Thursday, March 31, 2016

Get off it,Meg

One of the controversial topics right now is that altercation between Trump's campaign manager,Corey Lewandowski,and a Breitbart reporter,Michelle Fields,who ran past the Secret Service even though she wasn't supposed to just to get to Trump and reach out and touch him.Lewandowski was just doing his job,watching out for his candidate. Fields claims that Lewandowski assaulted her and she almost fell down,that she was close to falling down. Now a video has surfaced that shows Fields was not close to falling down and that she may have lied about it. From the looks of the video that may the case. There were no signs that Lewandowski hurt Fields or is even guilty of assaulting her. That is not good enough for Megyn Kelly. According to Kelly Lewandowski is guilty and should have the book thrown at him. Kelly along with Katie Pavlich,Dana Loesch and Mark Theissen somehow think that Fields was a victim and that Trump is a bad man. Just one thing: white knight Sean Hannity and former federal jurist Andrew Napolitano also looked at that video and said the prosecution doesn't have a case and the prosecutor is a friend of Hillary's. If that is the case then this is politically motivated. So is Kelly's crusade against Trump. I can trust Napolitano's decision because he weighs the evidence the way a jurist should. Kelly on the other hand is leading a bias persecution team against Trump. Theissen incorrectly said that Trump is on a revenge mission against Megyn Kelly. I would say it is the other way around. Kelly is the one with a grudge and her anti-Trump crusade proves it.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Dedicated to Megyn Kelly and women like her

Chivalry is dead

That's right. Dead as a door nail. All there is now is equality. Nothing else. Your representatives,feminists,have made the decision for you and we recognize that they represent all women. You will be judged the same way a man would be and you should pay the same price a man has to when you fuck up. You are unworthy of any special attention and you are unworthy of any special rights. You are not special you never have been. Shooting a baby out of your cunt does not make you special. If you claim you are special because of it then I will say I'm special because I can shoot sperm out of my dick. You do not deserve special treatment at work nor do you need special treatment in being held accountable. That is equality. True equality not the cherry picking bullshit that the castrati let you get away but genuine equality. Welcome to it.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, March 26, 2016

Attention gay men: stay out of our movement

Unlike A Voice For Men that opens you with open arms and open asscheeks we don't want you. You have your rainbow mafia that pushes itself on everyone else and you've sided with feminists. For those reasons fuck off. You made you bed now lie in it. You practiced misandry toward your hetero brethren and now the feminists have turned against you. Too fucking bad. Maybe a voice for men puts up with faggots like you but the Men's Rights Blog never will. You're not dragging this movement down. I will see to that. Roosh is right and I agree with him. We don't want you nor do we need you.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, March 20, 2016

Supergirl is not that tough

Megyn Kelly Leaves Fans Speechless With Shocking AnnouncementBy AmericanAdmin
onMarch 19, 2016

Megyn Kelly has remained silent about her feud with GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, which has been in the limelight of conservative news for the past few months. Recently, however, she decided to break her silence…

This week, Kelly revealed which Fox News host she blames for not defending her.

In the April issue of MORE, Kelly discussed the GOP front-runner’s decision to nix the debate she moderated in Iowa. She claimed she wished Bill O’Reilly had stuck up for her when he spoke to Donald Trump the night before.

Kelly said:“I do wish that O’Reilly had defended me more in his interview with Trump…I would have defended him more,” she told the Daily Mail.

“Honestly? People think I’m fearless. But I’m human,” she continued. “I was not looking forward to going out on that stage and dealing with Trump if he was going to attack me. “

“I felt the pressure of that and the stress of that,” Kelly added. “But I also knew I would walk through that fear and I would go out there and I would handle it. I can muster up the courage in the difficult situations to get me through.”

This interview came just days after Trump refused to participate in the next debate being moderated by Kelly, forcing Fox to cancel it entirely. Though the experience has been traumatic for Kelly, she hopes it will bring about change in the future.

“It’s always fun to beat up on the moderators in the press – I get that – but there is a boundary one should not cross, and hopefully this helped define where it is,” she said. “I’ve been thinking about that Margaret Thatcher quote where she said something like, ‘I love when they attack me personally because it means they don’t have a political argument left.’”


I thought this was the feminist superwoman who could do it all. That is how she comes off yet Trump reduced Kelly to a little girl crying because no men would defend her. Well,Megyn,when you come off as feminazi bitch of the year men don't defend you. Besides you are always coming off tough but when someone calls your bluff you run away like the little girl you are. First Marc Rudov and now Donald Trump. Poor little Megyn gets owned-royally.

Labels: , , , ,

The one,two combo

Let's do a one,two combo that results in a knockout. What I am referring to is telling select Senators the actions of Catherine Lhamon and the damage that she has caused this nation. Letting these Senators know that she has engage in criminal action. the more of us that do this the better.

Labels: , , , ,

Surprise surprise surprise (no,not really)

As Hillary Clinton Sweeps States, One Group Resists: White Men


Dennis Bertko, a construction manager in Youngstown, Ohio, said that Hillary Clinton “could have a broader message.” Credit Mark Makela for The New York Times

White men narrowly backed Hillary Clinton in her 2008 race for president, but they are resisting her candidacy this time around in major battleground states, rattling some Democrats about her general-election strategy.

While Mrs. Clinton swept the five major primaries on Tuesday, she lost white men in all of them, and by double-digit margins in Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio, exit polls showed — a sharp turnabout from 2008, when she won double-digit victories among white male voters in all three states.

She also performed poorly on Tuesday with independents, who have never been among her core supporters. But white men were, at least when Mrs. Clinton was running against a black opponent: She explicitly appealed to them in 2008, extolling the Second Amendment, mocking Barack Obama’s comment that working-class voters “cling to guns or religion” and even needling him at one point over his difficulties with “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans.”

She could not sound more different today, aggressively campaigning to toughen gun-control laws and especially courting black and Hispanic voters.

Her standing among white men does not threaten her clinching the Democratic nomination this year, or preclude her from winning in November, unless it craters. Mr. Obama lost the white vote to Mrs. Clinton, after all, but still won the presidency.

Forrest Giffin, a mall supervisor from Sumter, S.C., said, “I really wonder if she wants people like me in the Democratic Party.” Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

But what is striking is the change in attitudes about Mrs. Clinton among those voters, and her struggle to win them over again. In dozens of interviews in diners, offices and neighborhoods across the country, many white male Democrats expressed an array of misgivings, with some former supporters turning away from her now.

Many said they did not trust her to overhaul the economy because of her wealth and her ties to Wall Street. Some said her use of private email as secretary of state indicated she had something to hide. A few said they did not think a woman should be commander in chief. But most said they simply did not think Mrs. Clinton cared about people like them.

“She’s talking to minorities now, not really to white people, and that’s a mistake,” said Dennis Bertko, 66, a construction project manager in Youngstown, Ohio, as he sipped a draft beer at the Golden Dawn Restaurant in a downtrodden part of town. “She could have a broader message. We would have listened.”

“Instead, she’s talking a lot about continuing Obama’s policies,” he said. “I just don’t necessarily agree with all of the liberal ideas of Obama.”

Mr. Bertko said that he rarely crossed party lines but that he voted for Donald J. Trump, who is making a strong pitch to disaffected white men by assailing free-trade agreements that Mrs. Clinton once supported. “I know a lot of guys who are open to Trump,” he said.

The fading of white men as a Democratic bloc is hardly new: The last nominee to carry them was Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and many blue-collar “Reagan Democrats” now steadily vote Republican. But Democrats have won about 35 to 40 percent of white men in nearly every presidential election since 1988. And some Democratic leaders say the party needs white male voters to win the presidency, raise large sums of money and, like it or not, maintain credibility as a broad-based national coalition.

To win a general election, Mrs. Clinton would rely most heavily on strong turnout from blacks, Hispanics, women and older voters. Though she won among white men in Arkansas, Alabama and Tennessee, and tied in Texas, some Democratic officials and pollsters say they fear that without a stronger strategy, Mrs. Clinton could perform as poorly among white men as Walter Mondale, who drew just 32 percent in 1984, or even George McGovern, who took 31 percent in 1972.

