Unwanted child is no grounds to sue mum for lying about taking the pill?

 Unwanted child is no grounds to sue mum for lying about taking the pill

Sex is about consent. If two people have sex, they must trust each other.

She lied.

What would have happened if a man lied about contraception?

Feminist say that that is rape. Feminists have changed laws in some places to make that rape.

Yet I consistently see Feminists defending this decision.

He was the responsible party, not her.

He should have worn a condom.

Even though women can sabotage condoms or use them to get pregnant anyway, sometimes a long time afterwards.

The ‘theft’ itself was alarmingly easy to carry out. One night, after sex, I took the used condom and, in the privacy of the bathroom, I did what I had to do. Bingo.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2056875/Liz-Jones-baby-craving-drove-steal-husbands-sperm-ultimate-deception.html


Ex-girlfriend hid sperm and used for in-vitro pregnancy: suit

Men deceived into fatherhood are struggling to rescue their reproductive rights from the whim of women. Bettina Arndt reports.

Women have even tried, and presumably sometimes succeeded, to get pregnant when no penetration has occurred.

So where is the Feminist outrage at the double standard?

An appeals court said a man can press a claim for emotional distress after learning a former lover had used his sperm to have a baby. But he can’t claim theft, the ruling said, because the sperm were hers to keep.

https://archive.is/iXbjS from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7024930/#.Uc9r3n3LfK4 archived 29 Jun 2013 23:21:11 UTC


I am very much reminded of the case of Julian Assange, who was alleged to have also lied about a condom.

That warranted a gigantic police operation, even though "the two Swedish women who accuse WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of sexual misconduct were at first not seeking to bring charges against him"

https://archive.is/Y4kfm archived 4 Mar 2017 13:21:45 UTC from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-assange-charges-idUSTRE6B669H20101207

Further Reading:

https://community.babycenter.com/post/a52628875/pregnant_from_sperm_retrieved_from_a_condom

Feminists don’t want to join your club, they want to destroy it.

https://archive.is/E6j3H
archived from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/20/love-golf-muirfield-women-second-class

Alice, hater of men having fun.

How dare they! She won't stand for that!

Alice Arnold, Guardian writer says: "I won’t play where I’m thought of as second class", which I think we can all agree is very unfortunate, considering second class humanity would be such a leap for her to achieve.

However.

Her argument is that a male only club must, by definition, despise her as a second class citizen.

Female only clubs, are, of course, pure godly places, full of women farting rainbows and shitting cinnamon.

It claims itself to be “a gentleman’s club where golf is played” she states, without a moment's comprehension.

So it's a club for men - and they entertain themselves in various ways. She never presents a coherent argument why it's perfectly fine for white women to deny black men access to their clubs, but black men must allow her to sit on any of their conversations and make sure they aren't plotting against all women everywhere - i.e.,

"Another argument put forward by the “no” campaign is that not many women would want to join. Spot on. I do not want to join your [censored] club. "

She couldn't be more clear about this. She doesn't want to join, other women doesn't want to join - but she wants them punished for not letting her in the doors.


(I apologise for her strong language, but you know what these Feminist cunts are like).
But wait! There's more! The Guardian isn't done being cunts, not by a long shot.

Laura Bates - everyone is equal, but all men are subhuman scum. 

Muirfield golf club has lost the right to host the prestigious Open championship after Feminists like Laura had the malescum crushed for the heretical desire to have spaces where they aren't being policed by her basijis. 

The club was confused - they had heard the Feminist rhetoric about equality and thought that the previous definition - the one used in English, and not Feminism - still applied

“Why shouldn’t men be allowed their own space, when women have women-only gym and swimming sessions? Isn’t that sexist?”

Of course it is. The belief that women are intrinsically better than men is diametrically opposed to the ideas of the mainstream second wave Feminists, who marched arm in arm with husbands, sons and fathers, who thought they were making a better world for everyone, not setting up a new Apartheid.

" You want to know why we have women-only gym and swimming sessions? It’s not some shiny, special privilege bestowed on us lucky women because we just deserve nice things."



Liar! Feminists love privilege - they use "gynocentricism" - the centring of everything around women - to make sure all resources are spent on them, and none on men. In education, in health care, in transport, they enjoy privileges exactly as the White class in Apartheid era South Africa did.

Under Segregation, a black man was forced to sit at the back of the bus,
so as not to pollute the white woman with his presence.

Under Feminism, he's not even allowed on the bus.

