The main objection people have to adults' having sexual contact with girls is that supposedly the "molester" brainwashes them into believing that what they're doing is okay, and he uses his position of trust to get them to serve his desires. Then when it's convenient to him, maybe he dumps them.

How is this any different than the behavior of corporate America? They tell girls that being a slut and having a career is in their best interests. (Sluttiness goes along with having a career because women need to delay marriage until they're done with their education, but they still have sexual desires long before they're done with school, so they end up sleeping with a lot of different guys.)

It's the media and educational establishments telling them this, which are two trusted institutions. And they're filling their heads with this propaganda from a young age. There's a power imbalance between the schools and the kids who are forced to go to the schools, and between the media establishments (which can freely put out their message) and kids (who are not even allowed to go on YouTube to publish their own videos with open comment sections anymore; plus they're not able or allowed to earn their own money with which to set up their own websites, and they're barred by the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act from sharing information by which to set up online accounts in a lot of cases).

Anyway, what ends up happening is, girls suffer a lot of anxiety and depression from being forced or led into situations that go against their natural inclinations to be homemakers and mothers, and they take a lot of anxiety pills and antidepressants. A lot of them end up divorced and lonely, and many of them are childless and have to resort to keeping around a bunch of animals as surrogates, which isn't as fulfilling.

They experience a lot of stress from not having the leadership of a man who's going to take care of them; the corporate world makes no guarantees of anything. They can be fired at any time, as we recently saw in the case of Amy Cooper, who not only didn't have a husband to keep her safe in the park, but also lost her job for being racially insensitive. Homemakers don't need to worry about that kind of stuff happening to them.

The proliferation of single moms means that a lot of girls are in a situation where they could get pressured into sex by the stepdad. If the kind of scenario depicted in Lolita doesn't jibe with your vision of what girllove is supposed to be like, then I don't know why you would support feminism, which tends to create such situations.

Not to mention, women suffer from the fact that having a lot of females in the workplace tends to make the economy less efficient. If, say, the ranks of NASA scientists are clogged up with affirmative action hires instead of the most qualified, or guys like Matt Taylor are getting distracted by scandals like Shirtgate, it tends to detract from the organization's efficiency and ability to complete its mission. People say that patriarchy would keep women from becoming astronauts, but the reality is that feminism just holds the organization back from scientific advances that would make it easier for women to travel to other planets, even if it is under male supervision.

What's the alternative? Well, we just need to acknowledge that a feminist social order doesn't work, and that the kind of egalitarian utopia people had in mind can't be realized.

It's like if someone were to ask, "What are we to do about this cruel animal testing involving rabbits?" Sure, we can ban it, and set the rabbits free to go frolic in the woods, but then wolves will eat a lot of them anyway. We could set up some nature preserve that's free of predators, but then the rabbits would breed to the point that some of them died of starvation or overcrowding. One could manage the population by sterilizing some of them, but is that really ethical, given that they haven't given informed consent to that.

The bottom line is that some creatures were just meant to be prey animals. So then it's just a question of, which kind of arrangement is the least harmful to them.

But, it's not only just that; there's also the question of, what about us? We are animals too and our rights and well-being are important as well. At the end of the day, you have to come to terms with your role in the food chain, which is to eat the lower animals and otherwise use them for your purposes. I mean, it's not like they wouldn't do the same to us if the situation were reversed; we see that when, say, wolves or mountain lions get the upper hand over humans.

And it's the same way with the sexes. When women get the upper hand over men, they treat them as badly, if not worse, than men would treat women if they were in charge of them. Female teachers, for instance, tend to focus more on helping the girls than the boys. And women try to take every dime they can in divorce proceedings, by any means the law allows.

It's just nature, red in tooth and claw. What would happen if the wolf ever started to get concerned about the well-being of the rabbit? He'd probably go extinct, and then probably every edible plant would get eaten because there weren't wolves to control the herbivores. Maybe it would have ripple effects making other creatures go extinct.

And it's the same way with humans. When there was a hierarchy with men above women, everyone worked fine, or at least, it was optimal and healthy and self-regulating. There was a balance of nature, with every creature fulfilling the place it had evolved for. But, feminism disturbed that balance, and made everyone miserable. And, now we face extinction.

The low fertility rates means that eventually girls will go extinct, so how can a "girllover" support that? Unless the idea is that the most compassionate thing is for them to stop existing, kind of like the attitude that PETA has toward pets that they "rescue" and then euthanize.