Category: Social Rules & Habits

Societal rules & habits often are senseless & sometimes outright detrimental.

How to Teach a New Age Class by Throwing Around Meaningless Buzzwords (Humor)

How to teach a New Age Class by Throwing Around Meaningless KeywordsMore and more stupid, directionless people are turning to the nebulous, feel-good teachings of new age “philosophy.” Get in on this multi-billion dollar industry by doing what hundreds of others are doing: Teach a New Age class! Today there’s a serious shortage of teachers to fill the increasing demand for “knowledge”! And the best part is, absolutely no experience – or knowledge is necessary!

In this intensive one-day workshop, you’ll learn such vague and/or meaningless words and phrases a “quickening process,” “mind’s eye,” and “guided imagery.”

PLUS YOU’LL LEARN HOW TO:

  • Randomly add prefixes (“meta-,” “trans-,” “inter-“) to any number of words to make them sund more meta-impresive
  • Hyphenate words to make up your own personalized drivel (“trance-channeling,” “aura-synthetisation”, “cosmic-dymensional”, “self-harmonisation”.
  • Use Buddhist, Hindu, Native American, or other exotic sounding words (“Toltec,” Mantra.” “”Tantric,” “Mandala”) to add ancient sounding wisdom and legitimacy to whatever you say

You’ll come away with the tools you need to make a fortune in one of today’s hottest industries, simply by further confusing people who are already confused to begin with! And the beauty is,they’ll think they understand every word of what you say! ]]

Dawnea Bas experienced her first transformational conscious evolution at age 26 and went on to achieve the 7 chakras of meditation before traveling to Sedona, Arizona, to become a renowned metaphysical intuitive counsellor who specializes in psycho-spiritual rhythmic crystal therapy, She is the author of Angels and Dolphins: Cosmic Balance in Altered InnerShadow Life Magnetism.

Course 946 East End
sec. A Sun. Dec. 11 10am-6pm
sec. B Sat. Dec. 17 11am-7pm

Course fee 539 I Members Course fee 534

Human-Stupidity Analysis

One should not really dissect a joke. If you don’t get it, if you don’t find this funny, then maybe you have never been exposed to New Age Psychobabble.

But if you have seen people abusing language to distort meaning, to impress, to pretend to be knowledgeable, to appear intelligent, then you might crack up like we did. Language can be a powerful tool to confuse people, be in in Barnum effect or in manipulative language.

Wayne Rooney (british soccer) cheated on wife. Open marriage is a solution!

Headline in British tabloids:

Wayne Rooney will travel to Switzerland for England’s Euro qualifier despite claims that he cheated on wife Coleen with a prostitute
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1309220/Wayne-Rooney-travel-England-for.html

Tiger Woods was equally shunned for his infidelity.

Why should sexual infidelity prevent Wayne Rooney from playing soccer?

Amazing. What would such a private problem have to do with his playing soccer? Visiting a legal prostitute? So what if he got a parking ticket, or a speeding ticket. At least that would endanger other people. But nobody would consider stopping him from playing soccer.

Yes. He broke his mariage vow

OK. Wayne Rooney had a “marriage contract” with his wife. He was dishonest and did not keep his contract. He cheated.

What damage is done if a very rich man visits a prostitute? None!

So why can’t men have fun? What damage is done if he goes out with a prostitute? Did he neglect wife and family? Spend so much money that his family suffers (He makes  £ 100 000 a week, so spending a few thousands a week will not cause hardship to his family).

Women who actually introduce cuckold babies into her family, making her husband pay for her infidelity, are treated much more lenient and even are protected by laws that make it difficult for cuckolded fathers to do genetic testing. So there is a reason for double standards!

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.

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, to protect men from the worst effect of their wive’s infidelity.

Feminist laws prevent routine DNA testing of children

Feminists already found out that DNA testing can be detrimental to female cheaters. So they make laws to make DNA tests in children dependent on the cheating wife’s permission. More in another post.

