Tag: feminism

“Watching child porn victimizes the child”. The Voodoo science of child pornography laws

  

“However, what he didn’t turn his mind to at the time is that merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image. He appreciates that now.” Senior gets jail time, probation for having single image of child pornography 

We at Human-Stupidity.com fail to appreciate that. Maybe we are too humanly-stupid to understand. Or maybe we do not fall prey to mystical superstitious thinking that is the driving force of the child porn witch hunt. 

“merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image.” This is some mystical religious thinking. Like in Voodoo. And note, this was said by a respectable lawyer to appease a judge. And this logic is used over and over, for example by Australian Government web sites. 

Vodoo logic

Child porn Voodoo logic
voodoo-doll-pinYou stick a needle into a Vodoo doll’s arm. The person you curse will be hurt on the arm.
The vodoo doll symbolizes a person, and that person’s will get injured in the same place where you stuck the needle.		 Someone possesses a photo of a child, in the form of 0’s and 1’s in a computer file. When s/he looks at the photo, the individual depicted in the photo gets victimized and hurt.
 

Voodoo logic applied to murder and terrorism
exhusband-vodoo-doll While I can appreciate that creating or distributing child porn victimizes children, I cannot agree that looking for, viewing, or collecting child porn actually victimizes anyone. If you were to apply the same reasoning to any other crime, then looking at a photo of any crime would be re-victimizing someone. Using the same reasoning, anyone who looks for, views images or video footage of 9/11 or nazi war crimes, or autopsy photos, etc, would be guilty of having re-victimized people. If the simple act of viewing an image of someone is harmful, then perhaps an approprate punishment would be to simply take a photo of the perpetrator in jail, then set them free, but have some look at the photo that was taken while they were in jail. ”
Dude” commenting at  Examining the Effects of Child Pornography

VoodooDoll Dude, you are hilarious. Having people look at photos of themselves in jail to re-victimize them with their jail term. Priceless! 

Studying child sex offenders isn’t easy. […] It’s hard because sexual offenses against children are without a doubt the most culturally, emotionally, and politically charged of all offenses, particularly in North America, and researchers (and journalists) who are willing to take a more objective, critical, and/or scientific view of these offenses and offenders, are often attacked for their trouble. Take one of the questions the Swiss study considered: 

Are people who consume child pornography different from those who sexually offend against a child?

So far so good. Open minded article, wants to seriously analyze child porn issues. But wait: now he falls under the voodo spell, too:

Many may feel like this distinction isn’t worth making. Watching child pornography is, in several ways, offending against a child even if the viewer never comes in physical contact with a child. Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film.    Examining the Effects of Child Pornography 

We were seriously doubting our sanity. Maybe we at Human-Stupidity, like Mr Smith who had one single CP photo, really need our misguided brain repaired. Even if we don’t consume child porn, maybe for purely educational purposes, to remedy our human-stupitiy, we should join Smith’s “probationary term that will require Smith to take part in the province’s sexual offender assessment and treatment program” (Senior gets jail time for single image of CP) 

Maybe we, at Human-Stupidity.com are the only dumb insane people in this world who don’t understand this infallible logic: “Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.  

But the spell was broken, and our trust into our sanity was re-instated, when we ran across this irreverant and refreshing comment 

“Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film.” 

Are you mad? 

Looking at ‘indecent’ images of children is no more a ‘Sex Crime’ than looking at an image of a dead person is ‘Homicide’. (“Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield “commenting on Examining the Effects of Child Pornography) 

Hence 

one could just legalise ownership [of child porn] and solve the problem in one fell swoop 

Certainly our mind gets victimized by repeated exposure to insane voodo logic 

“Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.  

This repeated exposure almost destroyed our trust into our own intelligence. Somehow constant repetition of voodoo logic brainwashes the average person into believing such NONSENSE: “Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.  

Unfortunately, the belief in this nonesense guides entire nations’ and the United Nation’s policy towards the world wide child porn witch hunt. 

