Now elderly people have to be protected against consensual sex. And a comatose woman needs protection from sex with her husband.  A maximum age of consent for elderly, on top of the minimum age for 17 year old children?

 

Elder (in)justice: a critique of the criminalization of elder abuse.

Similarly, in the name of combating sexual abuse of older adults, some states have criminalized consensual sexual conduct that would otherwise be legally permissible. (72) For example, in the state of Washington, it is a crime for a disabled person age sixty or older to engage in consensual sexual activity with someone who provides that person with paid transportation. (73) In Vermont, it is a crime for anyone who works or volunteers at a caregiving facility or program to engage in sexual acts with any person whose ability to care for him or herself is impaired due to "infirmities of aging." (74)

With the effect that elders have no chance for sexual gratification. Be it because they are great pickup artist, be it for promises and money, or just for the good heartedness of the care giver.

Likewise, the Wisconsin Individual-at-Risk Restraining Order makes it possible to obtain a restraining order over someone–and hold them criminally liable for violating that restraining order–even where the "victim" neither lacks capacity nor objects to contact with the third party. (75) The fact that an older adult is competent is not a basis for dismissal of the petition. (76) Moreover, an order can be granted even if the respondent does not pose a risk to the older adult, but merely poses a threat to an investigation of alleged mistreatment, interferes with an offer of services to the older adult (regardless of whether the older adult wishes to obtain such services and regardless of whether those services have been found to be in the older adult’s best interest), or threatens to mistreat or mistreats an animal owned by or in service to the older adult. (77)

Even a caretaker of the same age group as the patient must not engage in any relationship. Or a husband, as seen in the example further down.

If people really were concerned with manipulation of elders (or minors), they could perfectly legalize the behavior after a notarized consent form, or a psychological counseling session.

But, these laws interfere in personal lives with no exception, no way out.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading ‘Consensual sex with the elderly, a felony’ » »
Consensual sex with the elderly, a felony » continues here »

Share

Millions of children watch child porn daily when they look into their bath room mirror. If they do so while posing sexy, or masturbating, it is even higher on the copine scale of child porn, for "children" as old as 17.

Practically every single person under 18 sees LIVE child porn on a daily basis. What they see in the mirror would qualify as child pornography, if photographed or filmed.

This is not the only example where live pictures are legal, but pictures of legal behavior are not

And no, publication and distribution of the illegal pictures are not necessary for it to be a crime


If a teen makes a sexy pose in front of the mirror, what s/he sees is a live version of level 4 child pornography, according to the copine scale "Deliberately posed pictures of children fully clothed, partially clothed or naked (where the amount,context and organisation suggests sexual interest)."

If they look  straight at their genitals, they see  a live version of copine level 6 CP: "Pictures emphasizing genital areas, where the child is either naked, partially clothed or fully clothed."

They see level 7 , If they touch themselves, with their eyes open,: "Pictures that depict touching, mutual and self-masturbation, oral sex and intercourse by a child, not involving an adult."


 

This is why it is so hard to explain children why sexting is such a huge crime. But possessing one’s own photo in the privacy of one’s own cell phone is production and possession of child pornography. According to the voodoo theory of CP, it victimizes the child who took its own photo.

We ought to outlaw bathroom mirrors. Because what these children see in the bathroom mirror is a live version of what would be child porn, if photographed or filmed.

 

 


  1. Watching depictions of a child being beheaded by Muslim terrorists, or stoned to death for extramarital sex,  a child being clubbed to death by US inner city gang bangers is totally legal. Distribution of such movies by for-profit web sites or TV networks is legal too.  Now if there is nudity, if in the movie the kid is not clubbed to death but makes love, or masturbates, then a child is being victimized.  We fail to understand this logic.

