After years of campaigning, a royal pardon has been granted to computer pioneer and wartime codebreaker Alan Turing, overturning his conviction over half-a-century ago for ‘gross indecency’ with a 19 year old boy.
For the ‘enlightened classes’, this act of official state forgiveness for a secular homosexual martyr symbolizes the victory of liberal progress over the backward and prejudiced attitudes of the past. In reality, as with same sex marriage and sodomite rights in general, the Alan Turing story is merely a tool that the progressive elite is manipulating in order to disguise the brutal feminist war upon ordinary male heterosexuality.
Rewriting History
The pardoning of Alan Turing should be set against the background of a modern witch hunt that is taking place presently in the United Kingdom, and that began in the aftermath of the Jimmy Savile scandal that engulfed the BBC a year ago. It involves the hounding of aged celebrities accused of historic sex crimes – mostly against teenage groupies in the sexually anarchic 60’s and 70’s, when the age of consent was largely considered to be a legal fiction. The day before Turing’s pardon, the much loved Anglo-Australian celebrity Rolf Harris, aged 83, was informed that he was facing further charges for alleged sex crimes against young girls, some dating back to the 1960’s.
While the British state attempts to re-write history by airbrushing the astonishingly liberal heterosexual attitudes of the 1960’s out of existence through the persecutions of aged celebrities of that period, it seeks to simultaneously confirm that past sexual mores were ‘backward’ through the Royal pardoning of Alan Turing. But how different was Alan Turing to the old men now being hounded by the British state without pity or mercy, and was he really the victim of ‘discrimination’?
Alan Turing was the criminal, his lover the victim
First of all, Turing was not prosecuted for homosexuality, but for ‘gross indecency’ – against a teenage boy. The 19 year old labourer that Alan Turing was found guilty of buggering, was not convicted of any crime, and was below the age of majority in the UK at the time (21). He was seen as the child victim of Alan Turing, and the law against homosexuality, or rather ‘gross indecency’, was seen as protecting children and young people against sexual abuse.
Now this might not cut any ice with the ‘liberal’ champions of their ex post facto gay martyr. After all, as we see with the indignation and fury provoked by the Russian law against homosexual propaganda aimed at minors, even laws protecting children from sexual abuse are the work of the devil if they are judged to ‘discriminate’ against homosexuals.
When Alan Turing, at the age of 40, had anal sex with his 19 year old toy, homosexual sodomy was illegal, while at the same time the heterosexual age of consent was 16. The age of consent had been raised from 13 in the very same 1885 Victorian bill that had made homosexuality illegal as ‘gross indecency’ (the bill was largely the work of puritanical Suffragettes). It is not known whether Alan Turing had sex with any other teenage boys (we can assume that he did), and whether, for some peculiar reason, unlike other homosexuals of the period, he stringently adhered to the heterosexual age of consent. Liberal progressives appear to assume that Alan Turing, genius that he was, could foresee that in 60 years time society would have come to the correct moral conclusion that Victorian feminists got it completely right about the age of consent, but completely wrong about the morality of gay sex.
An abuse of power?
Homosexuality was decriminalized in 1967 but with a higher age of consent (21) than for heterosexuals. It was then lowered to 18 in 1994 and finally ‘equalized’ in the year 2000. Does an unequal age of consent discriminate against homosexuals? First of all, as we know that the legal system effectively treats the age of consent as applying only to male ‘predators’, then we should not see an unequal age of consent as being between homosexuals and heterosexuals, but rather as applying different ages for boys and girls. And this inequality does have the rationality of recognizing the established truth that teenage boys develop significantly slower towards their physical, sexual, and psychological maturity than do teenage girls. Unequal treatment based upon sex or ‘sexual orientation’ is not discriminatory if it discriminates upon the basis of a relevant difference. As emotional and sexual maturity is the primary justification for the age of consent in the first place, the scientific fact that boys reach maturity later than girls means that, actually, an equal age of consent discriminates against heterosexuals.
We should also note the ‘imbalance in power’ that existed between Alan Turing, 40 year old computer genius and professor of mathematics, and his 19 year old sex partner – a mere labourer. This is the other, related, feminist justification for the age of consent, and it does not shine a favourable moral light upon Turing’s relationship with the boy.
Did Alan Turing try to frame his boy lover?
There are further problematic issues in regarding Alan Turing as a secular saint and a martyr to the evils of ‘discrimination’. These involve the circumstances of how his affair with his young lover came to the attention of the police – circumstances which are, to say the least, both cloudy and morally dubious. Turing’s home was apparently burgled, and the chief suspect in his eyes was the boy he had been having sex with. Turing confronted the young lad and threatened to go to the police. The teenager promptly broke down in tears and, in desperation at the fear of being arrested, threatened Turing with revealing their affair.
Our pioneer of computer logic and liberal martyr calmed the boy down, handed him a glass filled with alcohol, watched him drink it, then took him to bed for a sexual encounter. After sending him home, he went straight to the police with the glass that had the boy’s fingerprints as ‘evidence’ that he had committed the burglary. Turing knew that the boy would reveal to the police that he was a homosexual criminal and that they had been having sex, but he gambled on the police believing that the boy was lying in order to cover up a burglary (against a wartime hero). In fact, as history records, they did not believe Turing, and he was convicted of gross indecency.
It is quite possible, although we will never know, that Turing even faked the burglary in the first place after fearing that his homosexuality was about to be made public – as a means of preemptively discrediting the boy’s story. In any case, the historical fact remains that Alan Turing was convicted of having illegal sex with a 19 year old boy of far inferior status and intellect, as well as age, and that not only did he act immorally in putting the much younger person at risk of a traumatic legal process, he intentionally did so – even to the extent of blaming him on the basis of no evidence for a burglary (and that he may even have faked in order to escape prosecution for sexually abusing the boy). The liberal elite cannot re-write this aspect of Turing’s history.
How far have we really progressed?
Another final point to consider is that Alan Turing suffered far less than sex offenders, both heterosexual and homosexual, do today – many of them under insane feminist sex laws as backward as any laws against homosexual ‘gross indecency’. Homosexuals today can and are going to prison for merely looking at pictures online of 19 year old teenagers that ‘appear’ under 18 (as a good deal of gay porn actors do, and are employed because they do). This is still called possession of ‘indecent’ images. In the EU, including the UK, homosexuals caught viewing such ‘virtual child pornography’ will soon face a minimum of 1 year in prison, decades on the sex offender’s register (the modern feminist version of the ‘Pink Triangle’ branding), and be virtually unemployable for the rest of their lives.
Alan Turing knowingly broke child protection laws by sexually engaging a 19 year old lad, and did not even go to prison for it. He was required to take a course of hormonal treatment to reduce his sexual urges towards teenage boys, but he appeared to have suffered no long term effects, and shortly after his punishment was ended, embarked upon a successful fitness and weight loss regime, and before long was seemingly both healthy and content. Because he was an obvious security risk, he was no longer allowed to work for the British government, but he was able to resume his academic career at the prestigious University of Manchester.
The myth of the forbidden fruit
Even his final act of martyrdom, his ‘suicide’ through the eating of a cyanide coated apple, may be an invention of history. There was no sign of depression in the days before his death and his close family were shocked when discovering his body, assuming it to be an accident. Although the coroner recorded a verdict of suicide, his biographer believes that it was likely an accident, as Turing had been conducting scientific experiments with cyanide on the day of his death. It is likely he had either inhaled too much cyanide, or he had accidentally gotten some of the deadly material on to his hands when he took a fatal bite of the apple.
Even to the final mythical act of martyrdom, the Alan Turing story is an attempt to re-write the past in order to control and mask the present – the brutal feminist ‘liberal progressive’ war upon ordinary male sexuality. The myth of Alan Turing is the myth of liberal progress.