Australian Law Makers’ logic

Analogy #1

Analogy #2
Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of child pornography or child abuse images on the Internet raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual child abuse off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing child pornography makes the offender a party to child sexual abuse. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of child pornography is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. [2.5]  Child Pornography Law (New South Wales, Australia) Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of child abuse images on the internet 
 

  • infant shaking, infant beating, infant throwing caught on nanny-cams
  • children suffering serious injuries in accidents
  • children being knocked out in fighting sports like boxing and Thai boxing

raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual child abuse off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing child abuse videos above makes the offender a party to child sexual abuse. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of child abuse videos as above is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. 

 Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of  depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder on the Internet raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual terrorism, mayhem and murder off-line by the offender concerned.  It is agreed that the very act of accessing depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder makes the offender a party to terrorism, mayhem and murder. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. [2.5]   

  

Human-Stupidity.com Analysis

We understand your rage

We understand that some readers will be fuming with anger, reading our “defense of pedophiles, child abuse, and child abusers”. We almost fell prey to the world wide child porn hysteria voodoo logic brainwashing. It is based on 2 fallacies 

  1. confusing the crime with depiction of a crime:
    You watch a movie of a plane flying into the World Trade Center. Therefore you are a terrrorist and revictimizing 3000 people who died
  2. Confusing child pornography and “child pornography”. Confusing “child porn” as defined in the old days (involving a “real child under 12” and “real porn with real penetrative sex” and “modern child porn” which might be as harmless as a 22 year old (that looks “apparently underage” like she might be only 17 years old) non-nude in leotards dancing while gyrating her hips provocatively). Can you understand now we insist that lots of modern so called “child porn” has no victim at all and is not offensive to sex positive people.

  

Can watching a photo or video cause harm to a far away “victim” that is unaware of the watcher?

  

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading ““Watching child porn victimizes the child”. The Voodoo science of child pornography laws” »
“Watching child porn victimizes the child”. The Voodoo…
» continues here »

Age of Consent is Misandry (jayhammers.blogspot.com)

The arbitrary age of consent is not about protecting women/girls. It is about valuing females and their virtue over males and their freedom. The intent of the laws is to stop older men from having sex with younger women and that is how it is enforced. It was never intended to stop younger men from having sex with older women. This is only possible in a society that values females over males, the same society that has so many other examples of legalized discrimination based on sex as long as that sex is male – violence laws such as VAWA, domestic violence laws, family court, accusations of sexual assault & harassment, all criminal sentencing, military conscription, circumcision, etc. We live in a society where misandry runs rampant, unchecked, and enforced by the law.

RIP Jayhammers.blogspot.com

Jay Hammers closed down his famous Men’s Rights blog, jayhammers.blogspot.com for private reasons. Unfortunately, he did not just cease to publish, but took down the entire blog. With Jay Hammers gracious permission, I repost Jay Hammers “Age of Consent is Misandry”.

Jay Hammer’s “Age of Consent is Misandry” is a provocative, politically incorrect and irreverent article. The language is often strong and alienated even lots Men’s Rights’ activists.

We at Human-Stupidity.com repost  Jay Hammer’s “Age of Consent is Misandry” as a historical document, without further comment. We do invite comments at the end of this post!

  • reddit.com/domain/jayhammers.blogspot.com has the history of his blog, including lots of reddit’s members comments. We would be happy if Jay Hammers gave permission to repost more of his articles.
  • Human-Stupidity.com is not exclusively dedicated to men’s rights. Human Stupidity focuses on exposing blind dogmatism, unjust witch hunts and wants to raise awareness and honest conscious discussion. Sometimes the truth is offensive, sometimes a point that counters conventional dogma can be driven home with blunt openness instead of careful maneuvering.