“Her most serious relationship problem is with white men, on a policy issue front but also stylistically, and she is at real risk for running worse than the average Democrat with white males,” said Peter Hart, a veteran Democratic pollster.

Bill Richardson, former governor of New Mexico and energy secretary under President Clinton, said Mrs. Clinton needed to focus more on economic issues and job creation and to deploy her husband on her behalf. “Priority needs to be given to stopping the erosion of the white male voter and Reagan Democrats to Republicans,” he said.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers expressed confidence, saying her economic policies and national security experience would appeal strongly to white men in a general election. They said she regularly won among those over 45 and argued that Senator Bernie Sanders’s appeal among younger white men reflected his popularity with young people generally.
Graphic: Florida Exit Polls

Joel Benenson, Mrs. Clinton’s strategist and pollster, predicted she would win at least 35 percent of white men nationally — the share Mr. Obama took in 2012 — and even more in battleground states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. But he insisted that focusing on white men overlooked the breadth of her support.

“Winning is never about slicing and dicing the electorate,” he said. “What you have to do is create a diverse coalition of voters that enables you to win, and win repeatedly. That’s what Hillary Clinton has done, and that’s what Bernie Sanders has failed to do.”

But Mrs. Clinton is clearly focusing more so far on nonwhites, who provide outsize shares of the delegates needed to win the nomination. Her political message, events and surrogate speakers have been geared largely to blacks and Hispanics, from denouncing gun violence and police abuses to promising improvements in immigration and education.

Eight years ago, Mrs. Clinton appealed to whites to counter Mr. Obama’s popularity among minority voters. She ran as a moderate and a national security hawk, and fondly recalled how her father taught her to shoot. Some political analysts said she also benefited among white men because many were not comfortable voting for a black man.

Mrs. Clinton’s political challenges now center on the controversies stemming from her time as secretary of state and doubts about her willingness to take on Wall Street.

“There are all these questions about her past, and she doesn’t give straight responses about them,” said Forrest Giffin, 23, a Democrat in Sumter, S.C., who cited Mrs. Clinton’s refusal to release transcripts of her paid speeches to banks. Mr. Giffin, a mall supervisor and assistant manager at a gas station, added, “I really wonder if she wants people like me in the Democratic Party.”

Terry Downs, a retired art professor who was impressed by Mrs. Clinton in Plymouth, N.H., last fall, said he was won over by Mr. Sanders’s economic policies. “I just thought there’s a lot of hypocritical lip service coming from Hillary when she talks like a strong progressive,” he said. “She and her husband received millions of dollars from Wall Street.”

In Ohio, a plurality of white men said honesty and trustworthiness were the most important qualities in a candidate, and 89 percent of them voted for Mr. Sanders, according to exit polls. Of the four in 10 who wanted a president to pursue more liberal policies than Mr. Obama’s, a wide majority favored Mr. Sanders.

In Youngstown, a city battered by job losses, Mrs. Clinton’s record was a flash point at the Golden Dawn.

“Being an ex-serviceman, the situation with Benghazi still upsets me greatly,” said Hayden Gerdes, 72, referring to the terrorist attacks in Libya. A Clinton voter in 2008, he chose Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, on Tuesday.

Mr. Gerdes had a sparring partner in Dick Lucarell, 73, who voted for Mrs. Clinton in 2008 and again on Tuesday. Mr. Lucarell said that Mrs. Clinton was the target of unfair Republican attacks, and that she and her husband would be “a strong team.” But he also said she had yet to give white men compelling reasons to stay in the party.

“If I’m a woman, I probably vote for Hillary. If I’m Hispanic, I vote for Hillary. Blacks will vote for Hillary,” Mr. Lucarell said. “But white people, especially white men — she has a big problem there.”


All men out there should take note. Caucasian or not if you are a man Hillary hates you. Never forget that. When Hillary was Senator for New York she refused to meet with father's rights groups. That means that a lot of fathers and their children were fucked over because Hillary is a misandrist. That includes non-Caucasian fathers as well.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Bipartisan drive to restore due process on college and univerity campuses

Drive to Restore Due Process on Campus Gains Traction


March 7, 2016

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) on campus sexual assault in 2011. Even though the directive imposed a substantial number of new mandates on colleges, the OCR neglected to submit the policy for public review and comment – in direct violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

In response, a growing number of lawmakers are speaking out on the need to refer campus sex cases to criminal justice authorities and restore due process on campus:[i]

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “I think a crime of rape off campus or a crime of rape on campus ought to be treated the same way. And the sooner it’s treated the same way, the sooner the message is going to get out that you can’t get away with something on campus that you couldn’t get away with someplace else.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT): “If a student rapes another student it has got to be understood as a very serious crime, it has to get outside of the school and have a police investigation.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): “As a former United States Attorney and Attorney General for my state, I am concerned that law enforcement is being marginalized when it comes to the crime of campus sexual assault.”

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): “Sexual assault can destroy lives, but so can false allegations of sexual assault. One need only review recent news reports to know that false allegations do, in fact, happen. Certainly, we should make additional efforts to protect due process on campus.”

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA): “I do believe you do need, for the accused, you need to maintain due process rights.… I think this part of the legislation [Campus Accountability and Safety Act] will probably require some additional review.”

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

In January, Sen. James Lankford, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, wrote a letter to the Department of Education asking the agency to justify the legal authority behind its DCLs of 2010 on bullying and of 2011 on sexual assault.

The Department of Education responded on February 17, saying its new mandates represented a “construction” of its interpretation of Title IX.

In his March 4 reply, Sen. Lankford stated the Dept. of Education letter “failed to assuage my concerns that OCR has issued guidance documents” that “advance policies not found within the pages of [Title IX’s] statutory and regulatory texts.” Sen. Lankford called on Acting Secretary King to “immediately rein in the regulatory abuses within the Department of Education.”[ii]

It’s deplorable that the Office of Civil Rights would repeatedly violate the Administrative Procedure Act, and then make shallow excuses for its pattern of abusive behavior to a Congressional oversight committee.


Numerous senators have expressed concerns how current OCR policies are marginalizing the criminal justice system, about the lack of due process, and regarding federal agencys’ Title IX policy-making or enforcement methods:

A. Minimizing the Role of the Criminal Justice System:

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “I think a crime of rape off campus or a crime of rape on campus ought to be treated the same way. And the sooner it’s treated the same way, the sooner the message is going to get out that you can’t get away with something on campus that you couldn’t get away with someplace else.”[1]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT): “Rape and assault is rape or assault whether it takes place on a campus or a dark street…If a student rapes another student it has got to be understood as a very serious crime, it has to get outside of the school and have a police investigation and that has to take place.”[2]

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): “As a former United States Attorney and Attorney General for my state, I am concerned that law enforcement is being marginalized when it comes to the crime of campus sexual assault. I am concerned that the specter of flawed law enforcement overshadows the harm of marginalized law enforcement.”[3]

B. Lack of Due Process:

Marco Rubio (R-FL): “Sexual assault can destroy lives, but so can false allegations of sexual assault. One need only review recent news reports to know that false allegations do, in fact, happen. Certainly, we should make additional efforts to protect due process on campus.”[4]

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA): “I do believe you do need, for the accused, you need to maintain due process rights.… I think this part of the legislation [Campus Accountability and Safety Act] will probably require some additional review.”[5]

C. Unlawful Policy-Making Procedures:

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN): “What you’re doing is writing out detailed guidance for 22 million students on 7,200 campuses, and it’s just — it could be your whim, your idea. We make the law. You don’t make the law. Where does such a guidance authority come from?”[6]

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK): The “Department of Education’s Office for Civil Right (OCR) Dear Colleague letters on harassment and bullying (issued October 23, 2010) and sexual violence (issued April 4, 2011)… purport to interpret statements of existing law; however, while both broadly cite to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), the letters fail to point to precise governing statutory or regulatory language that support their sweeping policy changes.”[7]

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): “Given that the interpretation of Title IX has such a widespread impact on the well-being of young students, it is troublesome that significant changes to nationwide sexual harassment policy were unilaterally dictated by DOJ – through a settlement – rather than through congressional or regulatory action.”[8] (in reference to the University of Montana Settlement Agreement that was referred to as a “blueprint” for other universities)

D. Heavy-Handed Enforcement Practices:

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Timothy Kaine (D-VA) sent a letter to Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan on August 25, 2015 in support of the concerns of Gov. Terry McAuliffe regarding a Title IX investigation of the University of Virginia, and called for a “fair and thorough process for all involved.”[9]


Citations at source.