"It is a direct result of the male harassment, sexism and sexual violence that has driven a quarter of women to give up exercising outside altogether"

A quarter of women?

Fascinating. There's around 3,562,500,000 women. Apparently, during The Golden Age, it was safe to be outside, but now thanks to the nightmare of sudden Patriarchy, 890,625,000 of them are quivering indoors.

There's no reference for any of this. The likelihood is she's looking at the women she knows, who are all getting rather pudgy, and had decided that they couldn't be responsible for it, oh no, it must be Gamergate or MRAs or the rampaging hordes of Old White Men forming rape-gangs ....




No. It's not the evil men making you fat, Feminists. It's you.


Rape gangs? Oh right, it's not the right sort of men who actually do do that, Feminists can't deal with them...

Nevertheless.

The violence statistics consistently trend downward.

Almost everyone has a recording device on them at all times - yet there's no evidence of this rabid murder-spree occurring outside the Feminist imagination.

We've seen this all before.

Where's the evidence to support their feelings? Is the argument that it is true because it feels true a sane one?


They are claiming that violence against women is increasing enormously in the West - despite no crime statistics, despite more money being spent on their care than is spent on men by far, despite the much longer lives women lead, despite every rational and reasonable voice in the world contradicting their hysteria...



The doublethink it requires to hold this position must exhaust the brains of these modern Feminists, which is why they seem so bloody stupid when compared to those who came before. I can't imagine CH Sommers refusing to do weights because some man might look at her with yearning.

Won’t somebody please think of the children?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3076586/Buses-emblazoned-picture-topless-models-holding-signs-saying-Ride-day-3-spark-outrage.html

There was a time when Feminists believed in sexual liberation. They saw that as empowering, and fought for the right to be free sexually as in other ways.

They saw censoring everything in case children saw it as wrong - why should you see sex as being shameful? Why should you try and pretend adults do not do these things?

This was the stance of their opponents - the uptight, the puritannical, the fanatical.

So what happens when some company puts up some jokes about sex?

Modern Feminists go mental. They claim these jokes promote sexism and ‘rape culture'.

I don’t see any discrimination on the basis of sex here. If anything, they are scrupulously fair and not at all heteronormative!

I think modern feminists think sexuality...  means... sexism!

“ Using a naked women”

(Ouch)

Ok, first off, they aren’t naked, and they are certainly more covered up than other feminists have been!

So they are back to the mindset of those shrill 1950s matrons. They’ll be telling the young gals to keep a penny between the knees next!

And where’s the bleedin’ rape? A joke about having sex for money equals rape? Is that how rape works? If a woman is selling her body for money, a man fucks her, and pays accordingly, is that magically rape now?

What am I saying? Of course it is!

http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2014/03/duke-porn-star-feminist-friend-or-foe/

Feminism. It has no consistent views except that everyone else is wrong.

Feminist declares men who use sexbots are rapists

Feminist knows nothing about robotics, cares nothing about researching robotics, still wants any man who has sex with a robot arrested as a rapist.

Women, of course, can keep screwing their machines, because the vagina-powered halo is just too bright to be denied!

Feminist Hypocrisy and Cultural Double-Standards

Reblogged from https://www.facebook.com/ExposingFeminism/photos/a.875870732441118.1073741856.500036446691217/1031117503583106/?type=3&theater



This recent video where a woman in Grand Central Station tries to "sexually assault" random men by tongue kissing them is portrayed as funny and cute by the media. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't the very same media that is obsessed with portraying men who simply say "hello" to women on the street as woman-hating, perverted, sex offenders.

People Magazine really upped the ante with demonstrating their double-standard by actually saying her act was "romantic" despite admitting the woman tried to force the men to kiss her despite pulling their faces away. Quote:

"Woman Attempts Romantic Kisses with Strangers in Grand Central Station"

http://tinyurl.com/o4eyoe5

http://tinyurl.com/nbfkv5d

Now let's look at how the same media portrayed a woman merely receiving comments from men on the streets as being a victim of sexual offenses by men. Quote:

"Watch This Woman Get Harassed 108 Times While Walking in New York City

She's just walking, wearing jeans and a crew-neck T-shirt"

http://tinyurl.com/m6yckhc

*Thanks to Allan for the "kiss me" info*

•´¯`•» мαgηαηιмσυs мαη «•´¯`•

The rules of Feminism

1) Never address your opponents points. Logic and reason are PATRIARCHY.
Instead, appeal to emotion - feel-feelz are our greatest ally!