    • * r/mensrightsmovement: Reddit Men’s Rights Movement

    • www.reddit.com/r/mensrightsmovement/ is a new group at reddit, and an appropriate place to advance the discussion of issues about this post. r/MensRightMovement “Welcomes sex positive points of view” and “Sees the legislative creep of sex offender hysteria to be one of the greatest abuses of men’s rights by feminists.”

    Age of consent laws are designed to punish beta males. A beta male in his 20s, unsuccessful with women his own age who are infused with a sense of feminist entitlement and deride all but the top alpha males who take interest in them, who seeks companionship with a younger, sexually mature female who desires him, should not go to prison for acting on that which is normal male sexuality. A society that criminalizes this is a society that values females over males and treats women as if they are children.

    If we are to treat women as children then we should be consistent. Young women who have sex with older men are as much victims as women who have sex with a pick-up artist after meeting at a club. In both cases, feminists are angry because the woman has been “fooled” into having sex with a less than ideal mate in terms of value. In the first case, the male appears to be of higher value than he really is because he is older and more experienced. In the second case, the male appears to be of higher value than he really is because he has learned the elements of attraction. In both cases, women are presumed (by feminists) to have no responsibility for their own actions and to be little more than children, than animals who are guided only by instinct.

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Age of Consent is Misandry (jayhammers.blogspot.com)” »
    Age of Consent is Misandry (jayhammers.blogspot.com)
    » continues here »

    Hanna Rosin on the rise of women (TED talks)

    Quite a shocking speech. Hanna Rosin fails to mention the constant discrimination against men and boys, and against masculine traits and behaviors, from kindergarten on.

    But, judging from her speech, men clearly need to be protected and have affirmative action, as a disadvantaged class.

    “Emotional terrorist” or the “violence prone” women (Erin Pizzey)

    Pizzey differentiates between genuine battered women and violence prone women or “emotional terrorists”. Unconsciously, these women seek or create hostile or violent relationships.

    A battered person is the unwilling and innocent victim of his or her partner’s violence; a violence prone person is the unwilling victim of his or her own violence  […] A clear distinction to be made between a woman who has accidentally become involved with a violent partner and who now wishes to leave and never return again, and a woman who, for deep psychological reasons or for own, seeks out a violent relationship or a series of violent relationships, with no intentions of leaving.

    […] Opposition against my work with violence prone women and against the theories growing from this work has arisen among certain circles women working in the field of family violence who self identify as “feminists”. […] It is this circle women, clinging fast to a  specific set of political and rhetorical beliefs, who have attempted to suppress my theories.  (The emotional terrorist and the violence-prone by Erin Pizzey)

    Emotional Terrorist and the Violence-Prone by Erin Pizzey $9.99 B003Y5H7YK (Kindle edition)
    (download Kindle for PC from amazon.com and get the free preview chapter of this book. Very informative)

    Erin Pizzey opened the very first women’s shelters, where women victims of domestic violence could flee to.  To her own surprise she found, that a large percentage of these women were not genuine battered women that needed help to get out of violent relationships.

    In domestic violence, men are always at fault. Erin Pizzey breaks a taboo: from her own vast experience running women’s shelters, she discovered a type of women that either seeks, provokes, or creates the violent environment.
    Important: See all 5 videos

    Many readers will discover that they encountered women of this type before, be it in news about domestic violence, be it their own girl friend or wife, or their own mother.

    Pizzey’s findings counter the feminist dogma, that the women is always the victim, and the man is the perpetrator. Feminists countered Pizzey with extreme hostility. Feminists managed to get her book removed from most libraries. Her books are very hard to find.

    Human-Stupidity Analysis

    Conventional wisdom about domestic violence and divorce is based on feminist dogma, on false premises. Hence, the real problems will never be solved and false solutions harm innocent children and men.