  2. Committing actual physical violence against children carries lower penalties then possession of photos: Woman causes permanent brain damage in infant: 2 years. Kills baby: 4 years. Man possesses photos: priceless (40 years)

  3. Why would children or adolescents get victimized by mere watching? “Watching child porn victimizes the child”. The Voodoo science of child pornography laws

  4. Should some kind of child pornography (that does not victimize children) be encouraged, for reducing real crimes against children? Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)


See also

Share

 

On Saturday the BBC made its football commentator and former Liverpool striker Robbie Fowler apologise on air for describing two footballers as "fighting like girls". It made for uncomfortable viewing. It was obvious to any viewer with more than one brain cell that Fowler’s comment, made about a tussle between Fernando Torres and Jan Vertonghen during the Tottenham-Chelsea game, was entirely innocent, intended only to condemn Torres and Vertonghen’s childish antics and not to slander the female sex. Yet minutes later, having clearly had a word in his ear from PC producers, a red-faced Robbie was making an embarrassing climbdown and telling the nation he was "deeply sorry" for apparently offending womankind. It was an ugly and humiliating spectacle.

It is not just football. Harassment laws have poisoned the work place for male expression and freedom of thought. Street harassment will soon be a crime too. Speech codes protect every conceivable minority, and even the majority (women are over 50% of the population).  Racial jokes, ethnic jokes, even academic research on taboo topics are censored (Rind study, race and iq)

In Scotland, the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act makes it a crime for Celtic and Rangers fans to sing “sectarian” or even political songs. Last month it was announced that every single footballer in the Premier League will have to attend lessons about the use of homophobic and racist language, presumably to cleanse their dumb, working-class brains of their foul prejudices. The Football Association has declared war on the use of homophobic language at football grounds, which includes obliterating not only offensive words like “queer” but also, once again, jokey phrases about “girls” and “manning up”. The FA is also trying to stop Tottenham Hotspur fans from referring to themselves as Yids and the Yid Army, something they’ve done for years. The Crown Prosecution Service itself has warned football clubs not to allow their fans to “cross the line [into] inappropriate crowd behaviour and chanting”. But who decides what is appropriate and inappropriate chanting? Surely it should be fans themselves rather than the snobby, censorious suits and PC phrase-police who have become an ugly blot on the beautiful game in recent years?

Source: The BBC’s humiliation of Robbie Fowler shows that football is fair game for censorship

Thanks to the antifeminist for the above link.

God praise the US constitution, with its freedom of speech clauses. Freedom of speech is less curtailed in the US then elsewhere. See

Behavior in general gets over criminalized. Children in the US get expelled for carrying a half inch micro replica of a gun, or for shooting pellet guns in the privacy of their back yard. And of course, anything sexual, teenage sexuality or child porn which often is neither porn (see copine scale) nor a child (17).

Political correctness slowly but surely curtails our freedom and instates a reign of harassment and terror.

Share

Men’s Rights Activists (MRA) have to pay $ 964 "security fee" for police protection against feminists who engage in criminal mischief to crash MRA events

the Canadian Association for Equality has learned that the administration will force a mandatory $964 security fee on our allied campus group to cover costs of police they have deemed necessary next Friday. This means the event “Caring About University Men: Why We Need Campus Men’s Centres in a Time of Crisis, with Miles Groth” is currently in serious jeopardy.

This is the culmination of Political Correctness Hate Speech Laws.  While speech can not be repressed with hate speech law, make it impossibly expensive. Blame the victim of violent demonstration,, make them pay for their right to free speech.

The politically correct interpretation is different. Hate speech by the privileged patriarchy does not deserve free speech rights.

.MRA, part of the patriarchy, are offensive to feminists, who represent the historically disadvantaged group "women".  So it is the MRA’s fault if the offended women feel compelled to act against them, blocking entrances, pushing, shoving, spitting at police. Or they feel compelled to even pull fire-alarms, in their justified despair and frustration about the offensive event /sarcasm

"… therefore we should not be allowed to speak, and that, from their perspective is not an abridgement of freedom of speech, it is rather the prevention of hate speech." -Warren Farrell

 

Janice FIamengo: What’s Wrong With Women’s Studies? A CAFE Event by EqualityCanadaTV

 

Human-Stupidity Analysis

Not only does Political correctness brainwash children and adolescents in school and University, adults through press indoctrination. Political correctness now actively shuts down all critical speech by outlawing it. This is enforced top-down,by international organizations.