2) If a male dissents, immediately dismiss anything they might say because they are male - mansplaining.



If it’s a female - internalised misogyny!

Disagreeing with a feminist means you hate all women! That will shame them into silence, or help whip up a mob against the logic attack!

3) Lie, lie, lie. I cannot emphasis this enough. When you wake up in the morning, when you are brushing your teeth, think, over and over, “the wage gap is real! the wage gap is real!”

Eventually you will believe it yourself. This will make lying so much easier.

For example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/23/jordan-high-school-gender-equality-bake-sale_n_6925692.html

Write an article: Women are only paid 78% what men are! Imply it’s for the same work (in the fine print, you can weasel out of it - just make sure they have the impression you want). Then, like the Feminist Initiative, propose a just solution: males must pay more.


Now those logic fascists will cry about apples and oranges, point out that men work longer hours and at harder jobs, and they will bring up dying at ten times the rate as a result - as if we cared about them dying!

So immediately dogpile on them - tell them it’s their big male egos talking! Call them pissbabies! Delete their comments if you can’t think of anything else!http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/23/jordan-high-school-gender-equality-bake-sale_n_6925692.html?fb_comment_id=fbc_1017817508246704_1018044391557349_1018044391557349#f18100b378
Krispen M. Nelson
·

Top Commenter ·
Missoula, Montana

How is this unfair or wrong, or hateful? My local YMCA has a sliding scale, people who make less can pay less. Is the Y being hateful?
Seems to me like if women are paid less, they should be charged less, at least if you want to be fair.

Reply
·
Like
·
Unfollow Post
·
about an hour ago

Brett Caton
·

Top Commenter ·
Pennant Hills High School

"How is this unfair or wrong, or hateful? "

That's just what I said when I charged the Jews who entered my shop a little extra, to make up for all the money they steal. I don't have any proof, but I read they do it on a website, so that's all the truth i need!

"My local YMCA has a sliding scale, people who make less can pay less. Is the Y being hateful? "

Ah, so they pay equally FOR THE SAME WORK? Huh. That sounds like they are obeying the law. Just like men are when they pay DIFFERENTLY for DIFFERENT work.

"Seems to me like if women are paid less"

for different work. Do you know what an average is? Because that's how the 'pay gap' myth goes.


You sum up all the money men earn, and average that, and compare the average to what women earn on average.


You ignore all the differences. You know they are there, but you also know what conclusion you want to get to. Men are wicked, women are their victims.. gotta massage the data until it says what you want it to say!

The fact men work longer? Who cares. They work dangerous jobs that gets them killed at ten times the rate? Sweep that under the rug!

This was exposed as a lie decades ago, but feminists keep repeating the Blood Libel. It helps whip up hate against men, and make women feel weak - and then Feminism leaps up and says "WE WILL SAVE YOU!!"

There's no difference from that and claiming jewish people are kidnapping christian babies for sacrifice to Satan. That was something hateful spread, knowing it was a lie, but so full of hate they just didn't care about the truth. And we know how that ended.

Never again.

http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/

Reply
·
Like
·
Unfollow Post
·
about an hour ago

Krispen M. Nelson
·

Top Commenter ·
Missoula, Montana

Wow.... >slow clap<

You should get an Oscar for that performance. What rapid escalation into hysteria. Is it your time of the month? You're getting so worked up. Just relax, you're delicate. The big girls can handle this for you. Stop worrying your pretty little head, Brett.

FYI, I took more than my fair share of stats, calculus, physics, and trig in college. I can read and understand research methods and data just fine. Clearly better than you can.

But what could I know? I'm just a girl.

Reply
·
Like
·
Unfollow Post
·
25 minutes ago

Brett Caton
·

Top Commenter ·
Pennant Hills High School

"FYI, I took more than my fair share of stats, calculus, physics, and trig in college. I can read and understand research methods and data just fine. "

Prove it. Prove all those economists wrong. I look forward to reading about your Nobel.

In the meanwhile - you resort to personal attacks - because YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem..

And no answers to any of my points, or of any of those raised decades ago when the lie first became obvious.

You don't care about the truth. Your hatred makes you blind.

Reply
·
Like
·
Unfollow Post
·
13 minutes ago

Now - as a class exercise, Feminists - how do you respond without dealing with any of his points?

Susan Dwyer, and why we must learn to stop worrying and love the Sisterhood.

