- Joined
- Oct 14, 2014
Manosphere Marijan Šiklić (ThatIncelBlogger)
- Thread starter Ronald Gaygun
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
affe - so they don't get raped? you mean, so they don't get to be not raped?
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2014
Holden, just so where clear, you'd fuck that dude on the bottom, right? I'd fuck that dude and I'm not even that gay.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2014
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
well, that's just it. you're insane. to you this is a minor upset.
O
ON 190
Guest
kiwifarms.net
The people who change his nappies when he makes a mess.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2014
Mr. @Holden Fuckbot, So your mother turned you down. Does this mean she's available?
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2014
Seriously Holden, if you wouldn't fuck that dude it's even gayer than if you would.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
SUNDAY, MAY 02, 2010
These are some of the questions a jury asked before acquitting a Sydney man of sexual assault.
Quite right. It isn't rape by any reasonable definition unless the woman resists to the best of her ability, and such resistance would obviously make it impossible to remove her jeans without leaving a mark. The only way a woman can legitimately consider herself raped without fighting to the best of her ability is if doing so would likely get her or someone she commonly protects killed or seriously injured. Since the woman does not even accuse the man of threatening her with anything in this case, this is certainly not rape even if she is telling the truth.
This is a victory for men, albeit an isolated one in a hateful climate of feminist corruption of justice, and I'm sure feminists will only redouble their efforts to convict more men falsely accused of rape. I don't know if they have double jeopardy in Australia, but if they do, Nicholas Eugenio Gonzalez will almost certainly be convicted upon appeal. In Norway we actually have triple jeopardy, at least. A man can be acquitted twice and then the professional feminist judges can set aside the jury's verdict and order a new trial with fewer jurors and this happens because that's how arrogant the feminist justice system is. The legal definition of rape is vastly more inclusive than what your peers including non-feminist women consider to be rape, so a jury will frequently acquit despite the man clearly being guilty by the feminist legal definition. The final solution is to abolish the jury, which feminists are lobbying for as we speak, and meanwhile they will disrespect the jury whenever it refuses to convict a man accused of rape. Norwegian men ultimately have no rights, nothing to stop feminists from rigging the system against men however they see fit. My guess is the jury will be gone relatively soon in rape cases.
Of course, even if we had some sort of sacred constitutional guaranteed right to a jury trial like Americans do, feminists would still find ways to rig the system against men and prevent us from getting a fair trial, as in rape shield laws and so on, withholding evidence from the jury to boost convictions. So either way feminists win and men lose. Until we start fighting back. The first step is to stop respecting women and not have any sympathy for actual rape victims either. I have at least reached that point. In fact, I gloat when a woman is actually raped. Since women and the law do not care if we actually rape and only care about obtaining convictions, we might as well get our money's worth.
These are some of the questions a jury asked before acquitting a Sydney man of sexual assault.
Quite right. It isn't rape by any reasonable definition unless the woman resists to the best of her ability, and such resistance would obviously make it impossible to remove her jeans without leaving a mark. The only way a woman can legitimately consider herself raped without fighting to the best of her ability is if doing so would likely get her or someone she commonly protects killed or seriously injured. Since the woman does not even accuse the man of threatening her with anything in this case, this is certainly not rape even if she is telling the truth.
This is a victory for men, albeit an isolated one in a hateful climate of feminist corruption of justice, and I'm sure feminists will only redouble their efforts to convict more men falsely accused of rape. I don't know if they have double jeopardy in Australia, but if they do, Nicholas Eugenio Gonzalez will almost certainly be convicted upon appeal. In Norway we actually have triple jeopardy, at least. A man can be acquitted twice and then the professional feminist judges can set aside the jury's verdict and order a new trial with fewer jurors and this happens because that's how arrogant the feminist justice system is. The legal definition of rape is vastly more inclusive than what your peers including non-feminist women consider to be rape, so a jury will frequently acquit despite the man clearly being guilty by the feminist legal definition. The final solution is to abolish the jury, which feminists are lobbying for as we speak, and meanwhile they will disrespect the jury whenever it refuses to convict a man accused of rape. Norwegian men ultimately have no rights, nothing to stop feminists from rigging the system against men however they see fit. My guess is the jury will be gone relatively soon in rape cases.