Read Next: 5 Ways To Emasculate A Man
Keep in mind, though, that back in 2001 they did go after UK pop star/producer Jonathan King for 20- and 30-year-old crimes against underaged boys. He claimed homophobia was at the core of this and compared the way he seduced boys to the way Jagger seduced young girls. This, in turn, may have led to the retroactive charges against straight stars like Saville and Harris. So is it just male sexuality, both gay and straight, that the UK has a problem with? Here is an ’01 article where King makes his case: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2001/dec/01/weekend.jonronson
Great article.
I think that Alan Turing was pardoned more as a function of “hey, look at all he accomplished but is still a criminal” than it is an attack on heterosexuality. However, you make some good points for the opposite side.
A deeper discussion about the origin of homosexuality is required. There are homosexuals born so, but others are the result of abuse at an early age. I remember with disgust, calling my puppy (mi cachorro), a minor by an adult with whom he had homosexual relations.
There is evidence for both sides. I would contend that while there is a biological component, there is also an environmental component. However, I’m not exactly sure what the ratio is (I’m thinking something like 65-35).
The BS about the AIDs spread being a myth too, needs to be put straight 😛 Latest CDC report needs to be considered.
House of Numbers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p-ttLfkZHQ
I don’t care where homosexuality comes from. I’m fucking gay and I like it that way.
Too much government interference all around.
Roosh has openly bragged about fucking 17 year olds. By your logic this means he’s having sex with 15, 14, hell, even 13 year olds. It also means every guy who games high school girls also games junior high girls behind the scenes. How bout this…deal in facts instead of baseless conjecture and then your bullshit weak minded hypotheses might carry a little weight. Until then, all you are is another loser who’s too insecure with his own self to honestly deal with real world issues. It’s okay though, I hear Jezebel is hiring.
IF it is legal in that country then there is no moral or ethical problem…. Even drilling 12 year old cunt is ok if that country says so.
Not really, because nations don’t have the power to define morality; they have the authority to pass laws, which should conform to good morals, but passing a low does not make something “moral,” any more than outlawing breakfast would make it immoral.
Natural law determines morality; if a girl is sexually mature and able to conceive, it is not inherently immoral for her to marry and begin sexual activity. There are contingent matters of prudential judgment – local custom, emotional maturity, etc. – that could render such activity immoral to one degree or another. The State, by outlawing sex with a girl of 15, could make the act immoral insofar as the law is not unjust and may conform to the best prudential judgments on the contingent matters I mentioned. But it would not have the power to make the act *inherently* immoral, since only right reason, nature and nature’s God reveal such things to us.
Someone needs to report you to the police.
For having an opinion you disagree with, but said opinion is medically proven true… OK
“Roosh has openly bragged about fucking 17 year olds. By your logic this means he’s having sex with 15, 14, hell, even 13 year olds.”
No, not at all. The point I’m making in the article is that it was considered child abuse for Alan Turing to have sex with the 19 year old, and it would have been equally illegal and seen as ‘child abuse’ for him to have had sex with a 17 year old or a 15 year old.
Not only that, but homosexuality itself was made illegal in the same criminal amendment act (of 1885) that raised the age of consent from 13 to 16.
So why would Alan Turing stick to the heterosexual age of consent ? Most homosexuals since the time of that 1885 act hadn’t (a classic example is Oscar Wilde).
The liberal elite are trying to portray Turing’s relationship with the boy as a ‘love affair’ wrongly persecuted by the homophobic state. He picked up a boy who was considered to be a child and used him for sex. He tried to have the child prosecuted for burglary hours after banging him one last time – and in fact, it appears the boy had nothing to do with the burglary.
Again to answer your point, Roosh can brag about banging 17 year olds because nowhere in Europe is the age of consent higher than 16. Having legal sex with someone does not mean that you are more likely than others to be having illegal sex. Alan Turing had illegal sex with a child who was considered to be the victim of abuse.
A further point is that present age of consent laws discriminate in many ways. For example, they discriminate against those in the teaching profession (the age of consent is higher if the older person is the younger person’s teacher). Most obviously, it discriminates upon the basis of age.
Though if the very same lad was shagging girls he would have been considered an adult.
You’re missing the point of the article. The point of the article is that the establishment is going out of its way to pander to the gay lobby. It does this in a myriad of ways. And one of those ways is to pass “feel good” measures, like the pardon mentioned in the article.
No, I haven’t missed the point of the article, I simply haven’t accepted the point of the article. What are you telling me? That people look at the past through the lens of the present? Shocking insight. That history is constantly revised and reinterpreted for political purposes? Damn, that’s deep. Who cares. What I’m pointing out is that people in the ‘manosphere’ who brag about being borderline heterosexual pedophiles are total fucking hypocrites when they try to imply through no fucking evidence whatsoever that homosexuals are actual pedophiles. It kind of defeats the moral weight of their argument ya know what I mean?
Please see my comment about Jonathan King — the gay UK producer/artist who sits in prison for retroactive sex crimes against young boys in the ’60s. His is the case that started this witch hunt. IMO it’s a war on male sexuality. (King, by the way, had a big hit with “Everyone’s Gone to the Moon” and discovered the band Genesis.)
Roosh didn’t write this article. What’s your point?
“Roosh has openly bragged about fucking 17 year olds.” I wish! I only had sex with one. 🙁
In the eyes of feminazi’s you are a borderline-paedophile.
Costa Rica’s ready when you are (and the age of consent there is 15), although it seems like you’re having much fun in Eastern Europe …
It was the majority women Social Purity Movement that wanted specifically male homosexuality banned in the first place. Think about it, men not that interested in sex with women, but with the same abilities to provide provisioning. How useful does that sound to post-wall hypergamy?
Good points Cylux, but I make clear in the article that UK feminists (namely the Social Purity Movement) had criminalized homosexuality in the same 1885 bill of theirs that raised the age of (heterosexual) consent from 13 to 16.
The reason why feminists are in bed with the gay rights lobby groups in the modern era is because the opening of the sexual market through the pill, globalization, the internet etc is far more of a threat to average SMV than the 1% of men who are homosexual and have no interest in women. And they need to champion gay and transgender rights in order to preserve the facade of ‘liberal progress’ while they conduct a brutal war on heterosexuality.
Last week an American man was sentenced to 8 years in jail for filming himself having legal sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. Meanwhile, Russia is portrayed as backward and intolerant for passing a law protecting children from homosexual propaganda.
Lesbians. Hell, a good number of feminists ARE lesbians. I doubt it’s mere coincidence that GLBT transitioned to LGBT either.
Quite a few of the suffragettes were lesbians, so we still need to explain why they were criminalizing homosexuality 100 years ago.
As regards a few 20 stone feminists being ‘lesbians’, it’s easy to assume the identity of a lesbian when no man on Earth will even look at you.
Most of the lesbians in the movement seem to be, um, “fake lesbians” motivated by a massive sexophobia. They’re women who don’t fuck men, rather than women who are emotionally/sexually attracted to women.
From my first post:- “that wanted specifically male homosexuality banned” – lesbianism was never criminalised, there wasn’t even an age of consent on the books for lesbian sex until the equalisation of ages of consent in 2000, and given that British law is prohibitive rather than proscriptive, that pretty much amounted to a free pass.
Bear in mind that Feminist ideology (particularly, First Wave) sees sexuality purely as a male thing, imposed on women who would not comply if free of coercion. The Victorian “lesbians” in Boston Marriages idealsed a platonic, sexless vision of relationships.
It’s doubtful that the likes of Francis Willard or Jane Addams were sexually active lesbians. They were celibates who had emotional, “spiritual” relations with other women, avoiding men as carriers of the sexuality plague. Gay men being the worst, most corrupted form of that predatory, disgustingly physical, sexuality.
“From my first post:- “that wanted specifically malehomosexuality banned”
Agreed, but if they didn’t need them then, why do they need them now?
Well the gay rights movement only really started getting going and organised after the Stonewall riots, so one big major difference between the two time periods is the existence of the gay rights movement. Both feminism and the gay rights movement also draw support from similar if not the same sources – liberals, ‘the left’ (the far left to a limited degree), live-and-let-live folks and tactics such as appeals to fairness, equality etc. In short an anti-gay feminism would be operating from a considerably weaker position than an ostensibly pro-gay feminism would be. There’d be a lot more infighting, more from-on-high demands that dissenters shut up about their petty concerns and get on with the ‘important work’, splits, sectarianism, than there already is within feminism.