    The “guilty” emotional terrorist is a victim of her own unconscious rage and a victim of inept society: society, police, therapists and the lawt help the emotional terrorist to get her revenge but fail to help her to cure her real deep seated emotional behavior. She creates her own misery, all life long. She destroys her family, harms her husband, and might set up her children to become as disfunctional as she is.

    Further Human Stupidity Analysis
    1) It is also worth analyzing, if the concept of equality in relationships has not failed.  Constant bickering and arguing is not productive. Conflicts need to be solved and cannot be dragged on forever. It seems, that if one person yields, and the other person has the final say, that is the only way how a family relationship can work.

    In every enterprise, in court, everywhere, the boss (or a majority vote), make definite decisions which must be respected by the over-ruled minority. In the EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptedness) , the classic stone-age family structure, this would, most likey be the man, or the larger family or tribal unit.

    There is significant research in psychology, that in happy life long couples, there always is one dominant partner who has the final say.  (yes, this could be the woman)
    2) PS:I differ from Pizzey here: It is quite plausible that this emotional terrorist behavior has a genetic component. There certainly are women, who, in spite of adverse childhood, do not become “violence prone”. And some violence prone women might have helped to actually create their own traumatic childhood, by their own unruly temperament.

    The emotional terrorist

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading ““Emotional terrorist” or the “violence prone” women (Erin Pizzey)” »
    “Emotional terrorist” or the “violence prone&#82…
    » continues here »

    Generation Y, raised on nothing but feminism, will be a nightmare for men.

    “watch out for generation y, they will be a nightmare for men”.  Those feminist women who indicated Generation Y as being a nightmare for men are correct. Things have hit a tipping point in our culture by that time. Children from that generation onwards have been raised on nothing but feminism. By the time of Generation Y, feminists have taken over academia, media and the law, they control public discourse. Feminism by the time of Generation Y is more than a revolutionary movement; it is the culture itself. It is Western culture. the-spearhead.com/2010/11/02/feminists-who-cares-if-its-your-kid/#comment-50531

    I repost this comment, because it is very scary and very shocking. The consequences of feminism are scary and shocking enough. It is very scary to imagine that this is just the beginning!  An entire generation grown up with feminist indoctrination from kindergarten to university. Feminist dogma, feminist thinking, feminist warped logic became part of their mind.

    A scary article. Feminism has barely begun! It will take over completely. Due process will disappear even further for men.  Women will get even more power to get men evicted from their home and jailed for unproven accusations of rape and child abuse, jailed for non-payment of child support even if the child is not theirs, and worse.

    Feminists think about these things. They plan generations ahead. I have heard many feminist women tell me “watch out for generation y, they will be a nightmare for men”.

    Yes they do, well said. Radical feminism – the basis and instinct of all feminism – is based upon this sophisticated, long-term thinking approach. (Radical) feminism is about progressively eliminating all male power – oops, “the patriarchy”. Eliminating anything which could possibly lead to male power in any and all forms.

    There’s nothing wrong with this approach per se – it’s necessary. What wrong is the group exercising this approach – feminist females – and that they are allowed free reign to do so. In the absence of masculinist men adopting a long term revolutionary radical mindset (to empower men and keep females in check), feminist females will instead adopt that approach. Life is zero sum; the battle of the sexes is real. (Christian/Enlightenment liberal philosophy about the possibility of universal equality and liberty is bunk.)

    Likewise there’s nothing wrong with “social engineering” – the negative connotion it has among men’s rights types is unfounded.

    Those feminist women who indicated Generation Y as being a nightmare for men are correct. Things have hit a tipping point in our culture by that time. Children from that generation onwards have been raised on nothing but feminism. By the time of Generation Y, feminists have taken over academia, media and the law, they control public discourse. Feminism by the time of Generation Y is more than a revolutionary movement; it is the culture itself. It is Western culture.