Change Sex Laws into “Baby Making Laws”: A new moral code

As a sexually liberated person, I once checked out all sexual morality laws

Morality Sex Law
New Offspring Law
No sex with young girls Don’t make babies with young girls.
Though shalt not covet your neigbor’s wife: No sex with your neighbor’s wife Don’t make babies with your neighbor’s wife
No sex before marriage Don’t make babies if you are not married
(except if it is planned, you are rich, or have someone to responsibly take care of the baby
Marry a virgin Don’t marry a women if she already imight be pregnant, is (secretly?) pregnant or has a baby and wants to make you responsible for it.
(unless you consciously want to adopt the baby)

Simply changing the word “sex” into “baby making” makes all these moral laws very palatable. When the moral codes, holy books were written, sex and baby making was all the same. Now we have choices. We can separate sex from baby making. It is time to update our moral codes to adapt them to the new reality.

(we might also write “condoms” into the new moral code, to prevent diseases. So a man is unfaithful if he has sex without a condom)

I repeat: all restrictive sex laws made sense in ancient biblical times. A man really wanted to be sure he would devote his life to offspring that was his. And these sex laws were the only way to assure paternity.

We could liberate sexual morality with DNA testing, birth control, and condoms

all these new technology items can liberate our sex laws.

Why is there no freedom of contract for marriage? Polyamory, open marriage, polygamy?

Did Wayne Rooney (or Tiger Woods, or any other male adulterre) have an option? Was the “marriage contract” freely negotiated? Of course not!  There is no freedom of contract.

Why are there no options in marriage? Do you want to be faithful? Do you allow polyamory? occasional trysts? Open marriage?  Or polygamy? How come, there are no options in marriage?

Nowadays, consumer protection law voids most consumer contracts, if they don’t give enough choices and freedom to the customer. Why is there only ONE version for “fidelity” in marriage? Why can we not analyze other ways of marriage?

We legalized gay marriage. Why not polyamory, open marriage, or polygamy, and prostitution?

Gays, like feminists, united and fought for their rights and liberties.

Regular heterosexual men are persecuted by feminist morality. Brazil, for example, fights all “sex tourism”, prohibits post-cards that focus on the rear end of bikini-clad beauties. But fought to proudly exhibit the title “best gay tourist destination of the world”.

Heterosexuals of the world, unite. Fight for your freedom.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Wayne Rooney (british soccer) cheated on wife. Open marriage is a solution!” »
Wayne Rooney (british soccer) cheated on wife. Open marriage is a …
» continues here »

Fathers’ rights movie censored by Amnesty International due to feminists’ protest

The right to be a father

A very feeling movie, about men who are forbidden to see their kids.  The movie is quite tame, it does not even mention that men of course have to pay half their income in exchange for not being allowed to see the kid.

The final version of the documentary about the discrimination against fathers in custody cases, and the mayhem it causes in our societies.
Produced by Sara Sivesson, Jerry Wallén, Sandra Atas and Oskar Krantz at the John Bauer high school in Sweden. The film was made as an entry in a Amnesty International contest regarding human rights.

Rumors are that women’s groups protested the movie and Amnesty International thus did not allow the movie in their contest. Another example of the amazing clout feminists wield to manipulate institutions to act in the feminist interest, making special rules and exceptions for feminist issues that the institution would never make for any other issues.

Amnesty sponsored a film competition, but when some finalists produced a film that angered feminists, the film was pulled from Amnesty’s YouTube site. Amnesty denies that pressure from an Uppsala women’s shelter was responsible for suppressing the film, but the shelter itself is gloating about its political clout.

The film, created by four high school students and titled, The Right To Be a Father, is a powerful depiction of how children are taken from their fathers by Sweden’s feminist family courts. Separating children from their fathers is not only a bedrock principle of the war against “patriarchy,” but also the bread-and-butter of the lucrative child custody industry, so it is not surprising that the sisterhood would come down hard on the heresy that feminists violate human rights.

The film was nominated for the final stage of the competition. Amnesty posted it on YouTube, and the creators were invited to the film gala in Gothenburg. “But our film was never shown at the festival, and the day after it also disappeared from Amnesty’s YouTube channel,” says Sara Sivesson, one of the creators.  [. . . ]

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Fathers’ rights movie censored by Amnesty International due to feminists’ protest” »
Fathers’ rights movie censored by Amnesty International due …
» continues here »

Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes feminist Language Distortions’ universal acceptance

The power of feminists is awe inspiring. Feminists conquered and brainwashed the minds of lawmakers, police, interpol, press,United Nations. Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading »
Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes feminist Language Distortions’ universal acceptance
» continues here »

The power of feminists is awe inspiring.
Feminists conquered  and brainwashed the minds of lawmakers, police, press, the United Nations.