The destruction of the presumption of innocence, a 1500 year old principle, is, in this Feminist's opinion,

"a welcome innovation"

"Despite the criticisms, a “yes means yes” policy is a welcome innovation in tackling sexual misconduct of all kinds"

ALL kinds? Great! So it will stop false rape accusations? Boy. That is one neat trick.

How, exactly, will it manage that?



" it targets the stereotypical attitudes about gender that lead to problematic sexual behavior"

 That women, like men, are able to articulate their opinions? Yes, I can see that would be very problematic, if you view women as frightened children.

 " if the new standard changes the conversation about sexual assault"

 Well, yes, it will now change it to "please do not charge me with sexual assault just out of a whim, which you can now do with impunity"

 "Consent creates a kind of moral magic"

 Strangly enough, law courts disagree with you. In every other arena, if you agree to something, then you agree to it. No magic there, sorry. Maybe... maybe I'm wrong! And Judge Judy is really a witch! Aieeee!

 But, yes, I can see YOU might find the notion of consent incomprehensible.

 "Some critics say that it is unclear what will count as affirmative consent"

 Yes. Because they asked the people enforcing it "what will count as affirmative consent". Still waiting on the answer, btw. Any day now. Any day.

 "the new standard does not require a signed contract between students before sexual activity may occur"

 Is that your legal opinion? Because the lawyers who've examined this say they have no idea how someone can establish consent. If they don't know, how come you do?

 Oh right. Magic. Sorry I asked.


 "After all, it is the rare individual who can specify in advance of a particular sexual episode what actions she consents to. "

 Nice of you to point out it's only females who can't do this, but I'm afraid you need to refine it further. It's feminists who are incapble. The rest of us manage just fine.

 "Could you say beforehand whether you will not consent to having your wrists firmly held above your head during intercourse?"

 Yes. Is that really difficult? Oh right, I'm talking to someone who thinks consent is witchcraft.

 "What it does require is conversation"

 In the middle of sex. To put it bluntly, instead of fucking like animals, you will now have to chatter continuously - and since you cannot prove someoen verbally consented, unless you record the event (which may itself be a crime), then your partner can renege after the event. As has been frequently pointed out, as you no doubt know about and just don't care.

 "sex may not typically be considered a chatty activity, but in truth, it’s only cultural assumptions that make us feel awkward asking our partners whether a certain activity is OK with them."

 Oh right, all those scientists who say otherwise, jeez, what idiots they must be. They should stop doing science and do more gender studies, like you.

 "On reflection, it should strike us as odd that we are supposed to know what our partners want "

 If only there was some sort of communication which was non-verbal... gosh... if only some bright spark could have invented that millions and millions of years ago.

 " One cannot presume, without considerable discussion, what a new partner might or might not enjoy. "

 Which is why I have to aks each partner if they would like to have their nails removed with pliers.

 "in such relationships affirmative consent may not be required in any definitive form"

 Except it's been pointed out no exceptions exist in the legislation, so thank you for giving legal advice WHEN YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED. YOU TURNIP.

 " one element of consent is always in play: It can be revoked at any time"

 Such as the second before a man ejaculates. Oh dear! He should have held it back! No doubt the next decade he spends behind bars being raped and beaten will teach him better control.

 "Although the change in policy is positive"

 in your opinion, which you are stating as fact.

 "Its adoption will not eliminate sexual assault on campus. "

 Finally got something right!


 "specialized victim support"

 For everyone? Or just women? It's just women, isn't it?

 "confidentiality and reporting protocols."

 Because the ability to face your accuser is so passe! If Jane Demoray wants to destroy Brent Smith, why, she can just say he done the deed, and be Believed. That's what your propaganda says we should do with 'survivors'. "Believe". Don't think!! Believe.

 " its adoption will, over time, change the perspective from which students and administrators view sexual misconduct"

 Yes. Student males will know that any sexual contact with a female can arbitrarily result in their destruction. Administrators will know that 1500 years of legal principle has been erased. Without any ballot on the matter, no referendum...Innocent Until Proven Guilty? Just. Gone.

 " only a morally repulsive assumption about women’s psychology would lead us to think that the policy increases the mendacity of those who report sexual assault."

 Ah. Ad hominem. How refreshing. It's been minutes since of your mob launched one at me. Did you want to tell me I have a stinky bottom too?