    (Note that this phenomenon of feminism taking over the culture is exclusive to regions based on Liberal Democratic Capitalism.)
    Source: the-spearhead.com/2010/11/02/feminists-who-cares-if-its-your-kid/#comment-50531

    This comment was on Spearhead, and even on this men’s right site was voted down into invisible oblivion.  I am not sure how much I support the rest of the comment. I reposted the most interesting part.  So please go on reading the rest of the article on the-spearhead.com/2010/11/02/feminists-who-cares-if-its-your-kid/#comment-50531

    Human-Stupidity.com Analysis

    Human-Stupidit.com has shown that feminism and its laws are a prime example of warped thinking, unconscious distortions and manipulative speech. The fact that an entire generation grew up conditioned by feminist thinking is extremely scary to everybody who thinks that feminism has already gone overboard.

    The effects can already be observed. Moderate men’s rights writers get kicked out of websites and, amazingly, even get kicked off men’s rights websites. Speaking against feminism might soon be included in hate laws and totally banned. Nowadays research on issues like adolescent and child sexuality is even more taboo than research about gender and race differences.

    Hollywood movies glorify criminal heroes: how romantic!

    Romantic Hollywood movies are full of illegal (criminal) actions, perpetrated by movie heroes, our role models!  Interestingly, most of these illegalities are considered highly romantic (when perpetrated by a heartthrob movie star)

    “When done in real life, many of the tricks used by onscreen singletons to successfully woo potential lovers can get you put away for a long time.”

    1. Pranking a Rival by Doctoring His Drink
    2. Defending Her Honor – With Your FISTS
    3. Watching Your True Love From the Bushes (stalking)
    4. Just Tie The Guy Up (rape committed by females is romantic)
    5. “Oh, It Was You I Was Having Sex With!” (sex by deception)
    6. Dashing Through Airport Security to Declare Your Love
      Source: Romantic Movie Gestures That Can Get You Prison Time

    It is fun to read all the details and examples:
    Romantic Movie Gestures That Can Get You Prison Time

    If a man tied up a woman, with no explicit consent: 10 years jail time
    Man tied up to be raped by a woman (in mainstream movie)

    Do these movies send us wrong messages? Do they mis-educate us and our kids? Should they be prohibited for minors? Or are our laws wrong and the movies are right? Tough questions!

    Hollywood glorifies ILLEGAL violent actions perpetrated by handsome role models …. but photos and movies of LEGAL acts are child pornography

    Hollywood glorifies ILLEGAL violent actions perpetrated by handsome role models …

    Our inborn insticts are not acceptable in laws of the modern world. This has good reasons. Genocide and ethnical cleansing can be found not only in the holy Bible, but even in chimpanzee colonies in the wild. Overreacting in self defense is a deterrent to thugs, but nowadays gets victims of bullying and robbery into jail. Of course, occasionally, the old illegal method would work as well or better. Vigilanteism and lynching, in the past, helped to maintain order.

    In Hollywood movie clearly illegal and dangerous actions are perpetrated by the hero! Not just by the villains, but by the beloved and adored hero that serves as model for adults and children alike. I always wondered why the hero never makes a police report, but rather solves his problems with his fists and guns. What a role model for our gullible children!

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Hollywood movies glorify criminal heroes: how romantic!” »
    Hollywood movies glorify criminal heroes: how romantic!
    » continues here »

    Meredith Maran (My lie): False accusations due to “repressed-memory”-of-child-abuse witch hunt

    Meredith Maran’s recent book “My Lie” describes how Meredith accused her own father of child abuse and rape. She was fooled into this by then fashionable feminist witch hunt invention of “repressed memory”, that a third of all kids were sexually abused and just had forgotten. She is sorry for it, but does not quite see the monstrosity of how she almost destroyed her father’s life.

    “I allow an innocent man to sit in prison if it meant keeping children safe”
    (Meredith Maran)

    In the middle of the book, while you are still deeply in the mind-set of being molested, there’s a notion you agree with that if one innocent man goes to prison, but it stops a hundred molesters, it’s worth it. Do you still agree with that notion?

