A recent case in Canada involving a couple that engaged in consensual kinky sex is testing the limits of the concept of prior consent. In the case, a man and woman had agreed to asphyxiation during sex, but when the woman was asphyxiated she says she came to and found a sex toy inserted in her anus, which she claims not to have consented to.
Initially, she did not contact police, but when a custody battle came up a couple months later she called the police and claimed she had been raped. Although she later recanted her testimony, the judge still sentenced the man to jail for having sex with an unconscious person.
However, an appeals court overturned the ruling, saying it was not sexual assault. Now, Canada’s Supreme Court is considering the case, and hearing arguments from attorneys concerning the meaning of consent.
According to Joanna Birenbaum, legal director of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, the concept of advance consent is both “dangerous and regressive.” She says that consent is something that must be continuous and consciously made. So, for example, if a man and woman were having consensual sex, and the woman changed her mind and told him she wanted to stop, if he did not do so at that moment it would be rape. Consent, according to feminists, is only valid if it is revocable at any time for any reason
The Canadian Supreme Court has already ruled that there is no such thing as “implied consent,” so in all likelihood the feminist standard will prevail. The next step for feminists is to introduce the concept of retroactively revocable consent, which means that if consent were based on some misunderstanding or falsehood, it can be retroactively revoked and what at first was a consensual encounter becomes rape after the fact.
The feminist goal of classifying all heterosexual sex as rape is nearing fruition. Perhaps at some point in the future, the term “sex” will no longer be used to describe coitus, but rather it will all be known as “rape,” at which point all sex will be criminalized.
One interesting implication of the argument against advance consent may concern whether or not people are allowed to sign do not resuscitate orders. If, when unconscious, dying people cannot have previously consented to pulling the plug, will doing so be murder?
{ 64 comments… read them below or add one }
Were I a sexually active Canadian man I would be taking my f buddies to court every time they gave a little too much tooth during a bj. “Your honor, I consented to oral sex, not having my Jimmy nearly bitten off.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
91 
1
This is ridiculous, as the law is full of situations where consent is irrevocable once given, or revocable upon pain of penalty. Enlisting in the Armed Forces is not an at will contract. If you are working for certain companies, and they have you under contract, and you quit, you can be sued for not living up to your end of the bargain. The whole idea of “consent” is a guarantee that the consenter will carry out/allow to be carried out what they agreed to, as they said they would. If you can consent to something, and then quit any time you want, consent is meaningless.
Think about it: if I had a faulty stove, and you were a repairman, I would need to consent for you to come into my house and fix my appliances. Now say halfway through your work, I revoked consent, immediately. Now say all your customers did this, revoking consent at will. You’d probably quit fixing stoves. Not only that, you’d quit doing things that relied on any form of consent to proceed.
The reason women have such problems with the idea of “consent” is because it relies on a concept that we don’t associate with it by name, but implicitly understand to be true: the word and word as bond. Giving consent is based on giving one’s word, and one’s consent is only as good as one’s word. The consent of a man who is never known to lie is worth far more than the consent of a pathological liar: the former man’s word gives his consent worth and validity, while the latter man’s makes his consent worthless and undependable.
At this point I don’t know where I’m going with this, and I think I said what was mostly on my mind. Long story short, get your ass from overseas? I think I’ll go out on that.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
0
Does this mean that a woman can be charged with rape if she becomes pregnant after promising she was infertile or using contraceptives? If consent to sex was based on this understanding then under feminist doctrine why is she not a rapist?
I think sometimes the worst thing you can do to feminists is to give them exactly what they asked for.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
0
Once women make it illegal for men to have sex with them, they’ll then further push to make it illegal for us to look at them. The misandry bubble can’t burst fast enough
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
53 
0
You know what, I hope the femminist get that. I truely hope there is retroactive rape. That will be the greatest blessing the western world could ever have. We as MRA’s should push for right along side our “sisters”.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
7
Actually, there pretty much already is effective “retroactive rape.” Feminists have been pushing to do away with the statute of limitations when it comes to rape. So every woman I have ever slept with in my life could decide, on reflection and with the help of the rationalization hamster, that the steamy encounter we had back in 1978 or so was actually “rayyyyppppe” because she changed her mind yesterday and retroactively withdrew “consent.” Some idiot of a Mike Nifong out there would be happy to jump on his white horse and try to crucify me for it.
All the Roissys out there, and all the advocates of game, aside, even the best sex I ever had in my life wasn’t worth going to prison for. And, sex with most women my age isn’t worth walking across the street for.