You might recall the furore that Suzanne Moore and later Julie Burchill generated when the former complained about Brazilian Transsexuals. It pretty much kicked off an internal fight between radical feminists and intersectional feminists. So with that in mind If they were hypocritically for lesbians while denouncing gay men, they’d likely never be able to show their face at a liberal gathering ever again out of embarrassment for the shaming and jeering they’d get. And be about as relevant to modern politics as the SWP.
Mind blown.
These historical articles are ingenious. I never knew he was a minor, and I’ve heard it retold by countless liberals.
What a stinking pile of homophobic rubbish!
Referring to gays as “sodomites”? Hey idiot… if you have anal sex with your woman, you’re a sodomite.
Real real homophobic. http://www.gay-shit.com/DVDarea/DVD/W1a.jpg
If a man insisted on only penetrating a woman anally I’m sure “progressives” would condemn him, and call for the police to take action.
Anti-porn feminists are already trying to lay the groundwork for this to happen, though whether or not they count as “progressives” is another question. Said Anti-porn feminists also have a problem with straight guys getting blowjobs (which is technically also sodomy), though this modern day sodomy panic currently appears to be confined to straight men. Oddly, anti-porn feminists don’t touch gay issues with a 10 foot barge pole, presumably because they don’t want to ignite another big sectarian row.
To be fair, though: would you want to touch a man with a ten-foot pole, if you knew that he routinely inserted himself into people’s rectums?
Considering a ROK article talked about using anal sex to dominate women, and was lauded, there is a bit of a double standard.
Just saying….
Ooh! Where is this ten-foot pole!!!!
They’re already deprecating sodomy again- against girls of course. It’s entirely possible that within the fairly near future, gay men will find it is legal (and indeed admirable) to be gay in an Essentialist sense, to marry like nice progressive suburbanites etc, but not to have sex with each other in the traditional gay way.
The Radical Feminists never really liked gays; the hardcore Lesbians despise them. Gays have always just been useful allies (and possibly useful idiots).
Anyhoo, I’m personally expecting the return of the sodomy law in due course.
Depends is being sold to a younger demographic every year, because of the rising popularity of anal sex. Doctors say ever great once in a while does not usually pose a problem, but on the regular it is highly damaging to the rectum and its funtions.
You seem butthurt. Why is that?
PaulC, I (the author of the article) did not actually use the word ‘sodomites’ or ‘sodomy’. An editor inserted the term ‘homosexual sodomy’ replacing the term ‘gay sex’ which I actually used. I think that was the only alteration made to the original article.
That’s true. So, don’t do that either.
The writer does not have anal sex nor do most of the readers here.
Screw age of consent laws and the like, anyone over 11 or 12 is old enough for sex and anyone who says otherwise is just a feminist cunt or under educated person viewing it with a form of emotional appeal. The majority of 11 or 12 year old girls can take 8-10 inch cocks sliding in out of them, just be gentle the first or second time but after a short period they can take it and enjoy the same as anyone older. This article that says “He look that person is an idiotic imbecile but magically turns mature at blahblah” is just idiotic. So here is what we will do, you will go bang ugly and dried up bitches with loose cunts and I will go enjoy the nicer and newer version.
What is wrong with you? We don’t judge the morality of sex based on whether “that little girl can handle that much cock.” I suppose if you have a 4-inch member, you’re good to go with a six year old, right? Disgusting.
We judge the morality of sex on:
1) Is the sexual activity ordered to some moral good?
2) Is the girl physically able to conceive and bear children?
3) Are there other, contingent matters related to the girl’s and society’s welfare that have been adequately addressed (like her marital status, emotional maturity, local custom, etc.)?
Please let us not be like the feminists and boo-hoo that all these morals are so mean and closed-minded. I do immoral things; I often do immoral things deliberately. But one thing that should set a man apart, is that he doesn’t try to change reality to conform to his whims (as is the custom with most women); rather, if he is going to serve his whims, he should at least have the integrity to face the facts and know that he’s playing fast and loose at the moment. And, if he’s a good man, he should strive to conform his behaviour to reality. Only a bitch acts like a bitch and then gets indignant, demanding that society should rewrite the rule book on Right and Wrong so that he can feel justified in his immoral behaviour. We all are immoral from time to time; let’s at least be man enough to admit that we are acting immorally.
That said, there is a moral line that shouldn’t be crossed. Unless you are an adolescent yourself, in this time and culture you should probably be executed mercilessly for banging a 12 year old.
Here’s hoping tha Sherlock runs into one of the father’s in one of his victims. Someone of sherlock’s persuasion was beaten to death by the father of his victim here in Texas, he wasn’t charged. Sherlock should avoid Texas.
Translation: I fuck kids because a bag of candy is more readily accessible to me than actual game.
Seriously? Leaving aside whether or not it should be legal, do you honestly think that all it would take to score with a 14 or 15 year old is a bag of candy?
I’m sure it would, although I am drawing a blank as to what drugs are referred to as candy by todays youth 🙂
Van Zan’s point is that 15 year old’s are obviously much more gullible and naive than a 25 year old which is why there are age of consent laws. Some of us, well those of us who are non-pedophiles, the challenge of banging a sophisticated 25 year old than a child.
Kid’s in mind yet not in body. Both boys and girls were initiated into manhood and womanhood at ages 12-13
“the much loved Anglo-Australian celebrity Rolf Harris, aged 83, was informed that he was facing further charges for alleged sex crimes against young girls, some dating back to the 1960′s.”
As if we need any more confirmation that the VAST majority of people in the west, both men and women, are liars and hypocrites on the point of holding women accountable for their crimes….one of the MOST COMMON arguments used against me to tell me that I should “get over” and “move on” with respect to the crimes against me by Jennifer Toal is that “now it is a long time ago, so it does not really matter any more, you should just get over it and if you don’t then you are a woman hater”…..everyone here knows the dialog right?
Alan Turning? The guy is dead. Rolf Harris? These accusations are from a VERY long time ago….but they will be rigorously pursued in the courts by the same people who say I should “get over it” for the sole reason that the crimes of Jennifer Toal were NOT rigorously pursued in the courts.
Liars and hypocrites. These people are EVIL PEOPLE.
This is like a mirror image of a feminist screed. We’ve all seen those shaming pieces written against men having sex with adult women twenty years their junior being branded as pedophiles. I take issue with the subtle manipulation of language in this article. A nineteen year-old may be legally a minor but in now way are they a child.
As for Turing himself who cares if he was gay? I don’t see how it effects your life in anyway, except that, without Turning, you may well have been a human lampshade. They castrated a war hero, that’s a crime against masculinity, gay or straight. I would expect red pill men to look deeper than the surface. Turing could have well been one of us.
Younger than 12 = pedophile. Nothing else factors into that.
I’m thinking somebody needs to send the cops ’round to your place. I’ll agree that pedophilia, strictly speaking, is prepubescent. But ephebophilia isn’t much better, in our current culture. It would be different if it the culture were still extremely traditional, and 12 and 13 year old girls were being married to a man that would provide for them. But when kids this young are used merely for sexual pleasure, it screws people up in ways that can wreak havoc for the rest of their lives. Give people a chance to grow up. Promiscuity is always damaging, but especially so in adolescence.
Regardless of the age thing, the assertion that “promsicuity is always damaging” is pure nutballery. Any particular sexual act may be good or bad, but if consensual the worst “harm” is being a bit upset or regretful. On the other hand, it is pretty harmful psychologically for people to be trapped for life in miserable marriages that are often effectively celibate; the pre-sexual revolution ideal.
Sex is a positive act that makes people feel happy; evolution clearly programmed us to seek a lot of it as a means of being happy.
People can only “grow up” by engaging in adult activities; retard them (as Progressives and some Conservatives seek to do) and they don’t “grow up”. There’s no logic to the idea that somebody should be entirely shielded from sexuality (or anything else of an adult nature) until some magic age which is, currently, set higher (and getting ever higher) than at any point in human history.