We are appalled and shocked. Freedom of speech has been the hallmark of most Western constitutions and liberties. Political correctness has restricted such freedom in colleges, at the work place. But to make this official policy of 28 countries, is unimaginable. EU to ban anti-feminist, racist, homophobic speech The United Nations also is very active in such subject matters. UN demands Germany repress free Speech.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading ‘Impunity for violent criminal feminists, MRA charged $ 964 police protection fee at U of Toronto’ » »
Impunity for violent criminal feminists, MRA charged $ 964 police … » continues here »

Share

EU to ban anti-feminist speech

  • and ban any "defamatory comments" of the following kind.

racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia

 

  • Governments MUST  "Take concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia."
  • Governments MUST give special privileges to underprivileged genders, races, sexual orientations, etc.:  "The special protection afforded to members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups may imply a preferential treatment. Strictly speaking, this preferential treatment goes beyond mere respect and acceptance lying at the root of tolerance "

The texts quoted and highlighted above are from the EU (Europan Union) document itself. I kid you not.

 

We at Human-Stupidity bemoan that Men’s Right’s Activists and Race Realists do not embrace each other and see that they face the same problems:   Gender Quotas, Race Quotas, "reverse discrimination", Hate Speech Laws, and systematic privileges for women, colored races, immigrants and non-native religions. 

EU to ban anti-feminist speech continues >>


The EU’s latest document is a called: “The European framework national statute for the promotion of tolerance”[4] which is a document elaborated with a view to being enacted by the legislatures of all the 28 unfortunate nations that are members of this club.

What’s wrong with “promotion of tolerance” one might ask. As you will see in the following lines, “promotion of tolerance” means something entirely different than what it means to reasonable people. And basically the entire document looks more like a statue of the Thought Police and the Ministry of Truth.

In the Section 1 of the document, the EU defines its terms. So terms like “hate crime”, “group” and “tolerance” are being introduced. Of particular interest is the EU’s definition of “group libel”[5]:

Group libel” means: defamatory comments made in public and aimed against a group as defined in paragraph (a) – or members thereof – with a view to inciting to violence, slandering the group, holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to false charges.

As we will soon see, feminists are also de facto part of the “group” notion – so holding feminists to ridicule, as they deserve, will now be a crime.


Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading ‘EU to ban anti-feminist, racist, homophobic speech’ » »
EU to ban anti-feminist, racist, homophobic speech » continues here »

Share

A biological miracle happened in Berlin. A man gave birth to a child.

He chose home birth, because in Germany, hospitals are required, by law, to inform the name of the mother to the registry.

He insisted to be registered as the father, creating major confusion in the bureaucracy of the official birth registry.  The German civil law code allows him to legally be a man, though s/he is biologically a woman. It is a humane gesture, to save him/her the pain and trouble to undergo sex change operation and still have the sex gender he wishes. It requires only two psychologists

He wanted to hide the gender sex of the baby, but was obliged to register the baby with his/her correct sex. Officials at the registry worry: if the baby is a girl, will s/he educate her as a boy?

Human-Stupidity Analysis

The slippery slope of political correctness always overshoots. Giving someone a chance to live his life as if he were a different sex may be a friendly humane gesture.

But political correctness is about creating legally enforceable special RIGHTS. Making this sex change a legal right to wreak havoc with our legal system, to oblige schools to re-emit diplomas with the "correct" new gender. We occupy courts with her/his legal rights, their offended if someone addresses them by the wrong gender. Our father is of the female sex but of the male gender.

Imagine this bizarre case (double sex change)
Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading ‘Baby born to man, without female help, has no mother’ » »
Baby born to man, without female help, has no mother » continues here »

Share

 

18 year old Muslim immigrant Adil Rashid was convicted of statutory rape of a 13 year old girl he met on the internet.