And people are not even aware of the sweeping changes feminists did, to encroach upon men’s rights, men’s well being, freedom. How much terror feminists managed to sow with teenage sex and child porn witch hunts. This sounds exaggerated? Please read on.

The feminist social manipulation skill superiority hypothesis

Females are superior in social manipulation & language distortion to foster their reproductive interest (An evolutionary hypothesis).

More provocatively it could be called “feminist cunningness hypothesis”, female evolutionary cunningness hypthesis, ……   Any more naming suggestions?

Hypothesis: Females are vastly superior in social manipulation skills

In evolution, everything is result of an evolutionary arms race.  (cheetah and gazelle’s running skills, bacteria vs. our bodily defense system, …) Skills and capacities get honed over time, to solve evolutionary tasks.  Women, in evolutionary time, had the hard task to convince a much stronger man to assume his paternal role and take care of her offspring (which might be his, or even just his cuckold offspring).  In any argument, men had clear superiority with 2 powerful weapons

  • economical superiority: men were the hunters, they had the meat, they also could defend and own territory
  • physical superiority: men could always win an argument by brute force, by simple violence.

So to achieve some kind of evolutionary long term equilibrium, women must have developed some weapeons to counter men’s economical & physical power. What weapons could they have?

  • Social manipulation: gossiping among women, ganging up together against the common enemy, making intrigues, badmouthing a man, destroying his reputation, manipulating the opinion of other men (and women).

Women would actually need the skills to win over other men to defend the female agenda. In order to counter men’s physical superiority, women needed to be better then men at these social manipulation skills.  They could not confront men clearly straight on, or else men could resort to the big stick argument. They would have to “con” men into doing what is in women’s interest, without men noticing.

Women would have to manipulate epecially skillfully, when it has to do with reproductive success, with getting men to provide for them and their kids, with men staying away from other women.

So the historical stone age balance of power is:
  • men have economical and physical superiority,
  • women have verbal manipulation, cunningness, intrigue, social manipulation.
Nowadays, men surrendered their physical and economical power. Women maintained and expanded their verbal manipulative social power
    Men surrendered both their advantages. Winning an argument with physical violence became criminalized. Women got to earn their own money, plus they get the government to collect pension money and child support from fathers that must pay up but have no say over how their money is being used. So most of the male power advantage waned.
    Mass media and the internet even increased the verbal manipulative power of women beyond what they had in the evolutionary EEA, 50 000 years ago. 
    This would explain womens total win on all fronts. They started winning when they outlawed bigamy, made it a crime for consensual adults to engange in marriage with several partners, and now are curtailing the rights to have consensual sex for pay, with adolescents, take one’s own photograph and doing DNA tests on one’s own children.

Anecdotal and other Evidence

It is self evident that women must have developed some skills to counter the obvious male physical superiority.

I will explain the

reasoning behind my female-social-manipulation-superiority hypothesis.

I was inspired by the

antifeminist blog’s feminist-trade-union-hypothesis.

Feminism as middle aged womens trade union to promote their selfish reproductive interest, even their plain interest in an easy life, trying to curb men’s access to more attractive or cheaper competitors.

I was wondering:

Why and with which methods do the feminist trade unions score such resounding victories
  • how do feminists convince everyone else to promote their goals?
  • And why are they winning the war on all fronts with absolute resounding victory?
  • there must be a special evolutionary skill how feminists manage to convince male law makers to support their warped feminist  “women studies” logic and distract from the egalitarian goal of creating “men’s studies” and “men’s rights” (Feminist arguments against prostitution debunked)
Distortion and re-definition of language

When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape”. & the Perversion of Language shows how language got re-defined for purely manipulative purposes.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Please read on, don’t miss the rest of the Feminist Social Manipulation Superiority Hypothesis »
Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes femi…
» continues here »

Change.org sucks: "womens rights" feminists censor & silence dissent

Change.org silences dissent

Hi Stupidity, it seems that you have been on a bit of a crusade the past day or so on lots of posts from the last month related to rape.