This is a first. This is a bipartisan look at men's rights. This is a first and it is long overdue. Thank you to both sides of the aisle for coming together to make sure justice is served and that your male constituents are not railroaded by a misandric system. Click on the links to thank these Senators for their brave stance and since they are helping us we can help them in return and the best way to do that is to vote for them when they are running for re-election or if that is not possible encourage other registered voters registered in their districts to vote for them. They fought for us the least we can do is help them keep their jobs.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, March 13, 2016

Ted Cruz's reinstatement

I've given it a lot of thought and I want to thank anonymous for writing what he wrote. He is right and that is why the Men's Rights Blog is officially endorsing Ted Cruz for President of the United States of America. Ted Cruz is a man of the people and he has kept his word. CSPAN2 will testify to that. In fact see him in action. If you hate Senator Harry Reid you'll love this video:

Labels: , , ,

New Campaign

Since Senators Gillibrand and McCaskill want to come down hard against rape I suggest we send them actual news articles about rape cases. This won't be just any old rape theme. No,what we will highlight is news articles about female-on-male rape only. We want them to know that there are female rapists and male victims. We are going to stand up to their misandric onslaught by a factual informational onslaught of our own. By that I mean we use facts to challenge their hypocrisy and we make them acutely aware that there are female predators and male victims. Click on their names to contact them: Senator Claire McCaskill and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Have fun.
(With McCaskill click on "share you opinion on legislation")

Labels: , , , ,

Nurse rapes boy in Idaho correctional facility

Valerie Lieteau

Former Nampa juvenile corrections nurse pleads guilty in sex abuse case

Valerie Lieteau pleaded guilty to aggravated assault in exchange for having four other charges dropped

She was accused of sexually abusing three boy inmates at the Nampa juvenile corrections center

Lieteau faces up to five years in prison when she’s sentenced in May

By John Sowell

Three days before she was scheduled to go to trial, Valerie K. Lieteau pleaded guilty Friday to one count of aggravated assault.

Lieteau, 41, could have faced up to life in prison if she had been convicted of one of the crimes she was originally charged with, felony sexually battery of a minor. In agreeing to plead guilty to aggravated assault, also a felony, Lieteau now faces up to five years in prison when she’s sentenced May 31 by Canyon County District Judge Chris Nye.

In exchange for Lieteau’s guilty plea, prosecutors agreed to drop two counts of sexual battery of a minor and two counts of sexual contact with a juvenile inmate. Because of the amended charge is not a sex crime, Lieteau will not have to register as a sex offender.

The plea agreement was reached after prosecutors consulted with the victims and their attorney Bruce Skaug, who represents them in a pending civil case against Lieteau and the state Juvenile Corrections Department.

Lieteau allegedly took one 18-year-old inmate into a private examination room or other areas out of camera range between July 2009 and March 2010 and had sex with him at least 15 times. Lieteau, who was in her mid-30s at the time, also reportedly went to the boy's hometown at least twice and had sex with him there, after his release.

The victim told a police detective that Lieteau began by inappropriately touching his upper leg while he was at a dentist appointment and later progressed to sex.

She allegedly provided the boy with street drugs while he was at the center and stalked him by phone and through text messages after he left. The boy said he feared for his safety after she threatened him.

She had sex with a second inmate on "numerous occasions" beginning in December 2008, when he was 18, according to court documents filed in the civil suit. She also took him to a private examination room and to her home when he was granted home passes. The relationship lasted until February 2012, after the boy was released from the center, and when Lieteau no longer worked there.

The lawsuit accuses Lieteau of intimidating the second boy and threatening him with serious consequences — even after he was released from custody later in 2009 — if he told anyone about their sexual relationship.

The same boy was allegedly sexually abused by a female medical student intern at the detention center. The lawsuit accuses the intern, Esperanza Jimenez, and Lieteau of holding animosity toward each other over the boy.

The third victim Lieteau allegedly abused was 17 when they had sex at Lieteau's house while he was out on a pass. The boy later showed signs of mental and emotional distress.

Lieteau is the second former juvenile corrections worker to be convicted of criminal charges involving sex with inmates. Julie McCormick, now 34, the center's former director of safety and security, was convicted on a lewd conduct charge and sent to prison in March 2014. She was accused of engaging in sex with a 15-year-old boy in 2012. She is accused in the lawsuit of having sex with a second boy.

Revelations of sexual abuse brought Nampa's criminal investigation and led to the retirement of the center's superintendent and the firing of several employees. It also caused the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections to institute changes to protect the safety of youthful offenders at the 84-bed Nampa center, as well as those in Lewiston and St. Anthony.

The three boys are among 11 males and one female who allege that they were sexually abused by multiple workers at the juvenile center.


Labels: , , ,

Saturday, March 12, 2016

India holds crooked officials in false rape accusation accountable

4-year Jail to Cop, Lawyer for Implicating Man in False Rape Case

Published: 10th March 2016 04:47 PM

Last Updated: 10th March 2016 04:47 PM

NEW DELHI: A sub-inspector and a lawyer have been sentenced to four years in jail for implicating a man in a false rape case with the judge observing that when "protectors of rule of law become destructors, then court must respond with firm hands".

The court said that "a revenge drama or Bollywood pot boiler" kind of plot was hatched to avenge a police official's suspension in a molestation case and stressed that police and advocates, who play a pivotal role in justice delivery system and, unquestionably bound by probity, integrity and ethics.

"Police and advocates play a pivotal role in justice delivery system in any criminal matter. They are unquestionably bound by probity, integrity and professional ethics.

"Though, any advocate enjoys privileged relationship with his client, he has, certainly, no business to frame anyone in a false case," Additional Sessions Judge Manoj Jain observed.

The court's observation came in a case in which two policemen, a lawyer and a court staff lodged a false rape case against Sushil Gulati. One of the policemen was suspended for allegedly molesting Gulati's wife in 2000.

Proceedings against two accused - the then Inspector who was suspended on molestation charge-, and a court staff were abated as they died during the pendency of trial.

Gulati himself expired in 2014 and had spent over two months in jail.

"Present case tells a sordid tale of two police officials and an advocate who, with the help of others, have shown the audacity of framing an innocent man in a serious case of rape in a very ingenious manner," the judge said.

"Offence committed by an illiterate man or committed under ignorance or by a person under compulsion may still be pardonable but offence committed by those who are called the protectors of Law is intolerable. When such protectors of Rule of Law become destructors, then court must respond with firm hands," it observed.

The court sentenced a then sub-inspector and an advocate to four years in jail for conspiring against Gulati in the year 2000 and also imposed a fine of Rs 1.5 lakh each on both the convicts.

"Unfortunately, Gulati is no more alive to see that his malefactors now stand nailed down finally. Culmination point has come little late but it is aptly said that mills of God grind slowly but they grind exceedingly small," judge said.

"Such revenge drama is normally seen in a fiction or may be seen on a silver screen. Rarely, one comes across such devilish but meticulous plot in real life," it observed. "I need not remind myself that the present case is very unusual and different. The plot is having strong resemblance which one can come across any revenge drama or pot boiler of Bollywood. Accused was a police official of a substantial rank who was feeling fumed and humiliated because of slapping of molestation case against him.

"He felt that his image had been tarnished and thought of a novel way to take vengeance to set right Sushil Gulati who was a key witness in such molestation case. He took services of his fellow colleague i.e. accused Narender Singh and then conspiracy was hatched with his help as well as of Hazi Mohd and others," the judge said.

"The convicts did not blink for a second in tarnishing the character of an innocent man and displayed audacity of playing with law like a 'pack of cards' by conspiring to fabricate an innocent man in a serious case of rape," it said.