Unless they want us to look at them, in which case they will make it illegal not to.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
56 
0
So you’re telling me that the asphyxiation to unconciousness was OK but the rubber ducky up your ass crossed the line?
Scotty, beam me up, there’s no intelligent on this planet.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
70 
0
This happened in Israel quite recently iirc – the guy misrepresented his religion or something and when the woman found out she claimed rape, and won the case I think?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
9 
85
@Gunn – yes, she won. The guy was convicted of “deception rape.” Now, get this – they had just met, and went to someplace nearby and she did him right there. This was no calculating cad who romanced and seduced a reluctant young virgin over time – she shagged a guy she had just met, and because he told her a lie it was “rayyypppe” and not “stupidity.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
0
Gunn,
I know the case you’re talking about. It happened this year in Israel.
The man said he was jewish and had sex with a woman he just met. In Israel, if a woman consents to sex based on a lie, then it really isn’t consensual.
Iv’e met lawyers that are advocating this law to be in the United States. California has something similar but not as extreme.
Feminists wouldn’t want such a law because that would mean that any man could sue a woman for lying and then call it rape.
Man: “Your honor, she said she was on the pill. She lied; thus she raped me”
Judge: “Guilty!”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
4
I thought that looking at women was illegal, if it, in her womanly way of knowing, it makes her feel uncomfortable.
I’m pretty sure that rude looks are considered by all laws and experts (feminists every last one) as abuse and at least warranting of an order of protection.
I don’t ever look at women I pass and haven’t for over 10 years.
I believe the Supreme Court of the US ruled on this and a woman’s subjective experience is sufficient cause for legal action.
And yes you should get your action over seas or over the internet.
http://www.slate.com/id/2273848/pagenum/2#add-comment
And don’t bring them to the US, ever.
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
12 
55
M…You seemed to have missed the point of the entire article so I’ll repost my previous post…So you’re telling me that the asphyxiation to unconciousness was OK but the rubber ducky up your ass crossed the line?
Now certainly you can see the hypocracy or at least the irony of her complaint. If not I’ll try to explain. She didn’t mind that she might die from strangulation, that was an acceptable risk. However the cute yellow sqeaky toy up her butt was somehow offensive, unacceptable behavior.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
2
These stories really piss me off. And as a pissed off man i am in full agreement with the femminist on this one. Well zed i hate to lose a good writer like you, but you are going to have to call that good piece of ass up and let her know if the memories of the act did not lead to what she feels they should she should have you arrested for rape. Let her know you are an MRA type and have commented on the spearhead. That way her memories of the trama can be restored.
With 20-40 men a day going to jail for rape in every urban county in america maybe we can get this MRM thing going. “Go on girl!”
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
Here’s a brain twister, who gets’s child custody?
The mother might die of asphyxiation at any time/The father might strangle someone soon.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
Proctologists are always quacks.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
1
Angelo-
According to the article, the woman recanted her testimony about the unwelcome anal sex toy. Therefore the case is Canadian horse hockey.
If she was unconscious, and he violated her in a way she did not agree on beforehand, I would agree with you.
Like or Dislike:
14 
0
“She says that consent is something that must be continuous and consciously made. ”
that from a creature whose emotions are subject to change on a moment’s notice and any whim, good luck with that.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
0
@ M
I will not argue with you that most of what we do here is argue about horse shit 20 years after the horses have left the stable, of course I would use cows as a more apt metaphor.
But we have to start somewhere. Most men vehemently believe that all the other guys are rapists that just got away with it. They have to because their SO will not give them their balls back from her handbag for him to scratch.
Looks like Michelle Obama is doing a girl trip to the south of Spain during her husbands birthday.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/08/04/2010-08-04_unhappy_birthday_president_barack_obama_spends_49th_bday_without_family_public_s.html
This is the best men can hope for in this country I suppose. Most divorced guys I know at least get to see their kids on their birthdays. Obama isn’t even divorced….yet.
I think we will find him lurking here sometime soon.
Like or Dislike:
16 
3
Who exactly did you disagree with?
You’re certainly making some baseless negative assumptions about men around here.
Stick around and read some maybe, maybe you’ll learn something that’ll knock you off your high (white) horse.
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
1
Sorry, above was for Angelo
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
@ M
Are you on a fishing trip and pissed off your not getting any bites?
There are places where your point of view is law. I recommend emigrating almost daily on this blog.
Like or Dislike:
13 
4
If you would like to see how this sort of legality will play out. Watch Cherry 2000.