+1 cookie.
We live in a sexualized culture with easy and effective contraception, abortion on demand, a welfare state, acceptance or at least tolerance of female promiscuity and certainly sex before marriage – all the historical reasons for a high age of consent no longer exist.
If homosexuality is legal (and I believe it should be), then why should the age of consent be as high as 16 or 18 and ever more rigidly enforced?
Both the notion of ‘statutory rape’ and the idea that homosexuality is ‘indecent’ are derived from the very same attitudes of the Victorian era. Yet the ‘liberal elite’ promotes one as ‘progressive’ and the other as ‘backward’.
The idea that the sexual act is of massive moral and emotional significance is a feminine idea that feminists exploit (at least when it comes to older men having sex with teenage girls). There is nothing masculine about calling for other men to be raped in prison so that the evolutionary sexual strategies of women are protected and promoted.
“Any particular sexual act may be good or bad, but if consensual the
worst “harm” is being a bit upset or regretful. On the other hand, it is
pretty harmful psychologically for people to be trapped for life in
miserable marriages that are often effectively celibate; the pre-sexual
revolution ideal.”
Because those are our only two choices, right?
“If homosexuality is legal (and I believe it should be), then why should
the age of consent be as high as 16 or 18 and ever more rigidly
enforced?”
Because PARENTS don’t want their kids to have sex. They want them to be focused on school and age appropriate activities.
Age appropriate? You’re denying thousands of years of human history to fit what feminists, the state, and the church have decided is age appropriate?
Cute. Turn in your man card at the door.
No seriously, turn it in. The ONLY difference today is we haven’t got shotgun weddings because Janie or Timmy have birth control. Now you can argue about birth control, but arguing against a couple thousand years of recorded history just makes you similar to any other feminist, mangina, state, or church authoritarian.
Just because parents have been brainwashed by the state doesn’t erase human biology.
Of course I’m arguing against a couple thousand years of pre-civilization, pre-science, pre-medical, pre-technological, pre-reproductive health knowing, STUPIDITY.
“Just because parents have been brainwashed by the state doesn’t erase human biology.”
Just because anyone’s been brainwashed by anyone doesn’t erase scientific facts, medical knowledge and reproductive health.
“Just because anyone’s been brainwashed by anyone doesn’t erase scientific facts, medical knowledge and reproductive health.
Prove it. Why would nature give a pubescent male or female sex drive if the body is not functional to accommodate the consequences of such a circumstance.
Nature has already proved it by the high pubescent birthing mother mortality rates.
Pure bullshit.
First: read Aristotle, Plato, Juvenal, Marcus Aurelius and others – all Pagan, pre-Christian authors – and you’ll see that healthy sexual mores are neither Christian nor “Victorian.” People have condemned homosexuality for all time, and for good reasons that have nothing to do with Christianity or the “Victorian” era. That is the kind of blue-pill nonsense that liberals pushed so that they could advocate for their brave new world. Homosexuality should not be legal. By what moral system do you decide that it should? And why would this moral system not tell us that humping our dogs and 12-year olds and household plants are all fine ideas? People have known from the dawn of time, that when a person’s sexual desire turns from what is natural to what is a dead-end, there is a psychological and societal dysfunction at work.
Second: all the reasons you gave for *not* needing an high age of consent, are reasons why we do need an high age of consent. You listed a few things, and we’ll take them one by one.
1) “Sexualized culture.” Most people agree that a sexualized culture is a bad thing. Our great grandparents managed not to have premarital sex; few people got knocked up before marriage in their days. There is no reason why people can’t rise to this level, but now we raise our kids with the expectation that “they’re going to do it anyway.” This is stupidity.
2) “Easy and effective contraception.” See 1). The biggest reason for the sexualized culture is contraception. I am always amazed at how few people manage to think about this issue, because it only takes a second to see the error. When the last Pope told people not to bring condoms to Africa because it made their problems worse, people were furious and incredulous. But then *liberal* health care workers came forward and admitted he was right. You see, people in Africa tended to engage in more sex, both because they thought the contraceptions would “save” them, and because, once they got used to being sexually active, they were willing to screw whether condoms were available that day or not. So, when people who were formerly abstinent start having more sex, even the low failure rate of contraceptives can’t stop pregnancy and STDs from increasing. This is obvious, even from looking at our own culture. Here, “effective contraception” has produced a culture where teenage pregnancies and STDs are widespread (whereas in our great-grandparents’ days this was not at all true). It should be clear that “widespread contraception” actually increases the things it is supposed to prevent.
3) “The welfare state.” Just despicable of you, really. Are you saying that because we have a welfare state, who cares if the age of consent is low? The welfare will take care of their babies? Well I’ll tell you what: I don’t appreciate being robbed of my paycheck so that little whores can spit out babies they care nothing about, on the understanding that they don’t need to worry about it and I’ll pay for it. I say ship that slut off to a labor camp for ten years and let me keep the money that I earn to feed my wife, who stays with me and takes care of our children in an honest way, without robbing other people. Just despicable. The welfare state is exactly why whores should be sterilized and put into labor camps, where they will have to work to pay off the burden they impose on society.
4) “Tolerance of female promiscuity.” This is really a “good” reason to lower the age of consent? Isn’t the red pill life about realizing that women need to be put back on the leash? That their promiscuity is not acceptable? Look, even if some “game” types seem to think that we should be willing to sexually abuse the lost causes, surely that’s no reason to take young girls who might have had a fighting chance, and turn them into the very thing we hate? A girl of 12, 13, 14, 15… she’s confused. She lives in a culture that teaches her to be an awful human being. Her father may not be in her life at all, and if he is he’s probably whipped by her mother. She is desperate for love. You can either say “hey, lemme bang that 14 year old ’cause the universe sucks right now,” or you can say, “poor girl; maybe if we agree not to treat her as though we expect her to be a slut, she might grow up to be decent!” What do we want the red pill to be about? Is it about manipulating damaged women into servicing our johnsons? Or is it about confidence and acting as a man, using this confidence to put women in the place that is best for them and for us? If the latter, we should try not to go out of our way to train women to be worthless sluts at younger and younger ages, but rather, hope that we can put them back into a position of more permanent submission to our masculinity, in a mutually beneficial and helpful way.
So much for your reasons.
The real reason to *raise* the age of consent nowadays, is the same reason why we let kids stay on their parents’ insurance until they are 26: they are emotional cripples with no sense of reality or responsibility. My great-grandmother was married at 15, and I have no problem with that, because she had her shit together and knew how to raise an excellent family. She was already an expert horse-rider, shot, cook and farmhand. Now, a 15 year old girl can barely drag her ass out of bed at 1 in the afternoon to show up at Starbuck’s in her PJs. She is not ready, psychologically, for human intimacy. If we keep telling women that it’s okay to act like this by getting in there as soon as she sprouts an hair, of course they’re going to keep being awful human beings. And if we are creating these sluts by acting this way, then we are just as bad as them, and equally to blame. A man needs to stand up, protect the younger women from being turned into egregious cum dumpsters, and punish the ones who already are.
Look *if* you want the women to get married and be responsible for raising their kids, then I agree that sex can be age appropriate for them at 14. But if you want them to carouse like whores from one irresponsible, consequence-free sexual tryst to the next, then I would say that this is not age appropriate for anyone, and least of all for children.
This is pure idiocy.
First: the idea that “consent is the sole criterion of the good,” is a particularly blue-pill, weak-minded idea. I.e., thinking that “as long as people consent to do this, it can’t really be bad,” is the kind of thinking that *produced* the feminist movement and all the bullshit that flows from that. We now know that women simply are not capable of high-level thinking and that, in a society that coddles them like our present one, they are not capable of accountability, either. But they and we “consent” to this societal arrangement. Despite the consent, it is horrifically damaging to everyone involved. Men and women “consent” to get into domestic disputes. They consent to loveless marriages. They consent to shoot heroin together. What kind of dumb-ass thinks that something is basically harmless, simply because people “consent” to do it? People consent to do almost everything that destroys their lives. Promiscuity is inherently harmful, especially in aggregate. I will concede that it is more harmful to women than men. But it is harmful and “consent” does not erase the harm, any more than it would erase the harm from all the other damaging, consensual acts.