"For no fault of his, Gulati had to even remain behind bars which must have, surely and certainly, caused immense damage to his character and reputation in estimation of others," the judge said.

According to prosecution, on June 6, 2000 Gulati lodged a complaint against the inspector for allegedly molesting his wife, following which the cop was suspended. In a bid to take revenge from Gulati, all the four accused hatched a conspiracy and hired a differently abled woman to implicate him.

Gulati was arrested by the accused policemen and a rape case was lodged against him, it said, adding the woman later confessed to framing him saying she did it for money.

All accused were arrested and probe revealed that the case was fabricated to avenge suspension of the policeman and extort money.

Regarding the role of the sub inspector in the plot, the court observed, "Entering into criminal conspiracy,fabricating evidence and alluring hapless ladies to become false witnesses cannot be said to be a part of duty of any police official..."

The judge also said in order to achieve evil objective and to oblige their co-accused Inspector, they "played havoc with the life of a handicapped lady."

"Her poor economic condition was exploited and she was made to agree to play the role of rape-victim while showing her lure of money. Though in first blush she too looked equal partner in crime but in hindsight, I have also started feeling that she was, in fact, made a tool...," the judge said.

It is also directed that Rs 2 lakh out of fine would go to legal representatives of Gulati as token compensation for causing damage to his reputation and character.


Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Thank Senator James Lankford for standing up to the Department Of Education femibullies

Senate chairman demands Department of Education ‘immediately rein in’ its Title IX ‘abuses’

Greg Piper - Associate Editor
March 7, 2016

Acting Secretary of Education John King, who could be confirmed to the post Wednesday, won’t be able to pacify Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., with tautologies.

In a letter Friday, the chairman of the Senate Regulatory Affairs Subcommittee dispensed with every argument by King’s underling at the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Catherine Lhamon, that Title IX gives the department the power to unilaterally issue broad new regulations related to harassment, bullying and sexual misconduct with no public rulemaking. (Read the footnotes in particular.)

Lankford minced no words with King:

I again call on you personally to clarify that these policies are not required by Title IX, but reflect only one of various ways schools may choose to develop and implement policies for the prevention and remedy of sexual harassment and sexual violence that best meet the needs of their students and are compliant with federal law. I further ask that you immediately rein in the regulatory abuses within the Department of Education and take measures to ensure that all existing and future guidance documents issued by your agency are clearly and firmly rooted in statutory authority.

The senator is greatly annoyed that the department keeps citing its own earlier guidance as justifying its later guidance.

RELATED: Department of Education official bizarrely claims it’s not threatening colleges in rape disputes

Regarding OCR’s 2010 Dear Colleague letter on sexual harassment and bullying, Lankford wrote King that the office improperly included examples of conduct that “can” violate Title IX – many of which are protected by the First Amendment – in and of themselves, not as one element of a “three-part test” as it has previously laid out:

But more importantly, regardless of however well-developed these citations to previous guidance documents are, they … do not have the force and effect of law, and therefore [cannot answer Lankford’s primary question] … What statutory or regulatory authority do you construe to arrive at the conclusion that Title IX requires that this proscribed conduct “can” be prohibited?

Lankford is also flabbergasted that OCR chief Lhamon thinks that “letters of findings” – her office’s settlements with colleges – justify its 2011 Dear Colleague letter that told colleges they must use the preponderance-of-evidence standard in sexual-misconduct proceedings in order to provide an “equitable resolution,” as required by Title IX:

[L]etters of findings carry no precedential value themselves and are a poor vehicle to alert regulated entities of new requirements … [These particular letters also] demonstrate that you have penalized those you regulate by enforcing standards never articulated by the Department and for which I question your authority.

In order for preponderance to be the only appropriate standard under Title IX, the statute would have to impose “strict liability” on colleges regardless of their response to sexual harassment or violence by students, which it doesn’t, Lankford said.

He noted that OCR “strongly discourages” schools from letting parties cross-examine each other, prohibits schools from letting accused students appeal unless their accusers get the same right, and even allows schools to make the same person the “fact-finder” and the “decision-maker” – all of which contradict “essential protections [that] defendants in a court of law enjoy”:

OCR’s silence on important due process considerations, coupled with the requirement of a lower standard of proof, indisputably tips the playing field against the accused, making the disciplinary process anything but “equitable.”

If OCR is really only telling colleges “its construction of the statutes and regulations” it enforces, it needs to cite actual statutes and regulations – not its own guidance and letters of findings, Lankford wrote.

Read the letter and excerpts from Lankford’s office.


This is great. Finally lawmakers are standing up to these femibullies that enjoy pushing men around,stealing from them and depriving them of an education but leaving a black mark on their records that will haunt them throughout their professional and personal lives. Let's thank Senator James Lankford for standing up for college and university men accused of rape and for demanding due process be observed. Let's all thank him. The more of us he hears from the better. Click on email comment.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, March 6, 2016

Do we protect children? Kind of

Fathers were not mentioned in the end which is proof gynocentrism runs deep in our society.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Rape is different

Why is “rape” different?

with one comment

What makes rape different from other crimes? Why is it that we seem to have a greater horror of rape than we do of murder? And is this attitude towards it even rational?

I’ve got a friened whose daughter was murdered. NO sexual activity took place and the guy was eventually caught and sent to prison. She actually said to me that would RATHER her daughter HAD been raped but NOT murdered.

I think that’s a completely RATIONAL attitude. Like me, she thinks her daughter’s murderer OUGHT to have been executed instead of sent to jaia. She also thinks that rape is NOT as serious a crime as murder.

That doesn’t mean that I think it’s a trivial matter. Nor does it mean I don’t CARE about women (or men) who get raped. Christ, I’ve BEEN raped myself so I’m not exactly coaching from the sidelines!

Anywya, let’s look at what it IS that seems to make rape a crime of particular horror to so many people. In the first place, IMO, it’s the voyeur in us. It gives a sort of prurient, salacious “edge” to the crime that you don’t get with most offences. Who gets turned on by reading about a Mafia hitman shooting dead a rival mobster? But when a girl gets raped…

Then there’s the frisson of fear. Reading about a rape gives you that shivering feeling and raises your goose pimples (goose bumps). Fear is a huge sexual turn-on for many people.

Then there’s the feeling of helplessness. The woman lost her power to resist and was forced to submit to the man. That’s a huge turn-on as well for many of us.

You’ve also got the appeal of violence. Although MOST rapes AREN’T violent (mine was) when you read a case that ISN’T like that you’re almost disappointed. Violence can also be a huge turn-on.

Now let’s look at other ways in which rape is “special.” You DON’T ask a bank manager if he WANTED to be robbed (unless you’re a cop who thinks he was in on the heist and looking for a piece of the action). You DON’T ask someone who’s been mugged in the street whether they WANTED to be mugged or they really WANTED to hand over their money. You DON’T ask a victim of a violent assault if they WANTED to be beaten up.

Why then do we ask a woman who says she’s been raped if she DID enjoy it, want it, ask for it, contribute to it by her own behaviour, or even INCITE it? Why do we ask these questions about rape and NOT about other types of crime?

The answer IMO is a complex mix of factors. In the first place (I’m quoting British figures here) only 8% of rape claims involve strangers. The other 92% involve husbands, boyfrieneds and friends. It’s more difficult to persuade people (rightly or wrongly) that it WAS rape when there were already clear bonds of mutual AFFECTION between the two parties.

Secondly, there’s IMO an understandable attitude that the woman is trying to evade and sort of responsibility for her actions. Why SHOULD she think she can dress like a slut, talk dirty, get drunk, parade about like a whore and yet NOT take any responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES of her actions if it goes pear-shaped? A girl like that ISN’T a VICTIM of rape IMO; she’s either a slapper who WAS asking for it and got what she REALLY wanted in a guilt-free way or else she was a prick-teaser who tried it on with the wrong bloke and came unstuck.