Go to about 11 mins in….its everything in a nutshell. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTtLWALNDCY&feature=related
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
“A recent case in Canada involving a couple that engaged in consensual kinky sex is testing the limits of the concept of prior consent. In the case, a man and woman had agreed to asphyxiation during sex, but when the woman was asphyxiated she says she came to and found a sex toy inserted in her anus, which she claims not to have consented to.”
And of course, the obvious question is :”How do we know there was a sex toy in her cornhole?”
“….but when the woman was asphyxiated she says she came to and found a sex toy inserted in her anus, which she claims not to have consented to.”
The operative words are “SHE” and “SAYS”. Now if it was a fact,there would be evidence, and stuff like THIS “K.D. took her complaint to Ottawa police two months after the alleged assault, when she was seeking custody of the couple’s toddler.”,makes me think there isn’t.
Call me crazy, but THAT looks like a motive to lie to me.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
0
I think the key sentence in this article is:
At that point she wanted to stick the kangaroo family court’s sex toy up her STBX’s anus. And the court is deciding whether to oblige her. This is one f’d up world.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
37
Because you aren’t welcome here.
Is that clear?
I guess it’s pretty obvious this type of politicizing of sexual relations (as defined by this case) is destroying the relationship between the sexes?
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
38
“Consent is something that must be continuously made”
So I can get in a plane flaying across the ocean and stop flying at any point I chose… wait that is physically impossible. Therefore nobody should be allowed to fly.
I agree that you can stop in the middle of sex (nut expect a delay) bit if you physically can’t but you still consented then there is nothing wrong with that. Why does the government get to say nobody can have sex when their asleep.
Should we also put anesthesiologists out of business, because someone isn’t continuing to give consent through heart surgery.
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
Hmm, I guess no more morning wake up oral action… your bed partner is asleep and unable to give consent.
Like or Dislike:
9 
2
JFP — let alone accidentally draping your arm in such a way as to molest your wife in her sleep and yours.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@jfp
Actually I think women do that quite a bit without having the guys consent (not talking about “continuous” consent). But of course they don’t think they ever need consent.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
This genderist culture is not only a dirty one but a hypocritical and chauvenist one too.
It is pretended by all and sundry that no other person except the women has anything worth the giving or the withdrawing of consent for. And so a position is arrived at where the only citizen protected agaisnt rape, plunder, rapine, theft, violence, usry, usurpation, conscription, denial of child contact, exploitation and extortion is the female citizen.
Male citizens are held beneath contempt and beneath protection from the above violations of their person and property because, not having any recognised right of consent or of its withdrawal to anything, they comprise an underclass of stooges.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
1
Feminists can’t stand for younger more attractive women to be whistled at instead of them so they create laws that scare men away from doing it.
Feminists can’t stand for men to fuck younger more attractive women instead of them so they create laws that scare men away from doing that too.
The feminists know perfectly well that the laws they create will be abused by the women that we like and that this will lead to us avoiding those women.
Draconian date rape/harrassment laws exist for one reason. To make every fuck-worthy piece of ass poison to us.
http://theantifeminist.com/the-sexual-trade-union/
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
26 
1
Leavign aside ideology for a moment, I’m wondering what the practical application of the law is going to look like.
Is the Canadian court considering, in the case of continuous consent during divorce, whether there is some reasonable delay between issuing the revocation of consent and the man’s (or, for that matter, woman’s) act of withdrawing? Say, does the man get five or ten seconds for the request to register in his mind? Or is it rape the moment she’s done speaking, in their legal opinion? I didn’t see anything on that anywhere, but I only skimmed that article.
Further, this seems like it would be even more a case of he-said she-said than most rapes. In cases like this, the woman acknowledges she gave consent at the beginning of the act, so there’s agreement about the initial consent, but disagreement (without evidence) about later consent. How could anyone possibly convict the guy? The only admissible fact is that they consented to sex!
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Hey, I just found the most misandric blog ever (and that is saying something) :
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/patriarchy-blaming-the-twisty-way/mra/
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
What if 86% of the rape cases were false allegations?
That is not mentioned.
Of course, forgot, women never lie.
Years after the event. Ok, in some cases it may be true, but what if the woman just wanted to take revenge on a man who did not call her back?
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Joanna Birenbaum, legal director of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, the concept of advance consent is both “dangerous and regressive”.