Of course, even if we had some sort of sacred constitutional guaranteed right to a jury trial like Americans do, feminists would still find ways to rig the system against men and prevent us from getting a fair trial, as in rape shield laws and so on, withholding evidence from the jury to boost convictions. So either way feminists win and men lose. Until we start fighting back. The first step is to stop respecting women and not have any sympathy for actual rape victims either. I have at least reached that point. In fact, I gloat when a woman is actually raped. Since women and the law do not care if we actually rape and only care about obtaining convictions, we might as well get our money's worth.
Holy wait what?
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2014
Rape is not a crime in Saudi Arabia... not legally. In a moral/ethical sense, yes... but they are not crimes. So, Sane Saudi Arabia doesn't criminalise rape... must be that Feminism it suffers so badly from.
Oh, and we were talking present day, not centuries in the past... nor were we talking about your seriously neutered definition that left out some quite important bits... intellectual dishonesty seems to be one of your more prominent traits...
O
ON 190
Guest
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2013
His meth dealer.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 07, 2011
The Feminist Police State vs. Female Teachers[/paste:font]
The amount of hysteria our society is able to generate over victimless sex crimes continues to astonish. When I read about Stacy Schuler (gym teacher sentenced to four years for sex with high school senior football players) a few months ago, I thought we weren't quite at that level of insanity here yet. I was wrong. The feminist police state of Norway is now charging a female teacher with "sexual abuse" of a 16-year-old boy, a consensual affair for which she faces up to six years in prison. The cutting edge of feminist hatred lies in criminalizing intimate relationships between students and teachers, with feminist prosecutors having a bonanza going after women too (male sexuality is already so thoroughly criminalized that it's difficult to expand that way). This type of feminist justice has played out many times over in Anglo countries for years, and now sadly we are set to repeat and perpetuate the charade. By hateful feminist logic, being a teacher magically transforms sex into some sort of heinous "abuse." In Norway (Strl. § 193) this is punishable by up to six years (actually, they also have the option of asking for preventive detention for such crimes, which is a potential life sentence), even if the student is over the age of consent (which is way too high, but that's not the point I am arguing here) -- in fact, this law is applicable to "victims" of any age, and the position supposedly being taken advantage of can be not just an official job but any type of trusting relationship, even a friendship. This law is thus a silver bullet which accusers and the feminist state can use against anyone they damn well please whenever our absurdly expansive definition of rape falls short. It's not even an obstacle to prosecution under this law that the "victim" was the one seducing and instigating sexual contact with the "abuser."
Of course, the motivation behind passing this law, as with other absurd sex laws, was to hurt men and empower women. But when you play the equalist charade, you are bound to have some women accused from time to time as well. The feminist police state, in this case represented by Tore Løwengreen, dutifully assures us that although he has never seen a case like this before, the cops regard it as a very serious felony, which they investigate and prosecute with the utmost zeal, just like they would against a male offender.
- Vi ser veldig alvorlig på denne saken, sier politiførstebetjent Tore Løwengreen i Østfold politidistrikt.
At this point it is difficult to decide whether to laugh, cry, or go on a rampage. Frankly I am at a loss as to how it is even possible for a human being to see this as a case of sexual abuse, even with reversed gender roles. How can such deranged feminist bullshit take hold of a man's brain to such an extent that he actually internalizes it? I'm really stretching my suspension of disbelief here trying to give him credit for some sort of humanity; emotionally he appears as just a feminist zombie spouting the party line. Now, it is conceivable that Løvengreen is simply parroting political correctness because it is his job, which he values more than his dignity, and he does not deep down actually believe this boy is a victim. I should give him the benefit of the doubt that he might be a hypocritical scumbag before pronouncing him a moron. But it is also possible he is genuinely brainwashed by feminist ideology, being a gullible fool. In order for the regime of state feminism to work its hateful ways, at least some of the actors need to believe in its lies, I think. There could also be a false consensus effect at work, where political correctness as dictated by the top feminist ideologues holds sway without the general public or even the enforcers much believing in it. Under this theory, the cops and courts operate under the banality of evil, but a more likely and sinister explanation is that the feminist abuse hysteria has honestly infested law enforcement and jurisprudence at all levels. This is where I feel heightened empathy and love for erstwhile humanity, and am impelled to write this post and engage in all sorts of activism against the feminist reign of terror.