Let’s be honest here. A heterosexual man and woman are at some point BOTH going to want to have sex, even if NOT with each other. And being a prick-teaser is actually a form of BULLYING by the girl. She’s saying, I know you want me but you can’t have me and I’m gonna rub it in your face that you can’t. Most blokes just ignore that sort of thing but SOME get so mad that they decide to punish the girl for her behaviour by raping her.

What happens in those cases is very similar to what happens when a victim of bullying can’t take any more and snaps. (I speak from experience on that one; after a year of being bullied at school I snapped and nearly killed the bully. It took six kids and three teachers to pull me off of her else I’d have killed her!). Just like a victim of bullying can go over the top and be more violent than the original bully was, so a victim of prick-teasing can snap, go over the top and rape the girl.

So whose fault is it then? It’s obviously the bully’s fault if he or she gets done over by their victim.

In the same way, it’s the fault of the prick-teaser if she does get raped. Without the initial bullying, the victim would never have snapped. Without the prick-teaser, the girl would never have got raped.

If she’d acted decently and not led the bloke on nothing would have happend. Slo, whatever way you look at it, it’s her fault she got raped. She bullied the bloke and he snapped. You could almost look on it as an act of self-defence!

I know a lot of peoople are going to find what I’ve just said (at best) sad, at worst sick and disgusting.

Even as I write these words myself I can hardly believe how they sound.

I’m now going to talk about the cases where it clearly is the case that the woman dressed decently, spoke well, didn’t behave like a tart and wasn’t drunk or high on drugs.

How do we explain them? In the first place, 9 times our of 10 they will be attractive women of child-bearing age and will be far more likely to experience rape as a traumatic experience than older and less attractive women.

I remember one of the elderly victims of a rapist in London being interviewed about her experience (she was in her 80s) and she was actually giggling as she described her rape.

Those cases, though, are a minority of rapes and (for some obscure reason) almost always involve black men. It’s very unusual for a white male to rape an elderly woman. (Not that most blacks do it either, of course!)

Genuine rape cases, to judge from the fact that MOST complaints brought to the police are thrown out after further investigation or else withdrawn by the woman herself), are a tiny proportion or REPORTED rapes.

In 95%of the cases when rape claims DO come to court, the defendant is found NOT GUILTY.

DNA evidence has also exonerated hundreds of men who were WRONGLY convicted by showing that it was IMPOSSIBLE for them to have committed the rape in the first place.

Whatever way you look at it, that means that the MAJORITY of rape accusations are FALSE – either through conscious and deliberate LYING or else through misunderstanding.

Is it worth spending so much time, money, energy and resources into pursuing such a rare crime?

Just playing Devil’s Advocate again LOL!


Labels: , , ,

Evil rape accusers

Are women who report being “raped” evil?

Are women who report being raped evil? That’s the challenging question I found thrown out on a message board I belong to recently. Here’s my answer.

In a way the closest PARALLEL crime to rape is NOT something like murder or mugging, but theft. What the rapist is doing is in effect TAKING the woman’s body and using it for his pleasure WITHOUT her permission. In a way he’s a kind of “sex burglar” rather than some sort of serial killer.

Of course, the LOGIC of that position is that rape is NOT a “crime against the person” but a “crime against property.”

That then brings up the question of what we mean by property and whether it IS just the woman’s right to “own” her body.

For instance, if you’re married or in a relationship with a guy, what’s the “property” status of your body?

Have you “given up” or at least “leased” some of your “ownership rights” to your body by the act of marrying or entering into a relationship?

And if you’re one of that tiny minority of “stranger rapees” then has your hubby or boyfriend got a right to sue the rapist for stealing his property?

It raises a whole series of fascinating legal and moral questions.

For one thing, if you look on sex as a business transaction in the sense that the woman “owns” her body and “owns” the right to allow men to use it sexually, doesn’t that mean that ALL sexual behaviour, consensual or not, is simply an act of prostitution?

And if we grant that the legal “ownership” of her body belongs to a woman, doesn’t that ALSO raise legal questions about the “ownership” of the male sperm?

If we say that the woman’s eggs belong to her, so too does his sperm belong to the man. Whether it’s rape or consensual sex,, he’s “giving” something of himself to the woman in the act of fucking her.

So what about the legal rights of the “sperm donor?” If you’re going to look on the egg as a woman’s property, you have to also look on the sperm as the man’s property.

Because the man’s sperm fertilises the woman’s egg, that makes a new and far more complicated issue when we’re talking “ownership.”

It makes, for instance, the question of abortion a moot point. You can say “it’s a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body,” but by the act of aborting a foetus for which the man was equally responsible, isn’t she “stealing” something from HIM?

Now let’s turn to the feminist idea that rape isn’t about sex but about power.

Interesting, then, that MOST women who get raped tend to be attractive and aged between 18 and 35 years old, the very time we’re at our optimum period for breeding.

Interesting also that women in THAT age bracket who get raped are MORE likely to be upset about it than older women who go through the same experience.

Interesting also that a woman who gets raped is slightly MORE likely to get pregnant than a woman who has consensual sex.

In the animal kingdom, “rape sex” is pretty much the norm. There’s a certain type of scorpion, for instance, that has an appendage that is PURELY designed to hold the female helpless during the act of sex.

Now let’s say what I think about why women who report rape.

Do I feel that a woman who’s LYING about being raped should report it?

Hell, no.

Do I feel that a woman who’s so drunk she can’t even remember much about what she did except that she had sex report it?

No, I don’t.

If you can’t control yourself then you’ve got to be ready to take the consequences.

Doi I feel that a woman who wanders around rough neighbourhoods dressed like a slut and gets raped should report it?

No, I don’t.

If she’s so fucking stupid that she can’t see the likely dangers of behaving like that then she’s only got herself to blame.

I hate the way in which some women refuse to take responsibility for their actions. (And men too, of course).

It’s a fucking cop-out to say “well, I got pissed, dressed like a slut, talked like a toilet and behaved like a whore but I didn’t expect to get raped just because I did that.”

Grow up, girl! What the fuck else did you expect?

I know what it’s like to be raped so I DON’T talk out of ignorance.

I also know that it was MY fault it happened.

I WAS pissed as a newt, dressed like a slut, talking like a whore and behaving like one. I was also giving out mixed messages.

I know what happened to me WAS my fault.

Women who report rape aren’t evil; just as long as they’re telling the truth and it wasn’t their own fault.

And, sadly, most of the time they ARE either lying or it WAS their own fault.

Only 8% of “rapes” are actually “stranger rapes.”

That in itself means that 92% of the claims by women that they WERE raped are just LIES.

And even when a “rape” case comes to court, 95% of the time the defendant is found NOT guilty.

The reasons are always the same – either the woman was deliberately LYING about it or else it was HER fault that it happened.

If that’s the case then IMO it’s NOT the MAN who should get punished; it’s the WOMAN.

That’s how I see it, anyway.


Labels: , ,

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

A woman's perspective on rape and feminism

Enjoying rape; a woman’s point of view

OK, let’s start of by taking it as a given that a heterosexual man can enjoy raping a girl. We can all understand that he can find it pleasurable and get his rocks off by fucking her whether or not she wants him to.

The question is, though, what does a girl get out of being raped? How can she find anything pleasurable about being fucked against her will, often being brutally beaten into the bargain and maybe humiliated in various ways as well?

As someone who can speak from experience on this one, I’ll tell you for free. There are a lot of reasons why a girl can get off on being raped.

To begin with, it gives her the ability to avoid any kind of responsibility for her own actions, behaviour or attitudes. A “rape victim” can claim that she didn’t want to be fucked and that it was only the man who forced her to have sex. It’s sex without the guilt and that gives her a massive boost to her ego because she can have the most perverted type of sex and yet smile innocently and say to anyone listening, “hey, guys, it wasn’t my fault.”

A lot of the time a girl who is really a depraved slut will use that excuse to make it look as if it wasn‘t actually her fault when she knows perfectly well that it was.

That way she gets a double whammy of enjoyment from being “raped” because not only was she able to get the depraved sex she wanted but she also gets the smug satisfaction of thinking how she’s been able to con and manipulate people into thinking that she is some kind of “rape victim” rather than what she really is, a whore who not only wanted it but loved every second of it!