    I’m fairly close to a man still in prison, and really believe he is innocent. I know how he’s suffered. I know he’s 80 years old and in ill health. He’s spent 20 years in prison, for no reason. If every elementary school child is now taught how to protect themselves from sexual abuse — and even more to the point, some father or preschool teacher who feels the urge to molest a child will be inhibited from doing so because they think there are guys still in jail for doing that — but innocent people are in prison, do I have to make that choice? It is a Sophie’s choice kind of thing. Would I allow an innocent man to sit in prison if it meant keeping children safe?

    So would you make that choice?

    I think so.

    Source of this monstrosity: salon.com/books/int/2010/09/20/meredith_maran_my_lie_interview/

    Meredith Maran did not learn. She has a little pity for a guy whose life has been totally destroyed by 20 years of jail in spite of his innocence. No total outrage. No desire ti fight for justice (to make amends for her own injustice).

    She still suffers from brainwashing by more recent feminist fables. Meredith Maran  is sorry she destroyed her father’s life. But Meredith wants to totally destroy the life of a totally 100% innocent guys in order to save children from some indecent fondling? In this blog I make it a point that even the true culprit of indecent fondling of a (real) child deserves much lighter punishment then decades in jail. But Meredity wants that the totally innocent guy rots and gets raped in jail?

    I use the word “real” child, denoting 3, 5 or 10 year old, because feminist laws
    nowadays define 17 year olds as “children”

    A child molestor is a guy who talks to children in creepy ways, who has indecent wandering hands. A guy who takes photos.  An old grandpa who is getting a little too cozy. Or a 20 year old having sex with a 15 year old. Some reason for concern, yes. But feminist propaganda confounds senile grandpas with slight errors of judgment and violent penetrative toddler mutilators and (real) infant rapists.

    I use the word “real” rapist, because all the above indecent behaviors
    nowadays are officially called “rape”, causing total confusion.
    • When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape”. & the Perversion of Language

    Child molestation might not be harmful!!?

    Feminists  either totally invent or vastly exaggerate the damage that is being done my low level child molestation. Where is the proof? Inconvenient science gets officially repressed and condemned:

    So much that the entire US senate condemned a prestigious peer reviewed study by a 99-0 vote.
    Scientific Publications Condemned and Repressed by US Congress and Senate

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Meredith Maran (My lie): False accusations due to “repressed-memory”-of-child-abuse witch hunt” »
    Meredith Maran (My lie): False accusations due to “repressed…
    » continues here »

    "Mother’s baby. Father’s maybe." Mandatory DNA testing at birth can instate gender equality.

    When technological progress could be of disadvantage for feminists, they use their manipulative skills to outlaw its usage. Recent technological advances in DNA paternity tests could uncover female adultery and liberate a cuckold from life long payments. To avoid this, feminists’s infinite creativity invented a baby’s “right to her/his genetic material” to prevent a father from taking a bit of blood, saliva or hair from his putative offspring for genetic testing. Feminist women want to maintain the status: before the advent of DNA testing, women managed to hide the offspring of adulterous relations and made the cuckold husband paternity and pay for the resulting offspring. Now most countries create obstacles to paternal DNA testing, so cheating wives do not get discovered.

    The Conspiracy Against Cuckolds. Women are sure of maternity. They know for sure the baby is hers. Men can’t be sure. Feminists are against gender equality, they want to prevent men from being sure about paternity.

    Summary

    Women who actually introduce cuckold babies into her family, make her husband pay for her infidelity, defraud the men out of huge amounts of money. This female fraud is treated leniently. The female adulterous fraudsters are even are protected by laws that make it difficult for cuckolded fathers to do genetic testing.

    In some countries fathers who do paternity test on their putative offspring risk 3 years in jail.

    We propose equal rights. Women are sure about maternity, so mandatory paternity testing at birth is the only way to level the playing field and have equality of information.

