and closed my eyes. I can’t tell you how satisfying it was when I felt a hard solid thunk. I looked down with amazement to find that I’d actually caught the damned thing. To this day I still enjoy the memory of the first time that ball hit my hand.

A new branch of study arose for those women who remain uncomfortable with their anatomical role in the game-of-grind. Women can now take classes teaching them how to “actively receive” during intercourse to make it feel a little less rapey.

I’ve heard about these women before. We normally call them dead fucks. Starfish on sticks. (I don’t mind pounding home this point.) If there’s a course available, get their arses in there because I shudder to think of how disappointing these chicks have been to their wannabe lovers.

What does one talk about in these classes? How does one practice actively receiving? They might close the blinds and start out lightly by doing things like answering the phone. Then they progress to throwing Nerf balls at each other; if it hits you in the head you did it wrong. Advanced classes incorporate eating various fruits and vegetables; if you wait for the banana to come to you it’s a fail.

The super secret levels teach her how to tone the muff muscles until she can grab him by the cock and throw him to the ground with her twat.

Thus we arrive at the problem created by the founding mother of this school of thought:

“A commitment to sexual equality with males is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered.”

~Andrea Dworkin (3)

Yikes. Attack of the nookie ninjas!

Next to enter this vacuous hole is the opposing sex-positive feminist view, creating The Civil War Of Snatch. This new brand of grrrl power encourages women to be brazen bitches. They’ll get that double D surgery under the fib that these sisters are doing it for themselves. They parade their sexual hunger in the public all-you-can-eat buffet. It’s all progressive goodness until men put their grubby hands in to foul the merchandise. The sexual power of these creatures is easily ruptured by the first prick.

Foolish men who dare to drool at their pushed up, tummy tucked divinity soon find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit. These sex-positive women gorging themselves on their own lustful behaviours are deeply disturbed by the side effect of men getting aroused. Hands off the sushi train.

Jaclyn Friedman of WAM! and Jill Filipovic of Feministe had a delightful conversation about female masturbation and how great it would be if women could admit to self-pleasuring without it getting warped into feeding male pleasure. (4) This is a serious problem for them. They want you nasty ass men to stop getting turned on when women talk about fucking themselves. You’re screwing it up for the sexpo divas. These hot heathens declare that men need to stop sexualizing women’s sexuality. Wrap your face around that one.

They demand the freedom to talk about flicking their beans without finding some dude winding his trouser crank. That’s a reasonable request if you don’t mind thought police.

These sexually liberated viragos are easily spotted. En masse, a great shrew of feminists strut with signs on Slutwalks. They do this to reclaim the word slut while competing to look the sluttiest among sluts in a pre-Halloween excuse to flaunt their flesh in daylight. You can find out what they think a slut looks like by attending one of these events, but it becomes sadly obvious that they haven’t watched enough porn.

A real slut looks like a librarian. She tells you to “shhh” then puts that finger between her luscious lips and closes her eyes while she moistens and suckles at it. Whatever version of whore, the grand delusion of the Slutwalk premise remains: Guys don’t have a problem with sluts. Women have the problem.

Never once has a man called me a slut in a bad way.

It’s a cat-scratch jungle out there. The competition is fierce and it’s vicious.  Nobody treats a woman’s body like an object as meticulously as a woman does. We paint it, tweeze it, wax it, surgically enhance it, bake it, fill it, bleach it, steam it, tousle it, fluff and fold it, and dress it up like Barbie on barbiturates. All of that just so we can put it in a window and wait for men to steam up the glass with their hot bestial breath while they check the balance in their bank accounts.

Doesn’t that sound positive to you?

Despite encouraging women to feel secure and confident with their sexuality, Friedman is a champion of the concept of “rape culture.” Be confident but be afraid. She claims our culture trivializes rape then goes on to call her political attack on a social media site #FBrape. It’s confusing but it’s not her fault. It’s an academic issue that you’d only understand if you’ve taken Women’s Studies. (5)

A note to Friedman: If you’re going to attack Facebook for violence then revoke the poke. I think we all hate getting poked because what the fuck is that anyway?

Now we’ve arrived at the sex-confused group and it’s hard to be in the middle of a war zone.

Protests run rampant demanding we rid the world of rape and sexist objectification of women. A“Lose The Lads’ Mags” campaign (6) encourages retail employees to sue their bosses for making them sell Hustler and Playboy. No one forced these workers to take the job in the first place.

Meanwhile, the biggest advance towards mainstreaming porn was accomplished by a woman. Fifty Shades Of Grey, by E.L James, is unashamedly read on subway trains and in lunch rooms by middle aged women without the slightest blush. This is a book that resulted from a fifty year old woman turning the Twilight stories into a kinky erotic fantasy. This woman created adult porn while thinking about teenagers. 70 million women worldwide now have a choir of cash registers singing “Oh Cum All Ye Faithful”. I guarantee you the patriarchy wasn’t behind this one.

Men are a lot less confused about sex than women and they seem to have a better grasp of what constitutes rape. The only debate about easing off statutory rape laws was amongst feminists after The Vagina Monologue’s “The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could” ruffled some feathers. Some feminists decided that young children are perfectly capable of making sexual choices and, most particularly, when the older seducer is a woman. Rape is a hypersensitive subject until it interferes with female entertainment. (7)

Sex isn’t a Rubik’s Cube. Things run smoother when people who don’t like to fuck stay away from partners with high libidos. It also helps if women who want to be seen as sexual creatures stop blaming other people for noticing their sexuality. If you think the female body is beautiful, then don’t get upset when you see it on page 3. Sexuality is not a disease, don’t turn it into one. We don’t need an antidote.

The question at hand is whether feminism has managed to fuck up the enjoyable act of fucking. The answer is an “enthusiastic yes.”

Sources

  1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uC2E9ur1vM
  2. http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/IntercourseII.html
  3. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/andreadwor154464.html
  4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHsG43Pyitk 05:30
  5. http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/cult-ivating-feminism/
  6. http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/05/lose-lads-mags-campaign-demonstrates-power-modern-feminism
  7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism#Statutory_rape_laws

Also posted on A Voice For Men