 " The change shifts the burden of proof from the accuser, who had to show that she resisted, to the accused, who must now show that he sought and received her consent"

 As I said. No more presumption of innocence. And no legal way is outlined to prove innocence. If accused, guilty. I'm surprised you bother with trials. Will you televise them? Will you make them confess, weeping, of their crimes against The Party?


 "The sexual abuse of women has a long and complex history"

 Oh, and here I was thinking feminism was about equality. EGALITARIANS WOULD HAVE SAID IT WAS EVERYONE'S SEXUAL ABUSE THAT MATTERED.

 " arguably, the causes of sexual assault on campus and the situations in which it occurs differ from those in wider society"

 I can argue the moon is a giant turnip, it doesn't make it true. YOU HAVE ADVANCED NO EVIDENCE. YOU MERELY WEASEL-WORD YOUR WAY THROUGH LIFE.

 "Susan Dwyer is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Maryland."

 I weep for the University of Maryland.

 "she specializes in areas at the intersection of moral philosophy"

 Yet seems devoid of any herself.


" constitutional law"

What? i don't see a law degree here. http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/people/dwyer#tabs-1

Was it bought over the internet? Hope you kept the receipt!

" feminist theory"

didn't see that coming. Really, what more do you need to say?

'Bullying' husbands face jail under new proposals by Theresa May

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11043785/Bullying-husbands-face-jail-under-new-proposals-by-Theresa-May.html

Home Secretary unveils plan to criminalise "domestic abuse" which involves no violence

I can't see any details but there have been other domestic abuse websites I've read which listed "withholding sex" and "demanding sex" as both being abuse. So if a man doesn't want to have sex - that's a crime. If he points out that they haven't had sex for a while - that's a crime.

There's no chance this will help men who are genuine victims of domestic abuse. Her language is sly, but the victimisation of women is constantly reinforced.

So, without any evidence, a woman can say to her partner "give me money or i'll allege you abused me". And that threat will be serious. If prosecuted, his life will be ruined.

This law will load a gun and put it in the hands of any woman in a relationship with a man, with no repercussions if it's abused.

I guess the MGTOW movement in the UK is just going to get stronger.
"Sexual violence

Examples of sexual violence include: discounting the partner's feelings regarding sex; criticizing the partner sexually; touching the partner sexually in inappropriate and uncomfortable ways; withholding sex and affection; always demanding sex; forcing partner to strip as a form of humiliation (maybe in front of children), to witness sexual acts, to participate in uncomfortable sex or sex after an episode of violence, to have sex with other people; and using objects and/or weapons to hurt during sex or threats to back up demands for sex."

"discounting the partner's feelings regarding sex; criticizing the partner sexually"

Women do these things to men all the time. Belittling a man's sexual prowess is pretty normal in toxic relationships and encouraged by Feminist websites, and I agree it's abuse - but should be dealt with by ending the relationship. Being able to imprison a man - and there's no chance it'll be used against a woman - on an allegation without evidence is just appalling.

"withholding sex and affection""always demanding sex"
So if he says "i have a headache", it's abuse. If she says it.. it's not.. if he complains that she always says that, well, he's abusing her.

The Blurred Lines of Feminist Double Standards

beaconsoftomorrow

(  adapted from
http://beaconsoftomorrow.tumblr.com/post/65005272570/so-theres-a-post-asking-women-who-are-offended)

So, there’s a post asking women who are offended by Blurred Lines to reblog it. It started at about 190 notes when I first saw it in my first class. By the next class it reached over 70,000 notes. Damn. The men’s version only has around 1,000 notes.

Anyways, this got me to thinking. Obviously women are more offended by songs about women. But were there going to be people getting mad that more men weren’t offended? I thought to myself for a while and realized that there are a lot of songs I enjoy that involve men being killed, stalked or beaten.

So, I have to ask, if Blurred Lines is offensive, what about these songs?









And these music videos:

Why I Need Men's Rights

Oratorasaurus' quick answer


My answer?