Don’t the feminist always say that on some legal issue? “Regressive” or “a step back”… How is that supposed to have bearings in a LEGAL argument. Who cares what is part of their plan. Also that kind of speech shows they don’t really evaluate a case but just push on their general agenda. Their agenda always trumps out the rights of others and creates a bunch of victims, but feminists show they don’t care in their always one sided BS.
That one feminist said the same kind of thing when Britain was going to give men accused of rape anonymity just like the accuser has. She called it a step back… men having comparable rights is a step back. FU
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
0
The link got lost:
http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/11/sentencing_in_just_sixteen_percent_of_rape_cases_2120733.html
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
How about we change the system?
I present to you a simple 2-step system:
1) If a woman does not report a rape within 24 hours after its (alleged) occurrence, it never happened. (The juices are also fresh enough for forensic tests). This eliminates various nonsense such as ‘I was raped as a girl’ or ‘I can’t really remember clearly but I was raped at a party last weekend’. If you want to have buyer’s regret after spreading your legs, do it within 24 hours.
2) No hiding the identity of women from claim to be raped. Heavy penalties for false rape accusations, including total ignore for any other rape claims in future.
I believe this is fairer… much fairer than the Old Testament/Islamic requirement for witnesses. No witness = no rape.
How about it eh, all you white knights, manginas, radfems in legislation and law enforcement?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
0
The feminist agenda crusade Birenbaum and assorted others are guilty of actions which are regressive, or, steps backward – for our society as a whole. They continue to waste a great deal of time and money to “correct” or “amend” laws with confusing and/or conflicting additions, create redundant new laws, and passive-agressively form committees, hold press conferences, and demand the government take action (that favors their cause) to remedy yet another supposed wrong or injustice – and then to top it all off, they want the bills paid for them with someone else’s money. They cannot understand that, putting the issue of fairness aside, all this taking they’re doing right now is running the well dry.
This attempt to control legal definitions and eliminating anything that doesn’t provide the feminist-guaranteed rights and privileges, it should be noted, is being supported most aggressively by a group of individuals that have always felt “invisible” unlike most women after a certain age. As smart and capable as they might be, they still can’t wrap their brain around the idea that it’s their attitude and horrible personality that’s holding them back in life.
Like or Dislike:
12 
4
Finndistan,
That 16% figure is crap. There is one problem with the way they arrive at that number. For EVERY other crime, we get the percentage based on the following:
Cases charged/cases ending in conviction
But for rape, all of a sudden, it becomes:
Cases reported/cases ending in conviction
When you go off of cases charged, the conviction rate is around 50%, which is consistent with ever other classification of crime.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3
Let me share a short anecdote about intriguing historical parallels.
One of the USSR’s deputy prime ministers was the scientist Vladimir Kirillin, appointed in 1965. He warned the CPSU Central Committe’s Politburo numerous times about the country’s deepening economic problems (a rapidly decreasing growth rate of industrial productivity, a bloated military-industrial complex, terribly inefficient agriculture etc.) and structural reforms are needed.
Nobody listened to him. The Politburo removed his set of proposals from its agenda in 1976. Three years later he criticized the regime’s idiotic economic policy in a public speech and was subsequently deposed. Years later he warned that Perestroika will not reach its aims and will in fact lead to collapse. Yet again, nobody listened.
In fact, not only did the elders of the Kremlin not listen to him, they even started an enormous program to modernize the country’s conventional and nuclear armed forces in 1978, and on top of all that, they embarked on an expansionist foreign policy -it’s like they almost wanted to make sure the country goes bankrupt.
There are dozens (if not hundreds) of Vladimir Kirillins in the West today. Some of you MRAs are among them, but you aren’t the only ones. Peter Schiff is another one, not to mention other libertarians and fiscal conservatives. Sensible people, the Cassandras of our time, are yelling from the sideways, warning of the impending collapse, and nobody pays attention. This is the routine course of events during the terminal decline of any empire – because people behave like lemmings.
In fact, not only is the current political leadership in the West not paying attention, it is actually doing everything in its power to make things even worse, just like the Soviet leadership did in the ’70s and ’80s, and in no way can they be compelled to do otherwise.
The increasing feminist rape hysteria that Welmer referred to is one example. Now paternity testing is banned in France, giving men yet another huge reason not to marry (as if there weren’t enough of them in the first place!), and feminists are demanding the same be done in the US. Others want to criminalize Game. Divorce laws and sexual harassment laws are becoming even more unfair and I’m sure we will see some form of bachelor tax passed in the US. Non-feminist women will never speak up against this in large numbers due to their pathetic herd mentality. An increasing number of men will try to resist this, but the feminists, due to their extremism, won’t be stopped. They are loudly proclaiming their final victory and the innate genetic inferiority of men while the political leadership bloats the budget deficit.