Call it an anti-crusade. Feminists have been on a very successful crusade to re-define language and change legal due process. So a vengeful women’s lone unproven accusation can instantly get the real victim, the falsely accused, into jail. Unlike all other crimes, where proof or multiple witnesses are needed.

Specifically, you have posted fairly demeaning dismissals of victims and the definition of rape.

Demeaning dismissals of linguistic definitions. That is how far we have gotten. Even definitions of terms can not be questioned. The essence of taboos to perpetuate witch hunts and make sure the masses are deceived by misleading perverted re-definition of terms like “rape”

Your comments are not particularly welcome here. Rape is a serious offense and it is incredibly traumatizing for it’s victims. I have removed all of your comments, links and have blocked your account before you post any more comments which would cause pain to real victims of real crimes.

And real victims of real rape get confused with “victims” that consented to fondling!? That is demeaning. And the “perpetrator” of consensual acts then gets gang-raped in prison, because of a pervasive attitude that (falsely convicted) rapists deserve getting raped. That is pain to real victims of real prison rape.

‘Women’s rights at change.org perpetuate manipulative language distortion to foster feminist political goals

It is essential for a witch hunt that dissent gets silenced, made taboo.  Change.org’s feminist watchdogs invoke emotional terms (“cause real pain to real victims of real crimes”) in order to avoid discussing the issues and silence dissent easily.  This is the central issue of Human-Stupidity.com: how Taboos, Dogmas, Religion make even the Intelligent blind, irrational, “stupid”. And self deception makes the censor believe s/he is a liberal person.

Thus, of course, the real pain caused to real victims of witch hunts is totally ignored.  Guys who spend years in jail for consensual sex with an adolescent, or for a unproven false rape accusation. And who get special attention from prison rapists who like to prey on alleged rapists in order to exert cruel and usual punishment.

But my main issue here is not even sex laws. It is manipulative Abuse of Language to deceive the masses. The concerted world wide conspiracy to use the word “rape” for “seducing an adolescent” or for “indecently fondling a minor”. And the perverted inversion of due legal process. Alleged sex offenders are “guilty until proven innocent” and any accusation by a lone alleged victim is taken as proof of a crime.

Change.org dispute: full text follows here

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Change.org sucks: "womens rights" feminists censor & silence dissent” »
Change.org sucks: "womens rights" feminists censor &…
» continues here »

Definition of “Rape”: When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape” & the Perversion of Language

Abused Language: When a “rape” is not a rape

“Fondling a child”, or “consensual sex with an adolescent” nowadays can be called “rape”, in press reports, even in legal code (“statutory rape”).
This purposeful confusion created by the dilusion of the word “rape” helps to whip up punishment frenzy for crimes of “adolescent seduction” or “child fondling” at the expense of banalizing real forceful violent penetrating non-consensual rape.

So the word “rape” is abusively re-defined to serve an agenda: to make smaller transgressions look like heinous crimes.

The entire World Press,  the United Nations, everyone swallowed the bait and became manipulated! Amazing!

Similarly,  “adolescent nudity” no can be called “child porn”.  Defining 17 year olds as children has the collateral effect that now there is no word for real children of 12 and under, as there is no word  left for real rape.  This confusion must have a manipulative motive, as there is no logical need to change the meaning of words that had a clear definition for centuries.

Real meaning of the word “rape”

What do most people understand by the word “rape”? What was the meaning of “rape” for centuries? Non-consensual intercourse with penetration, usually involving violence or threats.

In criminal law, rape is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with another person without that person’s consent. Outside of law, the term is often used interchangeably with sexual assault,[1][2][3] a closely related (but in most jurisdictions technically distinct) form of assault typically including rape and other forms of non-consensual sexual activity.[4][5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person’s will.

Rape is the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual intrusion. Rape laws in the United States have been revised over the years, and they vary from state to state.