Next, this warped idea people have about “pre-sexual revolution” marriage, is simply wrong. Of course, nobody reads history or historic literature anymore, so I guess expecting them to know anything is futile. But you don’t have to read much literature before the 50s (when the sexual revolution really started, because that was when women “lost their jobs” in the home, so to speak), to see that there was not this widespread angst about unhappy relationships, that has been normative since that time. Even still, many studies have shown that married people in their 30s enjoy more sex than single people in their 30s. Many studies have also shown that people who are married in traditional marriages (i.e., marriages where the gender roles are fairly traditional) report being more satisfied with the quality of sex in their sex life, and with their sex life overall, than single people of any age. For some people – mostly men married to feminists – marriage is a sexless hell-hole. But the lie that traditional marriage, ipso facto, is like this, is a blue-pill piece of propaganda designed to promote the promiscuity that has produced the blue-pill society.
Next, as to thinking that “sex is a positive act that makes people happy,” I can only ask: why do people have this magic bubble about sex? People always feel the need to emphasize how natural and positive sex is, blah, blah blah. Look: “Enjoying a meal is a positive act that makes people happy.” Great! Does that mean that there aren’t plenty of people who gorge themselves on crappy food, get diabetes and die? That there aren’t bulimic people who eat a meal and then throw it up? That there aren’t people who eat to cover depression or boredom? Why is it that when we talk about sex, everyone raises the “forcefield of positive thinking” against any idea that people might use sex in disordered, damaged, irrational and harmful ways? It should be obvious to everyone, that they do. It would be more accurate to say that “married people in traditional gender roles, whose sexuality is ordered towards its natural consequence of family life, are engaged in a positive activity that makes them happy.” It would also be accurate to say that “single people banging each other in essentially non-committed relationships, are engaging in narcissistic acts that promote short-term thrills at the expense of real happiness and health.”
Finally, it’s simply sloppy thinking to say that people “grow up by doing adult things.” The adult thing is to get married in a committed relationship and have kids. If you want to do that, I actually think 14 is a fine age. Narcissistically rubbing genitalia because it feels good, is precisely a childish thing to do. Plus, why don’t you tell little Billy to get to work in the coal mines? He needs to grow up by doing adult things!
What foolishness. Kids need to gradually take on increased levels of responsibility, until they rise to the level of adult responsibility. They don’t need adult responsibilities put upon them at a young age. Why can nobody think clearly and logically anymore?
This is why the blue-pill is so successful: even in a red-pill forum, men are defending the kinds of behaviour that have produced the epidemic of vacuous bitches without any male authority in their lives. Encouraging women to have promiscuous sex with people because this is an “adult thing” and is “not harmful,” is precisely the feminist doctrine.
It is the feminist doctrine! Do you deny it? How can you think of yourself as a red-pill man? The red pill is HARD TO SWALLOW. Continuing to tout the feminist doctrine of free sex for adults ’cause it’s not harmful, is the blue-pill and it goes down nice (but it will come back up on you). The red pill, which is hard to swallow, says that women need to be faithful and submissive to the men in their lives.
I’m sorry, I skipped most of that as tl;dr, not many sentences beyond the tragically ludicrous “we now know women aren’t capable of high level thinking”.
You are just peddling the same stupidity as the Feminists. I don’t think of myself as a “red pill man”. I’m interested in reality, not some kind of tragic bunker mentality Guys Are Great movement that makes all the mistakes of feminism. You really have no clue what feminism is; its origins, its philosophy or anything else. It’s rather sad.
Enhjoy your “red pill”.
Everything you just said is bullshit.
http://pastebin.com/rtwHRvbW
Dude ever heard of puberty?
Promiscuity means immoral, might want to use a different word
It should parents’ choice whether their daughters have sex, but parents have no power as they find out very quickly when they go against the state.
It’s also a scare word used to push people’s buttons.
The point of the article is to highlight the obvious double standards being shamelessly exploited by the feminist liberal elite.
Do I think men should be punished for having sex with 19 year olds? No of course I don’t. Do I really think Alan Turing is a paedophile? No, of course not. But he’s hardly less of a paedophile or a ‘child abuser’ than the heterosexual celebrities in their 80’s now being hounded by the same British state that has pardoned HIM for screwing a 19 year old lad. AND there are moral questions regarding his treatment of the boy in relation to the burglary and how their affair came to light.
Do you think that it’s right that Alan Turing should be held up as a martyr because he had to undergo 9 months mild hormonal treatment as punishment for having anal sex with a 19 year old (child) and yet at the same time we lock up homosexuals (and heterosexuals) and put them on the sex offenders register for decades for merely looking at pornographic pictures of 19 year olds (who might look 17) when 19 year olds are no longer considered children? Is that progress?
Sex offenders lists are nothing but a political propaganda tool to incite an emotional reaction and garner vote support. I think they do little in terms of actual prevention. Some trench coat perv jerking off in a porno theatre is not the moral equivalent of a serial rapist.
Turing was a hero despite being gay, and the government was wrong to go after him. The lesson for me is that state moralists care nothing about you, and will use you for their own expediency. Even if you hand a large role is saving said state, you mean nothing.
” Some trench coat perv jerking off in a porno theatre”
How did you know about me?
“But he’s hardly less of a paedophile or a ‘child abuser’ than the
heterosexual celebrities in their 80’s now being hounded by the same
British state”
You can read for yourself Jimmy Savile’s history of trolling orphanages for victims.
People who take advantage of vulnerable kids are scum. Gay or straight, doesn’t matter.
Do you think we should still have laws against oral sex? In many jurisdictions simply asking a female to perform oral sex is a crime.
I’m not going to defend Turing, didn’t know the guy, but I think the state sticks it’s nose into far too many places. Heck, at 14 a boy could get a sword, join the legion, and become head of household. We, at ROK, champion earlier sensibilities where women were married off at 15 easily.
Age of consent laws are feminism run amok. Failure to recognize that the state, and feminists, desire to outlaw sexuality is hilarious here on ROK. I don’t have to agree with homosexual behavior, but I refuse to hand the state more power. I also refuse to hand the state more power in heterosexual behavior.
What do we have now thanks to the feminists? Hetero behavior is bad, and don’t think they won’t work to outlaw Homo behavior as well. They’ll side with it temporarily to get their way. They’ll turn against it the moment it becomes convenient. Feminism is about control, the same as Republicans and Democrats want power over you. The same as the way the church wants to control you.
Don’t let any of these groups have power over you. They all want to take away your right to be a man.
THANK YOU
19 is a ‘child’? fuck most porn whores start at 19. You’re a bigger hysterical woman than the ‘rape culture’ nut jobs.
Yoiu fucking idiot, this is what we call “rhetoric”. It’s using any means possible to win an argument. It’s actually prett brilliant at that.
The fact that you typed those words and hit “post” is amazing.
He did quite a lot besides this little affair with a 19 year old. I believe he helped crack some code or another against some old fascist government. He also helped invent some electronics that people use. I think he would have been relatively unknown if he hadn’t been a math genius, fighter of nazis, and partial inventor of the computer.
Look, just because some people irrationally shame men for things that are not an issue, doesn’t mean that every attempt to shame people is of a similar quality. The author was pointing out the very well-documented, historical fact that homosexuality has historically been a predatory orientation that gravitates towards young men who are confused or only barely willing. In fact, a lot of male homosexuality is created by the experience of homosexual abuse in adolescence, which tends to really mess with a guy’s head at that age. I’ve known an handful of homosexuals, but the two I got to know better than the others, turned out to be creeps that picked up boys leaving Jr. High at the end of the school day. He was 22, they were 14. I told the cops he was doing it, they told me unless I had hard evidence that he had done something, there was nothing they could do. BS.