Let me therefore interject some sanity. In a sane world, sexual relations between teachers and students would not be regulated by criminal law. It might be defensible for schools, if they are feeling particularly sex-hostile, to have a policy against student-teacher sex, where the worst consequence would be termination; but escalating the hysteria to the level of a crime is never justified. Moreover, a sane society would take sex differences into account, and not pretend a man and a woman copulating are doing the same thing. Since the sex act does not even physically look the same from the point of view of both genders, it takes a tremendous amount of feminist brainwashing to even entertain the notion that there is no meaningful difference. As previously stated, in my opionion women fundamentally cannot under any circumstances commit rape or sexual abuse against males. Since sex is a female resource, males are always lucky to get it from a woman, or at least it is absurd and unacceptable for the law to treat them as victims of female sexual acts per se. Female sex offenders are thus categorically excluded from my ontology. Admittedly this is an extreme position, but it is at least as extreme on the part of feminists and the state to deny any sex difference whatsoever. The proximate explanation for why it's wrong to impute sexual predatorhood to women is just plain common sense and human experience. Nobody can fool me into thinking boys can be abused by pussy, because I remember how much I wanted to fuck the female teachers when I was that age myself. Boys want sex and in the rare event that they get lucky with older women, their peers and grown-up men alike naturally envy and applaud them rather than pity them as victims. The profound visceral rage, hate, and jealousy this case invokes in healthy men like me based on life experience is strong evidence all by itself for a police state gone insane. The ultimate explanation for why women cannot sexually abuse boys, however, can be dispassionately and logically formulated as parental investment theory. The minimum necessary parental investment for each sex explains why each additional mating is beneficial to men and tends to be detrimental to women. As a result of these fundamental restraints, evolution has equipped boys with adaptations to welcome and enjoy opportunistic mating opportunities more, whereas girls are designed to be coy and picky. Boys are objectively as well as subjectively and socially empowered by sex with the teacher, whereas girls are objectively if not subjectively more or less exploited (but not so much that this deserves to be criminalized, either). Any concept of "sexual abuse" which flat-out denies this biological reality is sick to the core. It is insulting and demeaning to men on so many levels. To me, the female sex offender charade is right up there with the lie that rape is about power rather than sex as the most aggravating aspect of feminism. Draconian sex laws against men are bad enough. Going after women for being nice to boys adds a whole new level of insult to injury, and promotes an even colder world for boys to grow up in than I did. It also constitutes a perverse waste of taxpayers' money and, of course, hurts innocent women who are locked up for sharing their sexuality with more or less ungrateful brats while the frustrated majority stands by wishing they could only be so lucky.
There is still a silver lining, sort of. By insisting on equality, feminist legislators and prosecutors make buffoons out of themselves for all the world to see. Besides a select group of MRAs, no one gives a damn when a man is imprisoned for a victimless crime, because men are regarded as worthless in our society anyway, but when a woman is a victim of the system built to empower women, alarm bells start ringing in a wider audience. It takes just a tiny bit of humanity to comprehend that this is a police state run amok. Even the copy in feminist newspaper Dagbladet is slanted against the police state between the lines. Evidently it occurs to some feminists now that things are getting out of hand. Yet experience from other countries indicates that the populace is willing to absorb considerable escalation of the feminist police state against women also. As is often the case, a revolution eats its own children. What was meant to be a utopia for women and children is starting to give the victim class a taste of their own tyrannical medicine. The feminist state is spinning out of control, turning against new groups of offenders based on new kinds of phony crimes at a staggering rate. The abuse industry is even increasingly preying on children, destroying childhood in the guise of protecting children. Some examples from just last week:
A 9-year-old is suspended for sexual harassment because he told another student that a teacher is “cute.”