Historically, rape was defined as unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. The essential elements of the crime were sexual penetration, force, and lack of consent. Women who were raped were expected to have physically resisted to the utmost of their powers or their assailant would not be convicted of rape.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape

Barman freed despite admitting raping 12 year old girl

A barman who admitted raping a 12 year old girl he met through a social networking site has walked free from court after convincing a judge he was tricked into believing she was 19. Barman freed despite admitting raping 12 year old girl (telegraph.co.uk)
Man who had sex with girl, 12, admits rape but is freed after woman judge says he was ‘duped’ into thinking she was 19

Shocking, is it not? He raped a girl and was set free because he was mistaken about her age! It is ok to rape a girl if she is 19 years old?

Well, he did not REALLY rape her. If she is 19 years old then consensual sex, initiated by the girl who brought the condoms, is not called rape.  Dear Reader, haven’t you understood that any sex with a 12 year old is rape?  Our language has changed in the last 25 years! But, of course, this is on purpose. Once you understand that rape is not rape, the intended shock effect gets lost.

So the 12 year old was eager to have sex with him, actively initiated sex and purposefully deceived the barman into thinking that she was 19.  So, miraculously, he was freed. Doesn’t sound so shocking any more.

See Why I hate statutory Rape Laws | A Public Defender

After breaking marriage vow, sex becomes rape

Having a sexual relationship with a woman with a false promise of marriage can also be termed as rape. The case was being heard in a Delhi Court and it involved a man having sexual intercourse with his neighbour. The man was found guilty of rape and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

In the present case, Chhotey Lal, the convict and father of six children, had eloped with his neighbour in New Delhi in September 2004, and took her to far away places like Jaipur and Chandigarh. According to the girl, the duo established sexual relations after Lal assured her that he would marry her ‘very soon’. Meanwhile, the girl’s father lodged a ‘missing’ report with the police. The police detained Lal and the girl in March 2005 at Sarai Kale Khan Bus Terminal when they were returning to Delhi. Chhotey Lal was prosecuted for abducting the girl and having sexual relationships with her on false pretext.

“The so-called consent under a false promise to marriage is no consent,” additional sessions judge Mahavir Singhal said.

Highlighting the difference between ‘will’ and ‘consent’, the court said that a nod for sexual relations obtained by a man on the false pretext would not amount to a ‘legal or valid’ consent to save him from punishment for rape.

The Court observed that, even if the woman is assumed to be a willing partner in having a physical relationship, that the accused had no intention to marry her would make it a case where consent was given under misconception of facts, nullifying the efficacy of the nod.
Rape by promising marriage in India

Adolescent raped repeatedly?

Due to the language confusion, we really can not know if she was raped, or more likely, seduced. But most women don’t get raped repeatedly on various days.

In 1997, 15-year-old Tina Anderson became pregnant after being raped repeatedly by an older man she knew from church. Shockingly, when her pastor found out, he forced her to apologize in front of the entire congregation in Concord, New Hampshire, and then promptly helped whisk her away to live in Colorado.

According to Tina, the first time she was raped by Ernest Willis, it was in the backseat of car after he’d given her a driving lesson. She didn’t tell anyone because she was terrified that she’d be blamed. After being raped by Willis again, Tina became pregnant.
http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/ teenager_forced_to_apologize_to_her_church_for_being_raped

Did she get “raped” or seduced? we don’t know

What does the average reader of this article think? They guy attacked the girl in a dark alley and had sex with her under the threat of violence.  Strange, though, that he raped her repeatedly on different days.
Now it is amazing that feminists and moralists managed to put such manipulative language even into penal codes. It is easier to promote your agenda with misleading language. “Teenager forced to appologize for being seduced” does not sound so shocking.  The word manipulation must  be planned and purposeful.
http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality
http://human-stupidity.com/irrationality/stupid-dogma/child-porn-witch-hunt

Language confusion obfuscates facts

So no matter if you think sex with underage should be punished, I hope you agree that the truth should be said and that manipulative language should be abolished.
By the way, Ernest Willis is a child rapist. Because according to new definitions of child pornography, a child now is anyone under 18. The United Nations, the US, and Europe have adopted that definition.

Whoppi Goldberg differentiates “rape-rape” and non-violent so called “rape”

Hollywood has rallied behind Roman Polanski after his arrest in Switzerland over the weekend, with the actor Whoopi Goldberg suggesting that whatever he was guilty of it wasn’t “rape-rape”.