When he went to be sentenced, he told Judge Michael Stokes that he didn’t know it was illegal. He said he attended private Muslim school in Britain and that they had not educated him on British law.

Stokes said that was good enough for him and freed the Rashid with no punishment. TopConservativeNews

Judge Stokes sentenced Rashid to nine months youth custody, suspended for two years, along with a two-year probation supervision order, instead of a more normal 5 year prison term. 2

Back in January, there was a profoundly disturbing case at Nottingham Crown Court. Adil Rashid, who had “raped” an underage girl, was spared a prison term after the judge heard that the naïve 18-year-old attended an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless. Rashid told psychologists he had no idea that having sex with a willing 13-year-old was against the law;

Even for a normal well informed citizen, being up to date on all underage sex laws is quite difficult.

Would you know the legal ramification of a 6 year old an and 8 year old playing doctor in your state and the nearest 2 adjacent states or countries? Or of two 25 year olds kissing in Abu Dhabi?  Would you know You can have sex with your legal 17 year old wife. But just don’t photograph her! Or else risk 15 years in jail!.

Feminist language abuse has caused such utter confusion like

besides, his education had taught him to believe that “women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground”.

This is a very different issue, though feminists might want to confound it.  We have great respect of women, so much that we think a 13 year old knows what *consent is, knows to say yes and no. Even more so 17 year old "children" know to say yes or no.

If the fresh-faced Rashid had picked up that view in a madrassa in Karachi it would be profoundly depressing, though not surprising. But the school he attended was in Birmingham, for heaven’s sake! Although it cannot be named for “legal reasons”, the school is voluntary-aided – mainly funded by the taxpayer. At this hugely popular Islamic school, where a majority of pupils are from a Pakistani background, boys and girls are taught in separate classes; a segregation policy no normal comprehensive could get away with.

Again, another issue. Muslim "culture" that does not integrate at all with British culture but remain a parallel culture.

This leads to more serious problems, if Muslim boys that despise inferior women use real non-consensual *rape-rape on young British girls.

Oxford grooming gang: We will regret ignoring Asian thugs who target white girls

What a god-awful mess this country has got itself into over multiculturalism, and once again our fear of racism will lead to the betrayal of hundreds of young girls

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading ‘British judge frees child-rapist because he “didn’t know it was wrong”’ » »
British judge frees child-rapist because he “didn’t kn… » continues here »

Share

Pedophilia apology, 33 years ago, prompts Dagmar Döring to withdraw her candidacy to the German parliament for the Liberal FDP party.

 

The texts were discovered by researcher Franz Walter, hired by the German Green Party to research their own party’s involvement in efforts to decriminalize child sexuality.

40 years ago, the child sex trauma myth and Voodoo theory had not yet become the religious dogma (Disclaimer). The Rind study had not yet been unanimously condemned by the US Congress and Senate. A decent percentage of Germans practiced nudism at most beaches, rivers. So nudes of all ages could be readily seen during summer. Legal Dutch hardcore porn employed 15 and 16 year old actresses engaging in sex acts. British newspapers had topless 15 and 16 year old page 3 girls.

Dagmar Döhring went beyond Daniel Cohn Bendit. He described how he behaved passively when anti-authoritarian children opened his fly and played with him.

Dagmar Döring stated how she could be only satisfied by a long relation with a girl. Her boy friend had a relation with  13 year old boy that was cruelly ended after it was discovered. Dagmar Döring wrote how she would fight all these unjust cruel laws that criminalized such behavior.

If she were in Britain or the US, she probably would go to prison, once the victims come forward to sue for millions. No real victims are needed. Anyone claiming to have been abused will be automatically believed as there is no due process for those accused of sex crimes.

Human-Stupidity will not take a position towards liberating child sex (disclaimer) But we want to stress the following facts:

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading ‘Pedophilia apology 33 years ago: withdrawal of candidacy to German Parliament.’ » »
Pedophilia apology 33 years ago: withdrawal of candidacy to German… » continues here »

Share