Do my anecdotes make for anything? No, but those anecdotes plus child abuse statistics, plus all the depictions of homosexual activity through history, make it pretty clear: the gays like your young teenage sons and, because their sexuality is inherently dsyfunctional and has historically been promiscuous without restraint, there is every reason to think that they are more likely to act on their interest towards your sons than any of your straight neighbours are likely to act on an attraction to your beautiful daughter. So, yes! Celebrate them! Invite them over! What could go wrong?
I can agree that Turin is not the issue, and that he may well have been the kind of guy who would reject “queer identity” and all the other garbage we have nowadays – which is one and the same thing as the feminist/social marxist movement that red pill men should oppose. That’s why his article wasn’t about Turing, so much as about the pathological need that modern people feel to create gay and feminist and black and trans-queer-multi-culti heroes, no matter how questionable their actual moral character has become. And Turing was a recent example (just as, a couple years ago, one could have written about the movie on Harvey Milk, disgusting criminal and, incidentally, another homosexual and therefore hero).
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, i’ll need to go back and have another read through, as well as your comment and see if I think any different on the matter.
I agree that heroes should be defined on their own merits, the actions they performed, and not as aspects of their identity. I would personally be quite upset if I was to be defined as a straight hero or white hero when those things are only facets of who I am. Why not just hero? Anyway, the honour is worth little in these times, a throwaway word we deem stupid children and fat sloths worthy of for finally addressing their own shortcomings.
“Look, just because some people irrationally shame men for things that
are not an issue, doesn’t mean that every attempt to shame people is of a
similar quality.”
Agreed. Jimmy Savile trolling orphanages with the explicit purpose of taking advantage of vulnerable kids is not equal to Turing’s case.
There is no evidence that Savile ever did “troll orphanages”. We now know that the initial flurry of allegations regarding Duncroft were fabricated; the “media star” Karin Ward is now being sued by Freddie Starr for her invented “Jimmy, Freddie and Gary Glitter at Television Centre” story.
The truth is unlikely ever to be known, but in all probability he never did any more than pinch a few bums of teenage girls, like just about every other bloke who mixed with dolly birds in that era. And while technically bum pinching is “sexual assault”, in those days it was a mainstay of saucy comedy so hardly considered in the same hysterical manner as today.
“the gays like your teenage sons”
That’s just a stereotype. That’s like me saying because African Americans have a higher crime rate, and I know a few black criminals. Between history and your experience: blacks like to rob people.
I’m gay and I do not go for teenagers. I go for people around my age, and maybe a little bit older (just because the dating pool is significantly small).
First, the homosexual infatuation with youth has been a ubiquitous part of all historic, gay cultures, from Japan to Greece to Rome to Persia. It is difficult to find a similar uniformity of mores amongst an ethnic group, for obvious reasons. But, to the extent that one can find something like a uniformity of mores amongst the “black culture” in the modern USA, I think people would be acting rationally to assume that your typical black youth is more likely to act in a criminal or dishonest manner when dealing with you. But yes, a white kid “acting black” (ghetto dress and mannerisms) is certainly more likely to rob you than a professional black man with excellent comportment. It’s not about black skin, but about the popular black culture.
Second, there’s been a new “gay identity” emerging since the 70s, and especially the early 90s, which is far more “in-group” and neutered. This is middle to upper-middle class gay guys who are trying to actively adapt the “hobo” lifestyle (hobo= homosexual bourgeoisie). Blue collar gays, and closet cases, still tend to like ’em young. The guys I knew were pretty blue collar.
If you can point to Ancient Greece as evidence that homosexuals tend to prefer their lovers young, then I can point to just about every other ancient society as evidence that *heterosexuals* prefer theirs young: most ancient societies preferred young lovers, whether boys or girls.
The “homos == paedos” thing is a myth, and it doesn’t even make sense: women are visually much closer to children than men. Why would someone who likes masculinity; hairy bodies, big muscles, deep voices, etc. choose a partner who has none of these qualities?
It’s much more likely that someone who is attracted to femininity – i.e. a heterosexual man – would, in the absence of other choices, prefer males at their most feminine, before puberty has made them masculine: Desperate heterosexual priests with no access to women or girls == likely to settle for younger boys. An androphile homosexual would be after the other priests, not the choir.
I didn’t say homos were paedos. My comment tended more towards the indication that they are ephebophiles.
Women have traditionally been married young because that is when they have the only attributes of theirs that interest men: beauty and fertility. That said, it still remained acceptable to make love to your wife after she was 20. With homosexuality, on the other hand, it was exclusively oriented towards youths, eunuchs (and sometimes slaves) for the simple fact that they were not considered men, and were therefore licit sexual conquests. The modern willingness to allow grown men to penetrate each other, is revelatory of a depth of debauchery, and an alienation from essential truths about gender, far in excess of any other historical epoch’s failures.
you’re right about that. remember the hysteria (in some circles) when jerry seinfeld, while in his late 30s, dated an 18 year-old? ridiculous.
Right, because the Germans were just itching to turn Britain onto a human lampshade factory! I was nodding along with your response before the display of histrionics.
haha love it when Hess landed in Scotland he was looking for Lampshades.
A) its called artistic license B) I’m scotish-Ukranian, I have no doubt what the Nazis would have used my grandparents for, slave labour if they were lucky.
Well, actually, your Ukranian ancestors, particularly westerner Ukranians were welcoming the Germans and enthusiastically joining the Waffen SS. The whole lampshades and soap thing? Sorry, a complete fabrication. You might want to ask your Ukranian kin about the Holdomor.
Not exactly the Germans took many Ukrainian girls and used them for slave labour in germany.
My grandparents were in the military in England, they would not be treated well by any Nazis. Let’s stop this illusions that Nazis just wanted to kill Jews and roma, and would be nice and friendly to everyone else.
Oh, and we wear caps and sleeves at this level, Vaughn.
They can’t even let the dead to rest in peace.
Alan Turing was a “victim of discrimination”? Really?
Did he have a man like Alan Shatter, minister for justice of Ireland, refuse his application for citizenship on the basis that he had demonstrated criminality in the courts? Or was he denied a work permit that was obligatory in an effort to impoverish him? Were his children kidnapped and abused and was he lied about to them? Was his house stolen? Was his business destroyed by freezing the company bank account and then de-registering it because it could not pay taxes?
How was he discriminated against exactly?
And all men here know I am hardly alone in the way in which I have been criminally victimised. One of the strangest responses I get from men is “just get over it”. Why should I “just get over being criminally victimised”? Why should ANY MAN just get over being criminally victimised and not gain remedy at law? Criminal victimisation is a much more serious thing that mere “discrimination” which is not even a real crime.
“A man of discriminating tastes” merely means a man knows the difference in the quality of things. The word “discrimination” used to have very positive connotations. The Illuminati have hijacked it and altered the meaning of it so that it is no longer possible to use it in it’s correct form without morons believing the new meaning.
It is the same as the word Anarchy. Anarchy does not mean chaos and mayhem…it means lack of a centralised controlling force in society. It is another word for FREEDOM. A state of anarchy is required for a state of freedom to exist. And yet most morons will tell you “anarchy” means choas and mayhem. Nothing could be further from the truth….which is why that is what they Illuminati say it means. They are good at convincing people a word means the very opposite of what it actually mean.
Slavery is freedom
Ignorance is strength
War is peace……
This is probably the worst article, I have read in ROK(ps I am a big fan). In reality weren’t that different to people 2000 years ago, let alone 80. So to assume this “boy” couldn’t handle himself is ridiculous, especially considering the outcome.
His “crime” was just as stupid as any of those black high school senior football players who get head from a white freshmen girl. To call either of these actions criminal is wrong. Correcting a past mistake doesn’t make heterosexual sex worse. It just corrects a mistake. Not every event that happens today is an attack on heterosexual men.
Although I find it annoying old people are getting some weird charges for pedophile related sex even though age of consent wasn’t even there when he did such actions…
“Correcting a past mistake doesn’t make heterosexual sex worse. It just corrects a mistake. Not every event that happens today is an attack on heterosexual men.”