A high school student is handcuffed for wearing a hoodie that did not match school colors.
a 13-year-old student is arrested for allegedly burping during class.
a 7-year-old is investigated for sexual harassment for hitting a boy in the groin who was allegedly choking him.
How did we come to this? How did a movement intended to promote "equality" devolve into a reign of terror persecuting women and children as well as men? How can women continue to support the feminist police state and its odious laws, seeing that they may well be its next victim? Yesterday a law was proposed to criminalize possession of rubber gloves if the cops feel we might intend to use them for terrorism, along with another slew of new powers for the police state. That level of hysteria has already been implemented with regard to sexuality. Grooming law similarly empowers cops to arrest men for hypothetical crimes, and even provoke fictitious crimes altogether just to get innocent men imprisoned. It is time for the people to fight back on every front, because the feminist war on male sexuality has proven what depths of tyranny our government is capable of. So has the war on drugs, but that is a story for another day.
The Feminist Police State vs. Female Teachers[/paste:font]
The amount of hysteria our society is able to generate over victimless sex crimes continues to astonish. When I read about Stacy Schuler (gym teacher sentenced to four years for sex with high school senior football players) a few months ago, I thought we weren't quite at that level of insanity here yet. I was wrong. The feminist police state of Norway is now charging a female teacher with "sexual abuse" of a 16-year-old boy, a consensual affair for which she faces up to six years in prison. The cutting edge of feminist hatred lies in criminalizing intimate relationships between students and teachers, with feminist prosecutors having a bonanza going after women too (male sexuality is already so thoroughly criminalized that it's difficult to expand that way). This type of feminist justice has played out many times over in Anglo countries for years, and now sadly we are set to repeat and perpetuate the charade. By hateful feminist logic, being a teacher magically transforms sex into some sort of heinous "abuse." In Norway (Strl. § 193) this is punishable by up to six years (actually, they also have the option of asking for preventive detention for such crimes, which is a potential life sentence), even if the student is over the age of consent (which is way too high, but that's not the point I am arguing here) -- in fact, this law is applicable to "victims" of any age, and the position supposedly being taken advantage of can be not just an official job but any type of trusting relationship, even a friendship. This law is thus a silver bullet which accusers and the feminist state can use against anyone they damn well please whenever our absurdly expansive definition of rape falls short. It's not even an obstacle to prosecution under this law that the "victim" was the one seducing and instigating sexual contact with the "abuser."
Of course, the motivation behind passing this law, as with other absurd sex laws, was to hurt men and empower women. But when you play the equalist charade, you are bound to have some women accused from time to time as well. The feminist police state, in this case represented by Tore Løwengreen, dutifully assures us that although he has never seen a case like this before, the cops regard it as a very serious felony, which they investigate and prosecute with the utmost zeal, just like they would against a male offender.
- Vi ser veldig alvorlig på denne saken, sier politiførstebetjent Tore Løwengreen i Østfold politidistrikt.
At this point it is difficult to decide whether to laugh, cry, or go on a rampage. Frankly I am at a loss as to how it is even possible for a human being to see this as a case of sexual abuse, even with reversed gender roles. How can such deranged feminist bullshit take hold of a man's brain to such an extent that he actually internalizes it? I'm really stretching my suspension of disbelief here trying to give him credit for some sort of humanity; emotionally he appears as just a feminist zombie spouting the party line. Now, it is conceivable that Løvengreen is simply parroting political correctness because it is his job, which he values more than his dignity, and he does not deep down actually believe this boy is a victim. I should give him the benefit of the doubt that he might be a hypocritical scumbag before pronouncing him a moron. But it is also possible he is genuinely brainwashed by feminist ideology, being a gullible fool. In order for the regime of state feminism to work its hateful ways, at least some of the actors need to believe in its lies, I think. There could also be a false consensus effect at work, where political correctness as dictated by the top feminist ideologues holds sway without the general public or even the enforcers much believing in it. Under this theory, the cops and courts operate under the banality of evil, but a more likely and sinister explanation is that the feminist abuse hysteria has honestly infested law enforcement and jurisprudence at all levels. This is where I feel heightened empathy and love for erstwhile humanity, and am impelled to write this post and engage in all sorts of activism against the feminist reign of terror.