As a guest on The View chatshow on US television, she said: “I know it wasn’t rape-rape. It was something else but I don’t believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and and when they let him out he was like, ‘You know what, this guy’s going to give me a hundred years in jail. I’m not staying.’ So that’s why he left.”

Polanski was not guilty of ‘rape-rape’, says Whoopi Goldberg

Age discimination: why is a 15 year old capable to consent to sex with a 16 year old but not with a 35 year old?

Then we can disagree on the last point: if a 15 year old can decide who to have sex with. Interestingly, she can decide to have sex with a 16 year old. How come she cannot have sex with a 35 year old? Age discrimination by law?

Mandatory psychological counselling before underage sex?

Are you worried about manipulation of the tender 15 year old? what about legalizing sex with underage girls, if they first undergo an hour of mandatory counselling and a 2 day cool off period? That should take care of this issue. This would guarantee safety for the 15 year old against being conned or manipulated. And it would be a good idea even for sex between consenting teenagers. So there would be no age discrimination!

Click on “more” for the rest of the story ……..

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Definition of “Rape”: When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape” & the Perversion of Language” »
Definition of “Rape”: When a “Rape” is not…
» continues here »

Feminist arguments against prostitution debunked

I have been converted by the arguments of the antifeminists, that

the feminist movement’s main goal is to reduce male choice in female partners, to force men to dedicate their lives to unattractive, high spending, ruinously expensive feminist sex partners.

I add to this my hypothesis

The balance of power between men and women tilted in favor of women because

  • Men mostly stopped using physical & economical power,
  • women maintained their superior social manipulation power and thus,
  • world-wide, women are biasing laws totally in their favor in clear detriment of men

In evolutionary times (EEA, environment of evolutionary adaptedness), males had superior physical strength, fighting skills, and economical power as meat providing hunters.

Females, to defend their interest, had to use social skills, social manipulation, shaming, intrigue, cunningness trying to counter male physical superiority (anyone got research links on that?)

Now males surrendered the advantages of physical strength, even of economic strength. Suddenly, in the last half century, in the male-female conflicts of interest, all the female agendas win in politics. Feminists hide their agenda behind absurd warped arguments, shaming, willful misuse of language,

Feminists argue that prostitution is dangerous, unhealty, unpleasant, demeaning, not a free choice. These arguments that can be brought against menial jobs, professional boxing, military service. Personally, I think that spending one’s life fixing up people’s teeth, staring into smelly mouths all day long, is demeaning. And going to a war that one is opposed to, this is like a year long repeated rape.

It is amazing with what kind of dis-information feminists get away with. I will analyze a frminists views about prostitution from a Wikipedia text http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_prostitution#Coercion_and_poverty

Feminist argument

Absurdity of feminist argumentation
Many feminists are strongly opposed to prostitution, as they see the practice as a form of violence against women, which should not be tolerated by society […] Many men are strongly opposed to military service, as they see this practice as a form of violence against men, which should not be tolerated by society.

Military service often is involuntary, and desertion punished by execution.
These feminists argue that, in most cases, prostitution is not a conscious and calculated choice. {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, panhandling, begging, robbing, military service} in most cases, are not a conscious and calculated choice.
Getting a husband that pays spousal support for the rest of his life is a much better choice.
Most women who become prostitutes do so because they were forced or coerced by a pimp or by human trafficking, or, when it is an independent decision, it is generally the result of extreme poverty and lack of opportunity, or of serious underlying problems, such as drug addiction, past trauma (especially child sexual abuse) and other unfortunate circumstances. {Panhandling and begging,robbing} may be caused by childhood traumas, abuse, drug addiction. {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing} are usually the result of extreme poverty or caused by unfortunate circumstances.