To me, all this is obvious proof that nothing can or should be done to avert the coming collapse. Maybe all this could have been averted by right-wing dictatorships 70 or 80 years ago. Maybe. By now it’s obviously too late.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
1
Already so in at least one US state, probably to be copied by the rest.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
@ Hollenhund
If you’ve read my posts, this is exactly what I have been saying. It is much too late.
The West is already in serious and irrevocable decline.
We have no remaining infrastructure and only over-indulged harradins wanting more money for nothing. Trying to get blood from stones that are bloodless, and, as a bloodless stone is useless, make it a felony and throw the stones (fathers) in jail. So Hillary Clinton re-invented debtors prison.
Hillary Clinton did this with full republican support in the 1990′s. The even “News Speaked” it and called it “Welfare Reform”. What it was of course welfare expansion, simply extending the welfare culture to middle class white women.
Everyone knew in the 1970′s that our welfare laws required women to have no source of incomes and so couples wear breaking up to collect the free money.
By the 1980′s 30% of black children were born to single mothers. Many of which were teenagers because they needed the income from welfare. I counseled these girls and they made it very clear to me that their pregnancies were intentional, did not involve consent from the baby daddys and that this made these girls full grown women in their community.
Now 80% of black children are born to single mothers, some welfare reform huh. And now the birth rate to single mothers in the white community is 30% and shooting up.
But us guys can be thick skulled.
This philosphy that has taken hold of our country, feminism, liberal and conservative, wants men to be no more than 10% of the population and doing only menial work. So we implemented a systematic dumbing down of boys in our schools. Now more and more women are awarded advanced degrees. Men are told to become plumbers.
That is was planned is not in question. The plans are public knowledge. That it is working and therefore a success in the eyes of those in power, our gynocrates is seen in their opinion of all this. They don’t see a problem. That’s because this was all planned. Not in star chambers. In living rooms around our country in the 1960′s and 1970′s while the men where out at work.
This is all well known and public knowledge.
They are also lesbians. They cannot get heterosexual woman on their side easily. They have to so scare them that a 40 year program, two generations of demonizing men and incentivizing heterosexual women to demonize their own husbands has been very successful.
It seems absurd today that before the 1970′s women were not allowed to testify against their husbands because their testimony would be a betrayal of their marriage. This was the law.
How do you deal with that if your a feminist. Incentivise lying about your husband for personal gain, money or child custody. And then pretend these things don’t exist.
The feminists have only just begun to start rolling. Wait, this will get much worse. There are fewer and fewer resources to fight over so the feminists will get desparate.
They have removed all motivation for men to be good husbands and women to be good wives.
Can you not understand what it means that our presidents wife left him to go to hell on his birthday and took our tax dollars and vacationed in the south of Spain?
She is the Empress of our country. We live in a feminist dictatorship. Hillary Clinton was the first feminist dictator.
Expect speech such as above to become illegal soon.
Because that’s what dictators do.
Like or Dislike:
16 
2
This is a great one for the “Flip the Gender!” rhetorical game.
As part of a pre-arranged sexual agreement, Woman strangles man to unconsciousness and he awakes to a sex toy inserted in his anus. He attempts legal action.
Result: Feminists cheer on the woman and rigorously uphold the notion of advanced consent.
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
MsExceptionto the Rule
Absolutely.
And it’s really in women’s best interest to call them out on this.
Disengagement tactics like the marriage strike and MGTOW are the natural result of feminists essentially acting to price women out of their own marketplace and this is really what these green eyed monsters made flesh want.
I believe that the entire feminist agenda is driven by sexual jealousy. They have painted a picture of a mercilessly oppressed class of people in order to justify sticking their noses into everyones bedroom and to create an alibi for their sexual jealousy.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Zammo, it is most likely he will still go to jail/prison because the woman did not give “meaningful consent”consent (sarcasm).
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
@Single Dad:
You’re right. I saw a perfect example of this when I met a Latina immigrant girl at a club and, after reading her Myspace and Facebook profiles, I realized that during her stay here, she had became every bit the entitlement princess / feminist bitch as her American counterparts.
Feminist countries such as ours warp, corrupt, and destroy good foreign women once they enter. The only solution is to keep them in their native countries. You either live with them over there, visit them on a regular basis, or just pump ‘em and dump ‘em.