Let me therefore interject some sanity. In a sane world, sexual relations between teachers and students would not be regulated by criminal law. It might be defensible for schools, if they are feeling particularly sex-hostile, to have a policy against student-teacher sex, where the worst consequence would be termination; but escalating the hysteria to the level of a crime is never justified. Moreover, a sane society would take sex differences into account, and not pretend a man and a woman copulating are doing the same thing. Since the sex act does not even physically look the same from the point of view of both genders, it takes a tremendous amount of feminist brainwashing to even entertain the notion that there is no meaningful difference. As previously stated, in my opionion women fundamentally cannot under any circumstances commit rape or sexual abuse against males. Since sex is a female resource, males are always lucky to get it from a woman, or at least it is absurd and unacceptable for the law to treat them as victims of female sexual acts per se. Female sex offenders are thus categorically excluded from my ontology. Admittedly this is an extreme position, but it is at least as extreme on the part of feminists and the state to deny any sex difference whatsoever. The proximate explanation for why it's wrong to impute sexual predatorhood to women is just plain common sense and human experience. Nobody can fool me into thinking boys can be abused by pussy, because I remember how much I wanted to fuck the female teachers when I was that age myself. Boys want sex and in the rare event that they get lucky with older women, their peers and grown-up men alike naturally envy and applaud them rather than pity them as victims. The profound visceral rage, hate, and jealousy this case invokes in healthy men like me based on life experience is strong evidence all by itself for a police state gone insane. The ultimate explanation for why women cannot sexually abuse boys, however, can be dispassionately and logically formulated as parental investment theory. The minimum necessary parental investment for each sex explains why each additional mating is beneficial to men and tends to be detrimental to women. As a result of these fundamental restraints, evolution has equipped boys with adaptations to welcome and enjoy opportunistic mating opportunities more, whereas girls are designed to be coy and picky. Boys are objectively as well as subjectively and socially empowered by sex with the teacher, whereas girls are objectively if not subjectively more or less exploited (but not so much that this deserves to be criminalized, either). Any concept of "sexual abuse" which flat-out denies this biological reality is sick to the core. It is insulting and demeaning to men on so many levels. To me, the female sex offender charade is right up there with the lie that rape is about power rather than sex as the most aggravating aspect of feminism. Draconian sex laws against men are bad enough. Going after women for being nice to boys adds a whole new level of insult to injury, and promotes an even colder world for boys to grow up in than I did. It also constitutes a perverse waste of taxpayers' money and, of course, hurts innocent women who are locked up for sharing their sexuality with more or less ungrateful brats while the frustrated majority stands by wishing they could only be so lucky.
There is still a silver lining, sort of. By insisting on equality, feminist legislators and prosecutors make buffoons out of themselves for all the world to see. Besides a select group of MRAs, no one gives a damn when a man is imprisoned for a victimless crime, because men are regarded as worthless in our society anyway, but when a woman is a victim of the system built to empower women, alarm bells start ringing in a wider audience. It takes just a tiny bit of humanity to comprehend that this is a police state run amok. Even the copy in feminist newspaper Dagbladet is slanted against the police state between the lines. Evidently it occurs to some feminists now that things are getting out of hand. Yet experience from other countries indicates that the populace is willing to absorb considerable escalation of the feminist police state against women also. As is often the case, a revolution eats its own children. What was meant to be a utopia for women and children is starting to give the victim class a taste of their own tyrannical medicine. The feminist state is spinning out of control, turning against new groups of offenders based on new kinds of phony crimes at a staggering rate. The abuse industry is even increasingly preying on children, destroying childhood in the guise of protecting children. Some examples from just last week:
A 9-year-old is suspended for sexual harassment because he told another student that a teacher is “cute.”