Obviously, a girl like that is going to thoroughly enjoy being raped. What about the ones who are not depraved sluts or professional whores, though? How can they possibly enjoy being raped?

Well, funnily enough, in the majority of cases the “rape victim” clearly does enjoy it! Most women who get raped orgasm while they’re being raped. I know I did when it happened to me at the age of 18 and even now it was the best sex I’ve ever had in my life! Other women who’ve been “raped” have told me the same thing, that they came and that it was the most intense, satisfying and pleasurable orgasm they’ve ever had.

Well, if you come when you’re being raped there’s only one possible explanation for that.

You’re having fun and you’re enjoying what’s happening to you!

You’ve suddenly realised that actually, in spite of what you thought before it happened. in reality you wanted to be raped and you’re fucking loving every miunte of it!

The mind can play many strange tricks on us and even lie to us; the body never lies. The fact that the girl is orgasming proves that she’s really thoroughly enjoying herself and that she really wanted to be raped whatever she says. Her body is telling the truth about how she felt and only her mind and mouth are lying about the pleasure she had.

That fact alone makes her “rape” an act of consensual sex. By the very act of climaxing she is demonstrating that she really wanted it all the time and is fucking loving it now that she’s getting what she wanted!

So let’s recap briefly. The guy gets what he wants, to fuck the girl; she gets what she wants (an orgasm); so both partners have been sexually fulfilled and enjoyed the experience.

How can that be called a crime? The very second the woman starts to get aroused by her rape it’s obvious that from that point on the sex is entirely consensual.

The guy has done nothing wrong; he’s obviously helped the girl by giving her an orgasm which otherwise she’d have had to frig herself off or whatever to get.

The girl’s done othing wrong either; she’s had an orgasm during the course of great sex which, as her body’s reaction clearly demonstrates, was entirely consensual.

Why then should this harmonious activity, of a man and woman fucking each other in an entirely consensual sexual behaviour, be considered a crime?

If anything the rapist should be praised because, thanks to him, the girl’s had a proper orgasm through fucking which otherwise would have been a lot harder for her to achieve.

Really, we can only admire the rapist and hope the girl realises how lucky she was that he raped her and that she is suitably grateful to him and thanks him for what he has done. The truth is that he’s done her a big favour and she should feel flattered that he chose her and, of course, she should express her gratitude and thanks to him for giving her the best orgasm of her life.

Far from being any sort of a “rape victim,” she’s really a very lucky girl and ought be happy that she’s just had the best consensual sex of her life!


More reasons to legalise rape!

More reasons to legalise rape!
1) It’s fun – especially for the rapist!

2) It’s the rapist’s right to do what he likes with his own body!

3) It’s the rapist’s right to choose!

4) If the girl says no she’s being disrespectful and he’s got every right to show her that her own selfish and childish wishes don’t matter.

5) It’s the only REAL sex – everything else is just vanilla!

6) A girl who gets raped is either a worthless whore who’s fucking ASKING for it or else a disrespectful feminist dyke who DESERVES to be raped to show her what she’s missing!

7) A girl who gets raped is MORE likely to get pregnant so it assists the population growth if a rapist does what comes naturally.

8) Making rape a crime hasn’t stopped rape. It’s just made it more dangerous. The guy could get hurt with scratches, punches, kicks, or even hit with objects found nearby. If rape was legalised it would be safe and properly managed. Thee would be special “rape hotels” where needy guys could go and rape the girls with clean facilities and with doctors and nurses on hands to make sure that the girl isn’t carrying any sexually transmitted diseases and to look after the medical welfare of the rapist. The government could even make some money out of it by taking a percentage from the rape hotels so that rape would be contributing to the nation’s economy!

I can think of loads more reasons why rape is good and should be legalised but that’s a start!


Why rape is a gift we should welcome

OK, I’ve put forward already some of the reasons why there’s nothing wrong with raping us girls. I reckon all men convicted of rape should be released from prison immediately and given full compensation for wrongful imprisonment. I’ve got some other ideas on how to help them get over the trauma of their time in prison but I’ll save them for another post!

I’m now going to explain why it’s positively right to rape us. Far from being a crime, rape is actually a public service and a gift to us girls for which we ought to be grateful.

In the first place, it’s equal opportunity sex. Any man can do it to a girl. He doesn’t have to be rich, good-looking, clever or charming or anything like that. All he needs is to have a cock and he can rape me or any other girl just as good as any rich Hollywood star or wealthy businessman can!

Just think of the advantages. Rape means never having to buy me dinner. Rape means never wondering how much it costs to fuck me. Rape means never having to take me out or buy me prezzies. Rape means never having to worry if his car is flash enough or eough of a top of the range model. Rape means never having to worry if he’s got a well-paid job or not! Rape means never having to buy me flowers or pay me compliments!

All a rapist needs is a cock and he can fuck me, or any other girl he wants.

That’s pretty much an equal-opportunity approach to sex, right?

Secondly, it’s obviously my fault that I got raped, isn’t it? After all, if I’d said “yes,” or, even better, “yes please, sir,” he’d never have had to go to all the trouble of raping me, would he? So, like I said, it’s all my fault that I got raped. He didn’t do anything wrong and I’m the only one that did.

Like I said, it’s my fault I got raped in the first place and I should never have said no instead of yes!

Because I did say no like an ungrateful and disrespectful fucking bitch of a twat, he had every right to rape me.

As well as giving him pleasure, he also had the right to rape me just because I was enough of an arrogant cunt to say no to him in the first place, right?

So he had the right to rape me as a just punishment for being arrogant and ungrateful enough to say no to him in the first place, see?

So actually I deserved to be raped for saying no!

Now let’s explain why rape is a gift to us girls and why we should welcome it if we’re lucky enough to get raped.

Rape is the only real sex; everything else is playacting. There’s nothing like the adrenalin rush a girl gets when she’s being raped. It’s amazing how nearly always she’ll have an orgasm just because she was raped rather than having vanilla sex.

So, you see, the rapist is actually doing the girl a big favour by raping her, right? He’s giving her an orgasm which she’s hardly ever going to get with vanilla sex, not just through fucking, anyway; only if the bloke knows how to get a girl’s clit aroused properly which a lot of them haven’t got a fucking clue about!

Another big favour he’s doing her is he’s giving her guilt-free sex. The girl was probably a totally depraved fucking slut anyway or at least secretly wanted to be. Thanks to the bloke who raped her she can get fucked as hard as a professional whore or the village bike that everyone’s rode and yet not have to take the blame for being a total fucking slut so she doesn’t have to feel ashamed or guilty about getting fucked! Once again, the rapist has done the girl a big favour by raping her!

She ought to be very grateful to him! It’s a win-win situation; he gets to fuck her, she gets fucked without having to feel guilty about what she’s done. Everyone ought to be happy about what’s gone down!

Another reason why she ought to be grateful to him is that rape, as some statistics that have been posted on Mansland from scientific geezers who’ve done research on this subject have shown, is more likely to make a girl pregnant than if she’s just fucked the vanilla way. So as well as all the other favours he’s doing her, he’s giving her an extra chance of having a baby by him!

Another reason why rape is so good is that it’s the most honest way to have sex. Hey, guys, you don’t have to tell me you love me; you don’t have to listen to my boring twat talk conversation; you don’t even have to say you think I’m beautiful (though it would be nice if you did but that’s just me being selfish and vain!)

All you have to do is come up to me and say something like, “hey, cunt, I want to fuck you.”

If I say yes then obviously I wanted it anyway so it couldn‘t have been rape in the first place, could it?

If I say no then obviously it’s my fault if I get raped because then you’ve got a perfectly legitimate reason to rape me and, more than that, you’ve actually got a positive right to rape me for saying no.

See how it goes? If I say yes it isn’t rape; if I say no it’s only rape because of what I did wrong, so it’s all my fault, right? The guy who raped me has done nothing wrong at all. In fact, he’s been positively good in the way he’s treated me! I’m the only one who’s gone and done anything wrong!