Furthermore, feminists simply deny the existence of cases of rich well off prostitutes. See

“Belle de Jour”: Cancer Scientist financed Doctorate with Prostitution Work
These feminists point out that women from the lowest socioeconomic classes—impoverished women, women with a low level of education, women from the most disadvantaged racial and ethnic minorities—are overrepresented in prostitution all over the world. Let us point out that women/men from the lowest socioeconomic classes—impoverished women/men, women/men with a low level of education, women/men from the most disadvantaged racial and ethnic minorities—are overrepresented in {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, military service, panhandling, begging, robbing} all over the world.
“If prostitution is a free choice, why are the women with the fewest choices the ones most often found doing it?” (MacKinnon, 1993)[9 “If {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, military service, panhandling, begging, robbing} is a free choice, why are the women/men with the fewest choices the ones most often found doing it?” (MacKinnon, 1993)[9

why do feminists get away with such drivel and even get academic recognition? Even men kind of buy this ridiculous feminist BS.
Most prostitutes are in a very difficult period of their lives and most want to leave this occupation. Most {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, panhandling, begging, robbing} professionals are in a very difficult period of their lives and most want to leave this occupation. Except highly successful professional boxers, and highly successful prostitutes, whose existence the feminists duly ignore.
Catharine MacKinnon argues that “In prostitution, women have sex with men they would never otherwise have sex with. We  argue that “In {Street sweeping, toilet cleaning, professional boxing, panhandling, begging, robbing} , women/men clean streets they otherwise never would clean, fight men they otherwise would not fight.
The money thus acts as a form of force, not as a measure of consent. It acts like physical force does in rape.” [11] The money thus acts as a form of force, not as a measure of consent. It acts like physical force does in slavery.”
Anti-prostitution feminists argue that prostitution is a practice which leads to serious negative long term effects for the prostitutes, such as severe trauma, stress, depression, anxiety, self medication through alcohol and drug abuse, eating disorders and a greater risk for self harm and suicide Prize fighting, boxing, heading a ball in soccer leads to serious long term health effects, potential brain damage.
Being a high executive, manager, causes severe long term consequences like stress, heart attack, obesity.

It is amazing how feminist women get away with manipulating language, distorting facts, and got their agenda all the way up to the United Nations. And thanks to their deceitful language most men somehow get swayed  by their warped arguments.

Term

common definition

feminist extension & re-definition

provocative re-definition
victim somebody or something harmed; somebody duped $ 400 an hour luxury prostitute “victims”,  that earn much more then most of their customers the prostitute’s customer is the victim of his raging hormones that make him spend too much money
selling a body sale is a final one time transaction that changes ownership. Like selling into slavery. “sale” is a one hour “rental” to provide an hour of sexual services. A construction helper sells his body for money in exchange for often unhealthy work; a fire fighter, a soldier, a full contact figher sells his body, risiking his health and his life.

A journalist, physician,  engineer sells his brain to provide services to people.
violence against women an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists); princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Violence is the expression of physical or verbal force against self or other, compelling action against one’s will on pain of being hurt. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence

 exchanging sex for money by mutual agreement (is violence against women).

A woman that pays money to put up an ad offering sexual services. If you answer the ad you are violent against the woman.

 obviously, drafting a non-volunteer soldier for war is violence against men;

obviously, a firefighter who sells his body to pull people out of burning houses is violence against men;

by feminist definition, even a construction worker who sells his body to lug wood and cement, is suffering violence, because he would rather be at the beach or receive welfare.

Am I the only one that is lost why people buy this BS, why they have offer academic carreers to such manipulative, cunning, deceiving, misleading and totally illogical people?

Why they influence even United Nation Policy?

Why are men stupid enough to let themselves be lead astray by such arguments? Seems women really have more verbal intelligence then men.

I rest my case.

Tiger Woods: Breach of (Unfair) Contract? Hypocrisy & (Self)-Deception

 

Tiger Woods: a free man?

The Tiger Woods scandal has many facets. I wrote that Tiger Woods is a free man entitled to have fun and Tiger Woods sex addiction treatment is an absurdity.

Tiger sold his freedom to have fun & right to privacy for US$ 100 Million

People countered: Tiger sold his freedom for 100 Million dollars, He made advertising contracts as being a “good boy” athlete: Hey, Tiger, Lack of Privacy Is Part of the Deal.  Tiger Woods has destroyed $12 Billion in Stock value So maybe, after having charged huge amounts of money for his “clean boy” image, it is his moral and legal obligation to keep up to moral standard he himself agreed to. Like a catholic priest who signed a celibacy vow and now has to keep it. 