A high school student is handcuffed for wearing a hoodie that did not match school colors.
a 13-year-old student is arrested for allegedly burping during class.
a 7-year-old is investigated for sexual harassment for hitting a boy in the groin who was allegedly choking him.
How did we come to this? How did a movement intended to promote "equality" devolve into a reign of terror persecuting women and children as well as men? How can women continue to support the feminist police state and its odious laws, seeing that they may well be its next victim? Yesterday a law was proposed to criminalize possession of rubber gloves if the cops feel we might intend to use them for terrorism, along with another slew of new powers for the police state. That level of hysteria has already been implemented with regard to sexuality. Grooming law similarly empowers cops to arrest men for hypothetical crimes, and even provoke fictitious crimes altogether just to get innocent men imprisoned. It is time for the people to fight back on every front, because the feminist war on male sexuality has proven what depths of tyranny our government is capable of. So has the war on drugs, but that is a story for another day.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2014
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
"I'm not like other people. I can't stand pain. It hurts me."-Daffy Duck
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
SATURDAY, JANUARY 22, 2011
Alpha of the Year: Keith MacDonald[/paste:font]
Keith MacDonald is Alpha of the Year for 2010, hands down. No one else I've heard of even comes close. Keith has sired ten children with ten different women by age 25. Even more impressive, he has done so on a budget of £40 a week that he doesn't even have to work for since his back hurts, and only £5 a week is deducted from his incapacity benefit, earning him the accolade "Incapacity Casanova." Moreover, he does not appear to have needed to be criminal or violent in order to attract all these women, and unlike certain other famous philanderers, he has even avoided rape accusations. I also bet he never spent a penny on any PUA material or coaching. And to remove the last shred of doubt, it is clear that the women he gets are hot.
Taxpayers are understandably upset for having to foot the £2million bill for supporting Keith's ten children until they are 18, but Keith is a winner. Boy, is he ha winner!
Macdonald says he first had sex at the age of 10 and boasts that he has since slept with 40 women – claiming to be “a sex god on £40 a week.”
He fathered his first child at the age of 15 when his then girlfriend, Michelle Purvis, now 32, gave birth to a daughter, Jamie Leigh, who is now 10. When they split up he met Charlotte Anderson, now 25, who had a daughter, Kady, now eight.
Macdonald then met Jordan Banks who was just 15 when he got her pregnant. They had a son, Angelis, who is seven.
June Garrick, now 26, gave birth to his fourth child, Brandon, in October 2003 – a month after Angelis was born. In 2006, he met 17-year-old Stephanie Jubb at a bus stop. She gave birth to their son, Matt, three. Then he started dating Ms Barker, now 22, who gave birth to Emily, now two.
His seventh child was born after a brief romance with Bec Wright, now 22, who gave birth to Clio, also two. His eighth offspring was Ms Bryant’s daughter, Paige, born five months ago.
So how can a jobless, "feckless" layabout accomplish this? (Obviously, he is anything but feckless. Keith is smarter than all of us.) I wish I knew. Clearly he is a natural, and I doubt this level of game can be taught. Most men would need to be billionaires or world rulers to have anywhere near this kind of success with women.
Keith is in an altogether different league than even the best PUAs. Roissy, for example, for all his knowledge about pickup, is missing something essential. Roissy does not want children. Not wanting marriage is understandable. I don't think I would want to get married either under conditions of marriage 2.0if I were the kind of man women want. But not wanting to impregnate women is a sentiment I can only shake my head at. It is all very well to get to fuck all those women, of course, but in the end, isn't it halfway pointless if you subvert the actual fundamental reason for having sex? Keith Macdonald has understood it. The last laugh will be his.