Just don’t marry them or bring them in.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
This seems like as good a time to post this as any other.
I posed a question to a co-worker just the other day.
“If our great great grandfathers had a crystal ball, would they have allowed feminism to take root?”
He (typically, I must say) seemed genuinely baffled at the question.
What irritated me about his confusion was that just prior to that question, we were talking about the prudence of and expected success in exporting Western style democracy to Islamic nations.
I explained further that via modern communications, the west has provided the Islamic patriarchs with that “crystal ball”.
They see what we wish our great great grand dads had been able to foresee: a time when every man-whether honorable or not- lives with the specter of false accusation not far from his door.
The shrill harpies at NOW toss the word “chattel”, or terms like “sex slave” around with certain regularity.
All of us, even if we’re living in the company of a benevolent woman, are now “chattel” and “sex slaves” in the eyes of the law- even if we stay in the good graces of whoever “she” is. That’s far worse than whatever the Suffragettes ever dealt with- who were treated to lifeboat chivalry, enforced by the “evil” patriarchs.
Valerie Solanas would get a big rotten, demented grin if her damned soul were not already on the other side.
Meanwhile, the Islamic patriarch is interupted from his gaze into the crystal ball- instead, staring at the muzzle of an American rifle- there to grant western democracy (the gift that keeps on giving).
Take it or else.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
This right here is a case for the lack of intellectual capacity of women. Sex is the only reason to even talk to a woman. Oh,that’s not true ,huh? Ask any women to discribe a strong independent women. And almost to a T they will discribe a women that proudly proclaims that she doesn’t do a damn thing for any body or any thing including not carrying a baby to full term. And now they will proudly make sexual activity someone elses problem too. And with that women are now comepletely without use or any value what so ever.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Dad wrote-It seems absurd today that before the 1970?s women were not allowed to testify against their husbands because their testimony would be a betrayal of their marriage. This was the law
That’s not true. A spouse could not be Compelled to testify but they could certainly do it if they wanted to and many did.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Against BETAs. Not alphas. Against betas an alphas that fall into a beta trap. It’s a huge shit test, that’s all it is.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Feminists are gonna be ALL over this one.
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/samantha-kelly-commits-suicide-after-being-taunted-about-rape-allegations/19711666
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
@ evilwhite
from democraticunderground:
“Without even reading the rest of the article, I believe he’s guilty simply because he said that all girls are liars.”
“We live in a rape culture, folks.”
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Duhhh…
forgot the link
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×9532746
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
In the category of Stating The Bleeding Obvious Then Applying Oneself Carefully and Diligently To Achieving Absolutely Fucking Nothing By Doing So, we have a new winner: MsExceptionrotheRule November 10,2010 04:11
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“The aim of the Party was not merely to prevent men and women from forming loyalties which it might not be able to control. Its real, undeclared purpose was to remove all pleasure from the sexual act. Not love so much as eroticism was the enemy, inside marriage as well as outside it. All marriages between Party members had to be approved by a committee appointed for the purpose, and–though the principle was never clearly stated–permission was always refused if the couple concerned gave the impression of being physically attracted to one another. The only recognized purpose of marriage was to beget children for the service of the Party. Sexual intercourse was to be looked on as a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema. This again was never put into plain words, but in an indirect way it was rubbed into every Party member from childhool onwards. There were even organizations such as the Junior Anti-Sex League which advocted complete celibacy for both sexes. All children were to be begotten by artificial insemination (“artsem”, it was called in Newspeak) and brought up in public institutions. This, Winston was aware, was not meant altogether seriously, but somehow it fitted in with the general ideology of the Party. The Party was trying to kill the sex instinct, or, if it could not be killed, then to distort and dirty it. He did not know why this was so, but it seemed natural that it should be so. And so far as the women were concerned, the Party’s efforts were largely successful.”
Orwell had it right, didn’t he?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Yep. We’re on the same page — literally.
Can’t speak for anybody else here but MGTOW is looking better and better EVERY single day.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
TFH November 9, 2010 at 23:30
Hey, I just found the most misandric blog ever (and that is saying something) :
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/patriarchy-blaming-the-twisty-way/mra/
Yeah they considering to make yet more changes in law. They Demand that girls toys “BARBIES” get the respect as boys toys “GUNS/G-I-JOES” n such, get the respect in Society.
WHAT U FACK!! SERIOUS???
ok and now that i have learnt what this world is comming to..
..brothers excuse me while i go shoot myself now and die in decency while i can!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 4 trackbacks }