Now let’s look at some more benefits to the girl who gets raped. Apart from the higher chance of getting an orgasm and of getting pregnant as a result of rape, she’s also going to get the adrenaline rush that comes when you get the shit scared out of you. God, how fucking sexy it is being scared! It’s dead exciting for her to feel that kind of fear and it’s very good of the bloke to give her the chance to experience such a lovely feeling. It’ll almost certainly be the best sex she’s ever had; much better than a boring old vanilla fuck!

The more she fights her true inner desire to submit, and the more she resists her longing to be taken by force regardless of her own selfish desires, the stronger her sexual arousal will become. Yes, folks, our friend the rapist is doing her a favour yet again; he’s turning her on!

Maybe that’s why (as exhaustive psychological and physical studies of so-called “rape victims” have shown; even the lying feminist twats (or, as I prefer to call them, “cuntists” – I hate the fucking feminists with their bullshir, or as I call it when they come out with it, “cowshit”) haven’t been able to explain away or refute the data that shows, maybe surprisingly to a vanilla mind, that the more violence a man uses against a girl when he’s raping her, the less “trauma” she suffers.

To put it in plain English, the girl will actually benefit more from being raped with a certain amount of violence and intimidation than she would from being treated more “gently.”

So, all you rapists out there, if you want to beat us up while you’re raping us, don’t worry about it. You’re not only not doing anything wrong; you’re actually doing us a favour by beating the shit out of us when you rape us. You’re making it more pleasurable for us if you rape us like that so, hey guys, don’t even think about holding back when you rape us.

Just slap us about and punch us and kick us; we fucking love it! Just insult us verbally, telling us we’re all bitches and whores and sluts and cunts; just remind us that we’re not only fucking asking to be raped but that we really fucking love it and we’re just lying twats and hypocritical cunts for pretending that we don’t when we really do; and when you’ve finished having your fun don’t forget to remind us that it was all our fault that we got raped.

As for the girl, what should she do? There’s only one obvious or at least honest answer she can give.

She should say “thank you for raping me. I will be grateful to you for this precious gift for the rest of my life.”


You can see she loves men. Feminists,OTOH,she let's have it with both barrels:

Why feminism sucks

I’m a woman, but I’m not a feminist.

Not at all; not even one tiny bit.

I’ve got NO sympathy for the so-called “women’s movement,”

When I say things like that to a lot of people, especially women, they look at me with a mixture of horror, embarrssment and disbelief. It’s as if I’d said some dirty word in church or something. Saying I don’t believe in feminism when I’m a woman, according to some “feminist thinkers,” supposedly makes me a “gender traitor.”

A gender traitor? Blimey! And I didn’t even know men and women were at war! I thought we were both supposed to be part of the whole cosmic thing, the greater scheme of things and all that.

I had no idea we were supposed to be enemies!

Anyway, what exactly do feminists want? Let’s take a brief overview of what they say they want. These are not in any particular order by the way.

1 Equality

2 Equal opportunity

3 An end to domestic violence

4 An end to rape

5 Affirmative action

6 Positive discrimination

7 Separate but equal treatment

8 Abortion on demand

9 Female empowerment

10Ban on pornography

There are others which some want and not all feminists agree on even some of the 10 I’ve quoted but that’s the broad brush stroke of what they say they want.

Let’s begin by pointing out some obvious contradictions and redundancies.

If a society is equal then obviously equal opportunity is part of that so point 2 is redundant. If a society is equal then points 5, 6 and 7 are in direct CONFLICT with what they claim they want. Point 9 also seems a bit iffy if you believe in equality,

Most people (including most MEN) would broadly agree with them about rape and domestic violence. There’s two problem there though IMO.

The first is that the definition of both has been stretched so widely that they’ve lost any meaning they might have had once. There’s a lunatic fringe of the feminists which is now calling for consensual sex between a man and a woman to be a criminal offence unless the guy is able to produce written consent to sex by the woman! Not just in general, either; a specific written consent to each and every act of sex. Otherwise the guy can be charged with rape!

How crazy is that? Maybe we should just get a lawyer standing in line in every bedroom with a written contract drawn up and the guy signs it every time he wants to have sex!

And it’s “gender discrimination” in any case because there’s no corresponding obligation on the woman to sign this paper stating that the man was a willing participant! Would that mean that a woman could now get away with rape but a man can’t even have consensual sex with his own partner without drawing up a legal document first?

Utter madness!

And, of course, the likes of Andrea Dworkin, Susan Brownmiller and others have argued that unless the woman directly initates and controls the act of sex then even consensual sex is rape!

So let’s get this right; if the man initiates and controls the sex it’s rape but if the woman does it isn’t?

Yeah, right.

Funny how all that talk about equality and equal opportunities went out of the window, isn’t it?

The whole idea of “separate but equal” treatment is a heap of lies. That’s what the segregationists in the south used to argue they had in terms of the treatment of African-Americans and the Supreme Court rhrew it out as unconstitutional. Yet again and again I’ve seen that exact phrase used by feminists to justify a more privileged position in society for women.If

That equality thing again, right?

Funny how much it reminds me of “Animal Farm” where Orwell gets the main character to say “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others!”

The fact is that the feminist claims to equality are a lie. They don’t want equal treaament; they want a privileged status for women and for the law and society to favour women more than men.

Well, ladies, that might be your gynocratic utopia but there’s no way it’s anything resembling either equality or equal opportunity!

The same thing goes for “affirmative action” or “positive discrimination” programmes. If you appoint the person you genuinely feel is the best for the job regardless of gender, skin colour or whatever that’s being non-discriminatory., If you have quota systems where you force employers or whatever to choose a less capable person simply because of their gender or skin colour or whatever that’s just being racist or sexist and there’s nothing “positive” about what you’re doing. Once again, the feminist claim that they want equality is just a lie.

The rape question is more complex. I know my views on rape are unconventional to put it mildly so I’ll just argue with feminism from the mainstream point of view.

Rape, according to the law, is a sexual act carried out against the wishes of the other person and without their consent. Men can rape women or other men and women can rape men or other women. The issue of consent is crucial in establishing whether or not a sexual act was an act of rape or a consensual encounter.

Now in normal criminal cases like if you’re accused of stealing something (probably the nearest legal parallel to rape) the court has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did commit the act of theft. There’s a presumption of innocence, the need to produce hard evidence and (ideally) eyewitness testimony. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that you did it.

In rape cases, all this is stood on its head. There’s no requirement for eyewitness testimony (obviously that’s often difficult so we can let that one go)’ the burden of proof is shifted from the accuser to the defendant so instead of her having to prove that he did rape her, he is compelled to try and prove tha the didn’t; there’s a presumption of guilt; due process is routinely ignored or set aside; and no hard evidence against the defendant has to be produced. Routinely, innocent men are sentenced to prison for crimes they didn’t commit, as DNA tests have subsequently shown. Out of the men in the US who’ve been CONVICTED of rape and served time in prison and then subsequently got DNA testing, 60% turned out to have been NOT guilty. In other words, they not only hadn’t raped the woman; they couldn’t have raped her. The only reason the man was sent to prison was because the woman lied about what had happened.

So, OK, the woman lied about being raped. What happens to her? 9 times out of 10, nothing at all. At worst she might get a slap on the wrist. Once in a blue moon one will get sent to prison for about 5 minutes but that’s rare. Yet she’s c learly guilty of perjury and reckless endangerment by her lying about what happened. So why should she get a free pass?

Then there’s the question of “anonymity.” The feminists claim that it’s essential for the identity of the accuser, or as they habitually refer to her, the “rape victim,” to be protected.

Fine, let’s go with that. But what about the accused? Why doesn’t he get the same right to anonymity? Why is it OK to splash his name and photo all over the media but not hers? What’s sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander, as the saying goes.

That old “eqaulity” thing again, right?

Once again we see feminists demanding special privileges for women that they deny to men. They are quite happy to violate due process, set aside the presumption of innocence, and allow “evidence” in rape cases that would be thrown out of court in other types of criminal trial. Why? Do they really want equality? Or do they just hate men?