Well, I'm an egalitarian and an MRA. I want a world without double standards.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleStandardAbuseFemaleOnMale
, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A, http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/why-are-there-such-double-standards.html

Did you know that female rape is legally erased by the clever use of definitions?

http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/rape-erasure-blog-reblogged.html

RAINN uses the dodgy definition and is endlessly quoted as evidence of the perversity of men. At the same time, women get lighter sentences and are coddled by the media for acts of sexual perversity http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/female-pedophiles-get-weekend-detention.html, http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/lesbians-need-to-be-taught-not-to-rape.html

In India, recently, the definition of rape was legally changed to mean no woman could be charged with it. http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/a-sad-day-for-male-rape-victims-in-india/
https://archive.is/jaJRz 6 May 2015 03:36:54 UTC

 In Israel, feminists agitated to make sure the immunity remained on the books there. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape
https://archive.is/SkIjG  8 Aug 2015 11:34:52 UTC

The ratio of rape victims is actually pretty close to 1:1 for male and females. http://www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/

I want legal equality, which means that if there's a domestic dispute, my sex isn't an issue (and it is in the US, the arrest guidelines are to arrest 1 party, and it's the taller one, which usually means the man). http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/primary-or-predominant-aggressor-laws.html

I want to know I'm relatively safe when I have sex that I won't have a false accusation of rape (http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/false-rape-accusations.html)..

..that if i'm drunk and they're drunk, and the law says drunk people can't consent, either we both should be charged - or neither. http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/women-cannot-consent-because-they-are.html, http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/consent-continued.html

I want to know my life is as valued as a woman's. When i look at the money invested in breast cancer vs prostate cancer, or in domestic violence shelters, or the opposition to universal, rather than male-only conscription, I don't see it at all. Men are disposable.

Going from the imagery google presents, females perpetrating DV is non-existent.

Almost all police and governmental campaigns show
heterosexual relationships,
male perp,
female victim
- even when a woman massacred her seven kids and her niece.
Or eight of her own children.

I've talked to criminologists who claimed there were NO cases of DV where a woman was at fault. None.


 I know first hand that's only happening because they ignore them. Legal support is gender specific. http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/why-dont-men-in-australia-get-same-path.html


I'm hoping my friend has a better outcome, but i can tell you that even with voice recordings of threats, he still couldn't get an AVO  - police protection from his ex - and she still shares custody despite a history of violence. http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/men-in-sweden-are-at-least-as-likely.html


I want Men’s reproductive rights

    Right to know one is, or will be a father.
    Right to Legal Paternal Surrender.
    Right to Ownership of Person (i.e. semen, c.f. Woman Used Sperm From Oral Sex To Get Pregnant, Gets Child Support for example).

Right to know you’re a father, right to determine you’re not ready to be a father, and right to prosecute those who misuse your semen to their own ends.

I never, ever want to see a headline like this again, but I know I will because men and male sexuality is demonised now, men are seen as filthy rape monsters, barely restrained but always close to the edge . http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/boy-15-kills-himself-after-facing.html

I want to see an end to the Duluth model (http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/tthe-duluth-model-of-misandry.html), which says that only women should be parents, and which was instituted by feminists.

It's the reason men are so bitter about child custody. It's resulted in situations where a woman can rape a child - then demand payments for the offspring. http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/a-12-year-old-boy-can-be-raped-then.html

Woman, 18, charged with boy's rape at church

In my country, aboriginal men are arrested for possessing pornography that is perfectly legal for anyone else... the belief that male sexuality is dangerous, and that our masturbation aids must be destroyed, our penises mutilated, our gaze lowered, and all sexual advances prohibited, is a weird combination of christian and feminist beliefs.

We live in a time when men are forever told they are unwanted - "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" - "my vibrator is better than your body!"

I cannot imagine a woman would ever hear the equivalent of those statements.

I remember when men could feel pride, could feel desired, and were willing to fight and die for this country.

Most young men now seem somewhat ashamed of being born. Or they radicalise, either becoming MRAs, or religious fanatics. Religion offers self-worth to men -put at a terrible price. Look at the young men in the US who became muslim terrorists - why do you think they found that lethal ideology appealing?

I have to wonder, when men are taught they are worthless.. why should they put their neck on the line for women? Why should they have to die to protect a system that claims they are useless? Why should any man be intimate with a woman who says he is unwanted? Or who at least, doesn't oppose her Sisters who claim he is?

Finally, we live in a time when my speech - my opposition to feminism - looks like it will become a crime in some countries like Sweden, a ban which looks to be spreading-  and such speech -which i hope you will agree is nonviolent - has been used to ban youtube and other social media accounts.


http://brettcaton.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/should-laws-be-passed-to-suppress.html Violence is being used to stifle the expression of people like me.

So even if you don't believe a single word of anything I have said, ask yourself this:

What violence have MRA groups done?

https://youtu.be/FWxAljFlb-c

What violence is being done to MRAs?