Why Is Tiger Woods in Trouble? It’s Not His Steamy Sex Life; It’s His Family Values Hypocrisy: Woods made most of his fortune through his “squeaky-clean model athlete” reputation. Last year, of the $117 million Woods made, $7.7 million was on the golf course; the rest came from endorsement deals. And that endorsement empire is built on the image of a hardworking, clean-living family man with wife, kids, dogs, and “values”.

Tiger Woods And Global Media Hypocrisy
Tiger Woods, Linford Christie and the stars who are sworn to the Hypocrisy Oath
Bob Schieffer To Tiger Woods: Stop Whining (VIDEO)

Breach of contract. But is the contract fair?

Of course, he also signed a marriage “contract” with fidelity vows. He broke the contract. I think it is unfair that the terms of a marriage are non-negotiable. Consumer and tenant law has invalidated many such one-sided contracts, but “feminist” law-makers make sure that men cannot easily negotiate freedom in marriage contracts.

So men who want to retain their freedom have only the choice not to marry, or do what men (and apes before them) did for millions of years: cheat and lie to cover up. Promise what women want to hear, and then secretly do what the man himself wants to do.

Deception

Deception is huge part of human social life.  Our education and social norms demand honesty, and in contradiction to that they also demand politeness, courtesy, ….  From “I am fine” when I feel bad, to “your dress looks great” when I think it is awful, to “I have eyes only for you and love you forever”.  In spite of us lying constantly, we feel we are honest. We deceive ourselves that we are honest.

Self-Deception & Self-Deception

You deceive better if you yourself believe in it.

So Tiger probably believed in his wedding vows. He also believes he is an honest person. Which usually he is. Except for white lies. And lying to spouses. Well and to sponsors and the rest of the world.

And before you throw the first stone: think of your own secrets. What if the press published your photo nose-picking? or about some secret sexual urge you once followed?

And now all these hypocrites condemn poor Tiger Woods. Of course, if you are a public relations manager for Nike, your job is to worry about Nike’s sales and corporate image. Not about hypocrisy, or if the same people who condemn Tiger (and Nike for promoting him) are hypocrites. Try YouTube to see some Tiger Woods commercials: they all manipulate your unconscious: they don’t really sell you superior merchandise, they associate Tiger’s image with the product, thus making you buy the product.

  • Maybe the problem is that we demand unrealistic role models, who are supposed confirm unrealistic moral norms?
  • Maybe the problem is that society demands that we lie about romantic “transgressions”.
  • Most healthy adolescent boys or adult men would probably admire Woods for his sexual conquests. When talking to their peers. But, of course, would not admit this to their wives.

Should male promiscuity be repressed or sexual freedom be tolerated?

  • There are of course philosophical questions: is monogamy better? there will be less fights, less diseases? or better family life?
  • Is male promiscuity something that should be eliminated by therapy, drugs etc because it causes problems?
  • Or do repressive laws, false morality cause the problems?  People should just be honest, open and be allowed to have fun without any need to hide. Why can’t everyone have their sexual freedom, and we devote out resources to avoiding unwanted pregnancies and diseases, instead of spying after celebrities’ private life.

Hypocritical double standards about domestic violence

Tiger Woods’ wife Elin should be under investigation for domestic violence:  The first news stories sounded suspicious: How can an intelligent man total his car and get face injuries when backing out his car from the garage? And require a women with a golf club to break the windshield to free him? 

If the suspected victim were a women, police would investigate, even if the victim denied violence having happened. But Elin is a woman, and police and law are biased in favor of women. If she were innocent, they should have demanded an investigation to dispel any doubt.

I think Tiger lied when he swore in public that no domestic violence has happened. If this could be proven to be a lie, then Woods would be proven to make false public statements . An explicit public lie, almost an oath, that could haunt him (like Bill Clinton).

But as now Tiger’s and Elin’s interest in cover-up coincide, nobody will ever admit the truth. Of course, this can cost him dearly. A domestic violence conviction would greatly favor Tiger in any potential divorce settlement. If he was intelligent, he made her sign something in exchange for his covering up the domestic violence.