There’s also the fact that in 45% of cases in Britain where the woman goes to the police and it’s investigated, it’s found out during the course of the enquiry that the woman is lying about being raped. That means that nearly half of the cases brought to the attention of the cops are phoney raps.On top of that in 53% of cases where she makes an accusation and then withdraws it, investigation shows that, once again, she was lying about being raped.

Now I’m no greatr mathematician but whatever way you look at those statistics they add up to the same thing. Most claims by women that they were raped are false and downright lies.

So why do people believe in this vast conspiracy of rapists that the feminists put about? Search me! I guess it’s partly a genuine fear of crime, fear to the point of paranoia; partly because we’ve been brainwashed by lies; and partly just salacious interest. Whatever, the facts simply don’t support the feminist claims on rape and nor do they provide any excuse for the feminist subversion of due process, the presumption of innocence and lowering the bar for evidence and testimony in “rape” trials.

Out of the cases that DO come to court, in 40% of them it’s shown either at the trial or subesequently that, guess what, once again the woman was lying about what happened. No crime, except maybe domestic violence, is more often lied about than rape. Women use it as a weapon to intimidate a man they’ve fallen out with, as an excuse for their shame at the consensual sex they had, or even to cover up some other offence that they, not the man, committed.

On top of that even when an accused man can show beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not rape the woman he can still be convicted and sent to prison solely on the unsupported word of his accuser. That old equality again, right? Crime labs routinely knowingly falsify the results of DNA tests and other forensic items that are entered into evidence and lead to the conviction of wholly innocent men. Linda Fairstein, former head of the sex-crimes unit of the Ma nhattan DA’s office, says that 50% of the rape cases she dealt with were based on unfounded accusations and were entirely baseless. In other words, half of the claims just in the cases she dealt with were nothing more than malicious lies! Although they’re reluctant to publicise the fact, the majority of cases investigated by the Innocence Project concern allegations of rape.

Even when the claims of rape are so clearly false, feminists still maintain their fantasies in violation of the truth. In one notorious case a student at a university in America eventually admitted that she’d lied about being raped by a male student (they hadn’t even HAD sex!) and a “feminist thinker” commented, “well, maybe he didn’t actually rape her, but he clearly violated her in some way.” A VAssar assistant dean went even further, claiming that it was “good” for a man to be falsely accused of rape, since it forced him to think “well, if I didn’t violate her, could I have done?”

Most rape accusations are lies and the same, sadly, is also true of “domestic violence.” This is defined so loosely that almost anyone could be sent to prison for it. The U.S. Justice Department definition of “domestic violence” includes “extreme jealousy and possessiveness.,” “name calling” and “constant criticizing.” as acts of “domestic violence.” On the basic of such fantastic claims, men in America are routinely jailed, often even without ever being brought to trial! .

Even worse, according to officially reported figures released by police, allegation of domesitc violence by women against men now stand s at a figure of 38%. Given the extreme reluctance of men to report abuse by their wives and girlfriends against them, senior police sources unofficially admit that the majority of domestic violence in Britain is now carried out agaist men by women. Yet where is the publicity for the cause of “batterd men?” Where are the shelters for thme to hide away from their abusers? #where is the rapid intervention by the police to arrest the woman before she kills or seriusly injures her man?

Well, where is it? Nowhere, of course. Under the posionous influence of feminism, men are slowly being turned into second class citizens.

What we hear instead is a relentless and dishonest chorus about violence by men against women when even the police admit that nowadays the majority of domestic violence cases are actually assaults by women upon men! As the innate chivalry of men, to say nothing of their social embarrasment at having to report their wife or girlfriend, makes them disproportiobately less likely to file a complaint, the police s7uspect that the true figures show that around 66% of actual domestic assaults are carried out by women against men, Yet neither the media nor government addresses or even discusses the problem in any way. Women habitually portray themselves as the victims and men are castigated as brutal abusers who are battering their partners almost non-stop.

Bad as the situation is in Britain, it is even worse in America. The law is stacked against the male defendant to such an extent that cases of domestic violence now resemble the “justice” system in countries like North Kore3a or Iran. One judge in New Jersey, for instance, told his fellow jurists, “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating.” Even the official court publications of New Jersey admit that due process is routinely ignored in domestic violence cases because “it perpetuates the cycle of power and control wherby the perpetrator remains the one with the power and the victim remains powerless.” Look at the loaded language used as well – “perpetrator” and “victim” rather than “accused” and “defendant.” The guilt is assumed simply because charges have been brought. The presumption of innocence, likd eue process, is chucked on the scrapheap. A New York “feminist” judge describes the removal of the presumption of innocence as forcing “batterrers and abusers take responsibility for their actions.”

There are also Kafkaesque tribunals known as “integrated domestic violence courts” where the guilt of the defendant is automatically assumed and which have the power to seize property, including homes, even though the person accused has not been convicted or even charged with any offence. Nor is it necessary to allow them to be present at the “hearings” where such decisions are taken to defend himself , or represented by a lawyer at them. These “domestic violence courts” are deliberately set up to evade the constitutional rights of the citizen and even the existing criminal law with its guarantees of protection., The presumption is of guilt and not innocence, the burden of proof is done away with altogether, and it has become standard practice for “confessions” to be extorted from the accused by a variety of means.

Pennsylvania is in a class of its own when it comes to this issue. In that state, men are routinely arrested and held in custody until they sign a “confession” stating “I have physically and emotionally battered my partner.” The man is then order to “descibe” his “violence,” even if he insists that he did notr commit any. His “confession” also includes the words “I am responsible for the violence I used,” the forms declare. “My behavior was not provoked.” If he does not sign these forms, he can be held indefinitely in prison, without any chafrge, until he does sign them.

So what we have is a situation where a man accused of domestic violence can be held in prison without charge, have his property and assets seized without trial, even if he insists on his innocence. If a man accuses his partner of the same offence, she will not be subjected to the same kind of treatment and is far less likely to be convicted if the case comes to court. And that’s in spite of the fact that women are the aggressors in two-thirds of the cases!

And, of course, unlike the law in Britain, where the violence at least has to be physical, in the Stater you can be treated like this just on the basis of “”extreme jealousy and possessiveness.,” “name calling” and “constant criticizing!.”It’s like the old days where a “nagging wife” could be subjected to the “scold’s bridle” except that these days its’ a “nagging husband!” .

That old feminist equality thing again, right? Yeah, right!

For all their gobby ranting about equality, feminists don‘t want it at all. They want to rule men in the same way the slaveowners ruled the slaves in the old days. They’re gynocrats and not democrats. They compalin about patriarchy but want to institute a matriarchy.

The obvious incompatibility between affirmative action, positive discrimination and “separate but equal” claims with their boasted belief in equality is just total hypocrisy. They just want the hens to rool the roost.

Feminism is an essentially Nazi way of looking at the world. Feminists look on men in the same way the Nazis looked at the Jews and gypsies and they’re every bit as ruthless, dishonest and indifferent to the sufferings of their victims. A lot of people don’t know this but Nazi Germany was the first state where openly feminist women got positions of power. Guida Diehls, Lydia Gottschewski, Gertrude Scholtz-Klink wielded huge power, greater than any woman had had since the days of Catherine the Great or was to see again before Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher. Gottschweski, a loathsome racist and militarist, is listed on a feminist website as one of its “Women of Wisdoms” and coyly described as “a German political activits,” though the site carefully avoids saying which ;party she was active on behalf of!

Feminism doesn’t even respect women. It might hate and demonise men but its greatest contempt and hatred is reserved for what it calls, in a phrase reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan’s “race traitors,” “gender traitors.” Women like me who are “just” mothers and wives are looked upon with total contempt, regarded as stupid, unambitious, lazy and as “perpetuating the patriarchal power structure.”


Because these people are incapable of feeling love and compassion themselves, or tolerance for other points of view, or respect for other humans simply because we all share that rich humanity, they hate and demonise anyone who does.

The only “crime” of “gender traitor” me is the crime of love.

In the words of the poeet Pope, “is it, in heaven, a crime to love too well?”

Yes, Your Honour, I plead guilty to the crime of love.

As Luther said at his trial for heresy, “here I stand; I cannot do otherwise.”


Labels: , , ,