Isn't opposing that violence and allowing free speech the reason we fought against the fascists in WW2? The reason that millions of people died, and yet we still counted that sacrifice as worthwhile? Will it all have been in vain?

Men and women... are people. No better, no worse. Fellow travellers on the road of humanity, equal sharers of the land and sky. That is the single truth of Men's Rights. And that is why you need it too.

Chanting RAPE CULTURE RAPE CULTURE RAPE CULTURE does not make it real

Rape culture, in the west, is a myth. If there was any truth to it, then the boys wouldn't have been punished.

Well, it's a myth to an extent... when women rape, it's not even acknowledged as such by the FBI. It's not even counted as a crime in many countries thanks to changes made by Feminists recently. 

Even in Israel.

Even in the UK!

When women rape, they ARE coddled, excuses are made by the media, Feminists and even judges, their childhood investigated to find out who victimised them into doing such an unnatural thing.

Their sentences, when they are convicted, are shorter. Their prison conditions.. better. Baroness Corston dedicated her life to closing women's prisons, because the poor dears don't deserve to be punished, not like those filthy men.

And in rape trials men are guilty unless proven innocent, despite false allegations ranging up to 90%.

So what do I see here? I see a woman so smug in her self-entitlement and professional victimhood that she is happy to rage males for a system that punishes males for an act universally condemned ... by males. That refuses to acknowledge female on female rape can possibly even exist, let alone be common.

I see a man so lost in internalised misandry that he will fight to the death to protect a woman's right to rape without consequence, or accuse him of rape without evidence. 

These people chant their dogma, hoping you will believe, oh yea! -  believe, brothers and sisters!

Well, here's something I ask you to try instead.

Mother pimped out her own daughter

Mother accused of allowing sex with young daughter, selling nude photos online

A mother is accused of selling nude photos of her 11-year-old daughter, and worse, investigators say she even allowed men to pay for sex with the girl.

Crawford County investigators say she had taken countless nude photos of her now 11-year-old daughter and sold them to men through social media.

The girl’s grandfather told News 4 he can’t believe it and now, he wants justice for everyone involved. “I hope they get him, the password computer dude, I hope they get him too and I hope he’s sitting beside her and I hope they are both in there for awhile,” the grandfather said.

(source: Lauren Trager / News 4)

I'm glad she was caught, but it's a shame the grandfather looks at this and just sees a third party as having equal responsibility, instead of acknowledging her agency. It was the mother's wickedness that caused all this to happen above and beyond all else.

No word yet as to whether Baroness Jean Corston will be flying to be by her side at her time in need. After all, women don't deserve to be in prison, do they, Baroness? 


Updated with a few more cases:

Mother-of-four, 25, charged with trying to SELL her 10-month-old baby girl for $500

Middle Tennessee mom sentenced to 40 years for raping own children

Revenge Prawn

From

There's been quite a few cases of men doing this to women and I had assumed the reverse happened as I used to hear many nasty stories of revenge from the women at WEL (an umbrella organisation of Feminist groups).

There was a discussion in the media of a case where a young girl made porn starring herself, and sent it on, and then the boy she sent it to swapped it with his mates.. they were all charged, although apparently she was given a nice cup of tea and a box of tissues, despite legally being guilty of kiddie porn manufacture.

When the case was discussed, it was always in the format of male perps, female victims.. standard issue, of course. But what will happen if the sexes are reversed? Can a woman... be prosecuted?

Yeah, I know, not in this universe.

StabbyRaccoon's take on "Blurred lines"

Reblogged from StabbyRaccoon

−

A lot of people are saying that it's a song about rape but I don't think that they're using sound lyrical interpretation techniques. Looking at a few lines out of context like this article does isn't exactly a great way to determine what a song is actually about. You have to look at all of the lyrics and clues and put them together to see if they create a coherent idea.

(Caveat: yes these are incredibly douchey lyrics, but we're only focused on rape here)

I should note that to really understand what a song is about you have to start from the beginning. If you have heard a few lines on the radio and interpreted one way, it's best to discard your preconceived notions and approach it with a clear mind.

First relevant stanza:

"If you can't hear what I'm trying to say
If you can't read from the same page
Maybe I'm going deaf,
Maybe I'm going blind
Maybe I'm out of my mind
[Pharell:] Everybody get up"

Ambiguous, he's trying to say something to someone. I don't think that we can infer anything yet.