It is when the same establishment today is re-writing history and hounding men for doing very similar things with girls in the same period – or rather the much more liberal period of the 1960’s.
I appreciate however that this wont make as much sense to American readers. In the UK, we are in the midst of a hysterical witchhunt against aged celebrities for allegedly fooling around with teenage girls half-a-decade ago. These celebs, often much loved by the public, are being presented as pure evil. Even if the allegations are true, they acted barely less morally than did Turing, who is being sanctified.
its more a case of Alan Turing being almost universally hailed as a hero (and rightly so). The mistake the article makes is too come across as attacking Turing at a personal level – personally the idea that Turing set up the boy seems pretty damning, but no doubt there will be differences of opinion as to whether this is actually what happened. But Turing happens to be the only person who has been pardoned in this way (good old oscar maybe as well) and the article is really about the politics of the pardoning, which is almost universally taken as evidence of how we have progressed as a society rather than how some types of sexuality are now systematically being attacked while others are systematically being raised up and protected. Turing is probably too well-loved for the point he is making to really work. But this is an important article despite that
The use of language in this article is rather disingenuous. Framing a 19 year old as a mentally incompetent young boy being preyed upon by an old man is trying to insinuate as pedophilia an act that the heterosexual version of which everyone on rooshv/rok regards as something perfectly acceptable and about which feminist disapproval is routinely griped. This article is poor quality compared to rok’s usual fare.
“The use of language in this article is rather disingenuous.”
It was intentionally so.
“insinuate as pedophilia an act that the heterosexual version of which everyone on rooshv/rok regards as something perfectly acceptable”
I’m trying to explain how the Turing case was seen at the time, and how the same liberal elite beatifying Turing now, are applying those same standards ever more harshly to heterosexuals, often from virtually the same period of history (and, as it happens, homosexuals who aren’t as fashionable as Turing).
And actually it’s pretty well established that teenage boys are behind girls in terms of physical and sexual maturity, so it would not discriminate at all to have unequal ages of consent – especially as the modern justification for statutory rape laws are primarily the ‘inequality in power’ feminist arguments.
Some of you appear to be missing the message of the article entirely. This isn’t really intended as an attack on Turing himself, but rather on the hypocrisy of the ‘liberal progressive’ elite.
Alan was sterilized. Seems more of a murder than suicide. Regardless of his personal desires he did great things. It’s disgusting to be held in that light and used as a figurehead for such a shitty agenda.
The government should stay out of marriage (gay or straight) but from a medical perspective, regular anal sex is unhealthy.
Hey, Hetero-Power– stop the STR8 H8ing! (It’s about time for it.)
Its funny! People would call society’s acceptance today of a man fucking another man in the ass as progress. In 20-30 years, I guess society will accept a man fucking a sheep, a woman fucking a dog, and a man marring his horse as further proof of progress. I fear I am the only that can see the emperor has no clothes on. Not only does this go against God but for those of you who don’t believe in God, it goes against nature and logic. It is perverse, unnatural and illogical. Everyone is entitled to do whatever they want to do in their own bedrooms…its nobody’s business…period. But don’t say or expect people to accept or tolerate it if you put it in their face. A strong society must have strong standards…when those standards or weakened or lowered, that society is weaken up until the point it collapses on itself. Do not accept insanity….call it out for what it is….wrong.
why is the male gspot up his ass
Lmao! the “male” spot is where its always been, in our dicks.
Oh not this shit again Quit referring to his lover as ‘boy’; at 19 he could have served his country, drank alcohol. started a family. Jesus, when i was 17 I boned a 31 year old stewardess. I wasn”t her ‘victim’. I expect rape paranoia from feminists, not from writers on here , Ridiculous. I don’t give a flying fuck if a dude is gay, and neither should you.
youre the victim, we feel your pain, and condemn that child-abusing 31 year old stewardess child abuser. Incidentally I don’t think the article is about whether gay is good or bad (at least I hope it isn’t) its about how historical regime change, its about the fact that if you’d been 31 boning a 17 year old girl, that is increasingly more likely to be a problem, precisely because you are male, but not gay. Change of values reflects who is pulling the strings, who is framing the discourse….clue: it isn’t you
Two things.
I am annoyed that the author would pick such an inappropriate target make a point. I am also annoyed that the author would write so badly as to have to defend himself in the comments as opposed to predicting the counter-points and responding to them in the article in the first place.
Turing was a great man and his suicide should be a shame to all civilized minds. The comment about the death being an accident is not worth mentioning. Anyone who has done the research knows that people who think about suicide mention it to others he or she talks to. That combined with the fact that the similarities of the death makes it likely that it was indeed a suicide and not an accident.
The exact details of it are fuzzy in my mind, but my information is from a book about mathematicians (God created the integers) whereas what the author states seems to be pulled out of his ass.
I understand the intention of the author. But he did not achieve his goal. The only thing he has managed is to write a shitty post and piss off any mathematicians in his audience.
Be nice to math-nerds. We run the stuff behind the scenes. It would be trivial to find all the authors on this site. See this link. http://33bits.org/about/
Oh and by the way? That post roosh made about being antifragile and some such may fool the average idiot, but it does not fool me. Roosh and everyone who writes at either RoK and Roissy in DC is extremely vulnerable. Be it from job loss, having your US passport revoked and getting kicked out of Poland or getting a visit from the IRS.
tl;dr Fuck you. Mathfags think Turing was great and deserved the pardon.
More info for you retards.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/08/04/the-information-that-is-needed-to-identify-you-33-bits/
Let’s see if this post is allowed to remain.
the point he’s making isn’t really about turing its about his rehabilitation. Was turing persecuted because of his homosexuality – this is something I took for granted and is probably the case though the details about the case suggest a more variegated reality. But his point is about how progressive values reflect ‘who is currently in power’ and the fact that if Turing has now been rehabilitated this has nothing to do with the fact he is a (very real) wartime hero, everything to do with the fact that his tragedy can be used to further the war on heteronormativity, or as the author points out, ordinary male sexuality. The post – Jimmy Saville affair is continuous with this. Saville is clearly indefensible, and some of the old men currently on trial appear to have abused quite young kids, but the question that should be asked is whether that is the reason they are on trial? I am pretty sure that historians of sexuality (particularly as defined by the law and penal codes relating to sexuality) will look at these prosecutions as reflecting not merely some kind of enlightenment but a change in ‘who is currently in power’. Dave Lee Travis could do what he wanted in his hey day. Now his victims, or rather the feminists who influence current legislation, are in power. What’s more these prosecutions will be used to further police sexuality according to the values of feminists. What used to be called ‘a bit of fun’ (no doubt rather more for the pervs than their victims / targets) is now criminal activity. So this article is very apt. Male sexuality is everywhere under fire except with regard to gay male sexuality, because gay male sexuality furthers the war against heteronormativity (not necessarily a good thing) and both male and female heterosexuality (not always a bad thing). Your right about the apple as accident bit though – it shouldn’t have been mentioned.
“Father of Computer Science
Mathematician, Logician, Wartime Codebreaker,
Victim of Prejudice”
Leave it to shitlibs to list achievements, that furthered humanity and Turings country, alongside the condition of being a “victim”, something that neither takes special attributes, nor is a choice, nor has helped anyone in human history.
This right there clearly exposes who we’re dealing with here.
Whilst feminists screech about the evils of older men having sex with 18 year old college students, they are surreptitiously trying to rewrite age of consent statutes for same-sex interactions to be younger and younger.
Witness the moral outrage at an 18 year old in Florida being prosecuted for a lesbian relationship with a 14 year old. (One that the 14 year old dubiously consented to, and had started missing school, etc.) Heterosexual relations between an 18 year old and a 14 year old are 100% flat out illegal in Florida.
Women love the idea of two men being with each other. It is especially disturbing how many women are closet pedophiles. I have encountered quite a few women who, under the cloak of anonymity, will admit to both being attracted to young boys and also to have used and enjoyed child pornography.