Just to get an idea of how much sex it takes to father that many children:
Given that the probability of conception per coital act is estimated to be about .03, a man must have 33 extrapair copulation partners (with whom he has sex once each) in order to be able to expect to produce one child (number of potential conception = .99). A man can produce roughly the same number of children with one sexual partner with whom he has regular sex (twice a week) (number of potential conception = .96).And that's assuming they don't use contraception. You would have to fuck 330 women once each to have ten kids, or ten women 33 times. This is what Keith has been doing, all in ten years from he was 15 to 25 while stupid betas have to work and pay. Great for him, not so good for society. I would certainly never stoop so low as to be a net taxpayer and work to pay for another man's spawn, but I am magnanimous enough to congratulate Keith Macdonald on his magnificent success in life.
Alpha of the Year: Keith MacDonald[/paste:font]
Keith MacDonald is Alpha of the Year for 2010, hands down. No one else I've heard of even comes close. Keith has sired ten children with ten different women by age 25. Even more impressive, he has done so on a budget of £40 a week that he doesn't even have to work for since his back hurts, and only £5 a week is deducted from his incapacity benefit, earning him the accolade "Incapacity Casanova." Moreover, he does not appear to have needed to be criminal or violent in order to attract all these women, and unlike certain other famous philanderers, he has even avoided rape accusations. I also bet he never spent a penny on any PUA material or coaching. And to remove the last shred of doubt, it is clear that the women he gets are hot.
Taxpayers are understandably upset for having to foot the £2million bill for supporting Keith's ten children until they are 18, but Keith is a winner. Boy, is he ha winner!
Macdonald says he first had sex at the age of 10 and boasts that he has since slept with 40 women – claiming to be “a sex god on £40 a week.”
He fathered his first child at the age of 15 when his then girlfriend, Michelle Purvis, now 32, gave birth to a daughter, Jamie Leigh, who is now 10. When they split up he met Charlotte Anderson, now 25, who had a daughter, Kady, now eight.
Macdonald then met Jordan Banks who was just 15 when he got her pregnant. They had a son, Angelis, who is seven.
June Garrick, now 26, gave birth to his fourth child, Brandon, in October 2003 – a month after Angelis was born. In 2006, he met 17-year-old Stephanie Jubb at a bus stop. She gave birth to their son, Matt, three. Then he started dating Ms Barker, now 22, who gave birth to Emily, now two.
His seventh child was born after a brief romance with Bec Wright, now 22, who gave birth to Clio, also two. His eighth offspring was Ms Bryant’s daughter, Paige, born five months ago.
So how can a jobless, "feckless" layabout accomplish this? (Obviously, he is anything but feckless. Keith is smarter than all of us.) I wish I knew. Clearly he is a natural, and I doubt this level of game can be taught. Most men would need to be billionaires or world rulers to have anywhere near this kind of success with women.
Keith is in an altogether different league than even the best PUAs. Roissy, for example, for all his knowledge about pickup, is missing something essential. Roissy does not want children. Not wanting marriage is understandable. I don't think I would want to get married either under conditions of marriage 2.0if I were the kind of man women want. But not wanting to impregnate women is a sentiment I can only shake my head at. It is all very well to get to fuck all those women, of course, but in the end, isn't it halfway pointless if you subvert the actual fundamental reason for having sex? Keith Macdonald has understood it. The last laugh will be his.
Just to get an idea of how much sex it takes to father that many children:
Given that the probability of conception per coital act is estimated to be about .03, a man must have 33 extrapair copulation partners (with whom he has sex once each) in order to be able to expect to produce one child (number of potential conception = .99). A man can produce roughly the same number of children with one sexual partner with whom he has regular sex (twice a week) (number of potential conception = .96).And that's assuming they don't use contraception. You would have to fuck 330 women once each to have ten kids, or ten women 33 times. This is what Keith has been doing, all in ten years from he was 15 to 25 while stupid betas have to work and pay. Great for him, not so good for society. I would certainly never stoop so low as to be a net taxpayer and work to pay for another man's spawn, but I am magnanimous enough to congratulate Keith Macdonald on his magnificent success in life.
- Status