    Human-Stupidity analysis

    As always, women want to have their cake and eat it. Whenever they are at a disadvantage, they want equality. Whenever they have a privilege, they want to keep it. No equality.

    When paternal certainty gets them child support money, they enforce laws for DNA testing:  Even if mother cheated, lied, or raped: father always pays child support.

    When uncertainty favors a cheating adulterous wife, they instate other laws that punish putative fathers for DNA testing.

    It never ceases to amaze me that women get men to enact and enforce their lopsided laws. Most likely this is not a planned conspiracy by feminists, but evolutionary inborn ‘feelings” that translate into concerted action by big groups of females, (Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes feminist Language Distortions’ universal acceptance )

    What damage is done if a woman cheats? 20 years of expense for her husband to feed a cuckold baby!

    A cheating wife can make a man invest his life’s work and savings into a child that is not his. This is one of the worst frauds there can be. 20 years of work, a major part of a man’s life, stoled, due to fraud. This fraud should be a felony with long mandatory prison term.

    That is real cheating! Amazing, cuckolding a man with a child that is not his is not regarded high treason!  And now we have the technology to prevent this cheating, to protect men from the worst effect of their wive’s infidelity.

    A man who goes to a prostitute, who has enough money, harms nobody. Except the pride of his wife.Maybe reduces a little the time and money alotted to his wife and kids. But his wife will never pay for a man’s girlfriend’s offspring.

    Modern paternity tests threaten female cheaters, so protective laws were enacted

    Amazingly, the feminist influenced legal system managed to undo the technological progress. The female cheater is often protected by law, which makes paternity tests difficult or illegal.

    The Conspiracy Against Cuckolds: Cheating women get legal protection.

    [Snce 2006] all men who suspect they may be the father of a child, but who do not have parental responsibility, will be banned from testing a child’s DNA. The new Human Tissue Act will make it a criminal offence to test a bodily sample, including for paternity testing, without proper consent
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article554070.ece

      And as usual, women manage to come up with some amazing logic, that the 6 month old baby has a right and interest in his/her genetic material. And stupid men just lap up such drivel and buy it. I am amazed!

      Yes: up to 3 years in jail when a British man does genetic testing on his own child!

      www.hta.gov.uk/licensingandinspections/consentanddnafaqs.cfm
      http://www.easydna.co.uk/dnanews.php/human-tissues-act-paternity-testing

      This drakonian law is from Britain.  But in most countries, genetic testing by cuckold fathers is getting complicated. In Germany, a similar law to impose jail sentences on fathers was defeated.

      In Germany, even if a cuckold father takes a genetic test and sees he is not the father, this test is invalid. And it is not grounds enough to do a court ordered test. Father will be forced to go on paying for the kid his adulterous wife bore from another man.

      Insanity! Absolute injustice against the man. The woman commits large scale fraud to get large part of a man’s earnings for her boyfriend’s son. And the law protects the adulterous woman and her boy toy. Insanity enshrined in legal code. Amazing!

      All this DNA secrecy with the intent to protect family peace and the well being of the children.

      Amazing how feminists win all wars, and men are just the lambs who accept all injustice.

      Why not 3 years in jail for deceiving a man and make him pay for a child that is not his?

      A woman who makes a cuckold dad work for 20 years to pay a few hundred thousands $, €, £, for a child that is not his, causes severe financial and emotional damage to a man. Then later on, society wants to protect the child by preventing dad from knowing he is not the father. Well, the culprit for any trauma to the child is the lying cheating woman.

      Does she get 3 years in jail for that? For causing trauma to her husband and her child? No. the law protects her. It makes it hard or impossible for a man to find out the truth about her cheating. And if he finds out he usually is required to go on paying.

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “"Mother’s baby. Father’s maybe." Mandatory DNA testing at birth can instate gender equality.” »
    "Mother’s baby. Father’s maybe." Mandatory …
    » continues here »