Chilling stuff.
I, a huge fan of Alan, have to disagree with most of this article. It frames their relationship as if Turing used him as a sexual object and a boy toy. In fact, it was quite the oppostite. They dated, had a completely healthy relationship, and sex. BIG FUCKING DEAL. I get it was back then, but it seriously shouldnt be now. It also wasnt like he was 60 or something, he was 40. yeah, i think thats a big age difference, but as it turns out, isnt illegal now. the reason he was pardoned was because he was PERSECUTED for it. The british government decided that him being found ‘guilty’ of this was unfair.
Also, how in the hell does this affect heterosexuality? or even feminism? oh im sorry MRAs feel that every single fucking progressive thing is attacking them personally. well, i guess i thought their veil of infinite masculinity protected them from the outside world.
“It also wasnt like he was 60 or something, he was 40. yeah, i think thats a big age difference, but as it turns out, isnt illegal now”
The whole article is about how the law is being changed to reflect current relations of power. What Turing did wouldn’t have been illegal today but it was illegal back then. In the context of the post-war period did the prosecution make sense, was it fair etc? Very few people would argue that today, but the author details information that is rarely mentioned today because a) Alan Turing turned out to be a great man (nobody disputes that); b) Turing is now a gay rights martyr and c) gay love is primarily patronised by Feminist ‘bitches’ who want to destroy the last vestiges of patriarchy by attacking heteronormativity, heteropatriarchy, phallogocentrism etc. You ask “how in the hell does this affect heterosexuality? or even feminism?” when in fact you know full well how it is affects heterosexuality & feminism. That is the whole reason you are commenting, so to try decry the argument that is being made. In fact the author is using precisely the kinds of tools (such as foucauldian genealogy) that feminists have used to trace how changes in ‘discursive regimes’ come about. They always come about slowly so the changes are normalised and come across as rational and reasonable, but if you look carefully you can see very clearly that what the author says is actually happening. Feminism influences legal and social change to gradually criminalise not merely heteronormativity (the idea that it is normal to be heterosexual) but even the normality of heterosexuality, at least insofar as it applies to male (for females have a free pass). But that isn’t enough, feminist can only achieve the change in power relations that it is executing if it can disguise what is actually happening, so that no-one sees. Which of course brings us to your visit to this web site, agent ‘Bitch’
‘try decry the argument that is being made.’ as it turns out, that EXACTLY what i am trying to do, uh argue. my point. yes, feminists are trying to abolish heteronormativity. i believe that its fine to be hetero, or to be LGBTQA. But in our society today, everyone is assumed heterosexual, which is flat out wrong. this article along with countless others prove that. back then, when it was unimaginably worse for someone like Alan, that it isnt just a trend, and we deserve representation instead of ridicule.
I actually apoligise for not phrasing that correctly. what i meant by it isnt illegal now, is it was deemed that because our ideas have changed over time, his trial was deemed unjust as it should have been. not to mention, apart from homosexual acts being outlawed, the heterosexual age of consent was 16. making this articles source, which doesnt cover the subject, incorrect. as i said, it was a completely healthy relationship. they met at a movie theater. had lunch. dated, with eventual sex. i reiderate, he want a sex toy.
i still dont think this effects, much less threatens heterosexuality. wow, one man who the government recognised is bringing down who i thought were oh-so-strong mens rights activists. pfft. i wish.
“But in our society today, everyone is assumed heterosexual, which is flat out wrong.”
That’s not correct. Society is fast-moving and
its been a long time since people were just assumed to be heterosexual, even if its always statistically likely that they will be, assuming the ratio of gay to straight people remains unchanged. Do you think it’s fair to assume it will remain unchanged?
You say “yes, feminists are trying to abolish heteronormativity” in relation to it being wrong to assume someone is heterosexual. But that is a very innocent definition of what the feminist campaign against heteronormativity is about. In fact it goes far beyond making the world a nicer place for the likes of Alan Turing. The campaign against heteronormativity has always been grounded in the theory that sexuality is blank slate, the idea, the only thing feminists have
consistently agreed with freud about, that people are born bisexual. So, we come back to that ratio again. If people are born the way they are then that ratio is fixed, but if they are born without a fixed sexual object, then that ratio is infinitely flexible, and campaigning against heteronormativity isn’t about being nicer to gay people at
all, its about ensuring that society never default’s to a statistical norm of men relating sexually to women, and women relating sexually to men. In other words at root there is a basic working assumption in feminism that people should be assumed to be born bisexual (i.e. with the potential to direct their sexual energies towards one
or other sex) and that heteronormativity must be targeted to ensure that women in particular are encouraged to relate sexually & emotionally towards other women at least as much as they relate in that way towards men.
Very few people today have a problem with gay people being respected or as you say represented instead of ridiculed, but that is only part of what it is about. In my post I also argued that the author was not wrong in making the connexion between Turings pardoning
(something I broadly support) and the progress for gay more generally with the systematic and largely successful attempts by feminism to gradually
criminalise male heterosexuality, while seeking to disguise that process as it happens. Those are two pretty big claims, yet you completely ignore them and then disingenuously say “I still don’t think this effects, much less threatens heterosexuality”. Gay love never had to be a threat to heterosexuality – it hasn’t been through most of history – but for feminism it being a threat is the entire point; the only real use it has. You know it this full well and are concerned only to disguise the fact.
“the systematic and largely successful attempts by feminism to gradually
criminalise male heterosexuality, while seeking to disguise that process as it happens…”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Well said, sir! I was beginning to think this site was a homosexual site masquerading as a heterosexual site so we could be influenced and our views ‘changed’ by these change agents.
Thank you. I would emphasise though that my beef is with those who are in my opinion exploiting gay people, not with gay people themselves or with their desire for a better deal within civil society, which I consider to be perfectly reasonable. It is my opinion that certain very influential factions on the left and in feminism, have sought to commandeer the gay cause to turn it into a battering ram against men, heterosexuality, and particularly the institution of the nuclear family which they have sought to identify as the bulwark of patriarchy & capitalism. The unfortunate effect here is to set homosexuality up as something that directly competes with heterosexuality, even though the rhetoric employed is typically one of co-existence, a rhetoric which is almost
always at odds with what is actually happening, in terms of policy that marginalises and increasingly criminalises men with a view to limiting their capacity to compete for and live with women.
One thing though, just as it is wrong for feminists and marxists to misuse a potentially vulnerable community in this way it is wrong for men to try to do demonstrate their heterosexuality by seeking to distance themselves from anything homosexual. Historically heterosexual men have sought to define themselves against homosexuals as well as against women, as states of humanity one must reject in order to become a real man (or whatever). This has led feminists amongst others to critique the construction of masculinity as based on ‘false’ or essentialist binaries (polar oppositions), typically where one party (the oppressed or whatever) is set up as something to be rejected. You don’t have to agree with all of this, but to the extent it is true, it isn’t a very secure basis for
establishing something positive which is what needs to happen now. Heterosexual men don’t sleep with other men, but to make too big a point of that, to make that the defining thing about being a male and heterosexual isn’t good enough and arguably plays into the way
mischief-making marxists and their feminist mind-fuck buddies analyse society.
If you’re heterosexual because you have a preference for women, then the sexual focus needs to be on women rather than rejecting other men.
The fella was a hero that saved western civilisation. He fucked a 19 year old man and got castrated for it. Jimmy Saville et al raped kids in orphanages. This article is a load of shite.
http://edsonjnovaes.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/o-teste-de-turing/
This has to be the most stupid article ever. You know in china there is a new term for people like you, which could be translated as “heterosexual cancer” in english. Your age of consent theory is plain funny.
I hope this is meant as an ironic dig at SJWs attempting to same men who have sex with 19 year-old women. To use a computer to lambaste Alan Turing for being gay is hypocrisy whether a feminist does it or a neo-masulist.
I would love, though, to find just one bit of evidence confirming that Turing went with a boy younger than sixteen. Just to see the fucking LOOK on some pompous dicktwazzle stupid person’s clever prat like Stephen Fry-up!