Second stanza:

"OK now he was close, tried to domesticate you
But you're an animal, baby, it's in your nature
Just let me liberate you
Hey, hey, hey
You don't need no papers
Hey, hey, hey
That man is not your maker"

So here we get an explanation and we start to see a story forming. Thick is talking to a woman who's in a relationship and trying to persuade her to let him "liberate" her from it. Apparently with his penis. Now that's a pretty douchey thing to do but there's no indication that he's going to rape her, right now he's simply trying to explain the amazing benefits of sleeping with him.

"And that's why I'm gon' take a good girl
I know you want it
I know you want it
I know you want it
You're a good girl
Can't let it get past me
You're far from plastic
Talk about getting blasted
I hate these blurred lines
I know you want it
I know you want it
I know you want it
But you're a good girl
The way you grab me
Must wanna get nasty
Go ahead, get at me
[Pharell:] Everybody get up

Here he tells us that she's "grabbing him" and so he knows that she wants him. I can see how that might sound "rapey" to some because of the "I know you want it's" but try to remember that while this may be the language of a date-rapist, it can also be the language of seduction. "I know you want me babe, go ahead, get at me". And that line "go ahead, get at me" also works against the rape hypothesis, he wants her to make the move. If it was about rape we might expect something like "Now I'ma rape ya" or something, not putting the onus on her, because that's not what a rapist does.

"Can't let it get past me" could be taken to mean that there's no way he's going to let her leave without sex, or it might just be normal motivation to finally seduce her. "I can't let this chance pass me by" is similar and could indicate that someone is highly motivated to get a job, but doesn't mean that if they don't get hired then they're going to try to work there anyway.

And of course "I hate these blurred lines". Well that could be interpreted as blurred lines between consenting and not consenting, but it could also mean blurred lines between her being in a committed relationship and being available to have sex with him. And considering the overall storyline of the song we should probably take the latter interpretation. He hates that she can't seem to make up her mind. And if it was a song about date rape then he probably wouldn't be "hating" the blurred lines, he would already be across the line, it wouldn't be such a torment to him.

"What do they make dreams for
When you got them jeans on
What do we need steam for
You the hottest bitch in this place
I feel so lucky
Hey, hey, hey
You wanna hug me
Hey, hey, hey
What rhymes with hug me?
Hey, hey, hey"

This is simply more of the same. He thinks she's hot and they're flirting.

T.I's douchey rap is uneventful so I won't post it, it's quite long. Basically just him talking about all the things he wants to do sexually. None of it implies rape.

"Shake the vibe, get down, get up
Do it like it hurt, like it hurt
What you don't like work?

Pop-music nonsense, basically.

"Baby can you breathe? I got this from Jamaica
It always works for me, Dakota to Decatur, uh huh
No more pretending
Hey, hey, hey
Cause now you winning
Hey, hey, hey
Here's our beginning"

I'm not entirely sure what he's talking about. "I got this from Jamaica" might be interpreted as a date rape drug reference if you're REALLY hell-bent on thinking that this is about rape, but "can you breathe" could also indicate that he means strong Jamaican cologne that helps him get the ladies. I don't see a reason to think that this is about date rape drugs.

So I think that it's clear that these lyrics will only be interpreted as being about rape if you desperately want to call people rapists and constantly think about rape. Now who does that? Hmm...

Finally, language like "kind of rapey" is nonsensical and a bad idea. There's no such thing as being "kind of rapey" you're either raping or promoting rape or you're not, this kind of ambiguous language is intended to smear someone without taking on the responsibility of accusing them. But "this song is about rape and Robin Thicke is endorsing rape" is untenable so that's the final resort I suppose.

If you want to say that it's a douchey or sexist song or that this kind of sexuality is a bad idea, that's fine. But when we get into the legal realm things become more serious, you can't wave around these accusations flippantly.

(source)

The feminist response was to make a video where they boasted about castrating men and how they didn't want them sexually now they had sex toys, which they proceed to force into men's throats. If I was a male subbie, I might think that was brilliant, especially if I was insanely masochistic (is castration a fetish? probably).

But i have to say, Thicke's song is about sahred pleasure, feminists counter that by removing the capacity for pleasure.

One said "as a woman, when i saw the video i felt so disrespected, i mean, women can put their tits out without anyone thinking is out of control, but for a men bancing around with his dick is a depravante image? just an example that's is quite normal in our society" So presumably they'll be outraged at this!

Oh wait... that's a feminist protest? Oh can't question the Sisterhood, it's not sexism in that case, it's empowerment! Liberation! Freedom! For women only...