Yes means No! Forcibly raping a 17 year old is the same rape as consensual love making.

“Yes” means “No”

You have a girl friend under the local age of consent, and you (unwisely) want to have sex with her. Don’t bother to ask for her consent to sex.  Just ravish her violently, no matter how much she resists. It makes no difference if she consents or not. Her “yes” means “no”, her consent is invalid. Either way, if she consents or not, you are raping her. And all rapes are the same.

This is not my fault. I am not making this up. This is our modern law and modern logic.

“No” means “No”, too.

Minors under 18 (or 16) years of age can not consent to sex.  If s/he says “Yes”, it means “No”. If she says “No”, it means “No”, too.

A underage girl’s consent it totally irrelevant

  1. On the way home 3 young men drag 15 year old Maria into an abandoned lot, 2 men hold her down and one rapes her violently, against her protests and screams.
  2. 15 year old Maria begs her boyfriend to make love to her and they have a great love-making session.
What is the difference between (1) and (2)?

Both (1) and (2) are exactly the same: non-consensual rape!. If she consented or fought back makes no difference!

I am really sorry, forgive me.

I am not insensitive to rape victims.

Maria, if you think that forcible rape and love making are not the same, you are mistaken! You are too young to understand the wisdom of the elders, that know that these are the same.

I am sorry,it is not my fault. I did not make this up. I swear.  On the contrary, I dare to challenge conventional wisdom and write against this insanity.

There are cases where a 15 or 17 year old girl begs a judge not to jail her boyfriend and common law husband, father, financial supporter and caretaker of her baby. But, the laws are there to protect her (?from what??), and thus she is left a penniless single mother with a jailed boyfriend in prison.

We fail to see how this serves the well being of the child, which is of extreme importance to the law.

All rapes are the same

We just learned, from Vice President Biden “Rape is rape is rape” : all types of rape are the same.  British Kenneth Clarke said  that “some “rapes” are less serious then others” but was forced to recant.  Clarke explicitly stated that a 17 year old boy making love with his 15 year old girl friend is not the same as dragging someone into the bushes. A media outcry corrected him and recanted. So it is the consensus, that both are the same.

Feminist manipulative language made sure that almost every sex act is a potential rape. And now it is clarified that all rapes are the same.

“I love you, please make love to me” = “NOOO, don’t touch me, leave me alone”
lovey-dovey-feeling =

(is equal to)

rape-ducks

Offensive to forcible rape victims

"Yes" means "No"

You have a girl friend under the local age of consent, and you (unwisely) want to have sex with her. Don’t bother to ask for her consent to sex.  Just ravish her violently, no matter how much she resists. It makes no difference if she consents or not. Her "yes" means "no", her consent is invalid. Either way, if she consents or not, you are raping her. And all rapes are the same.

This is not my fault. I am not making this up. This is our modern law and modern logic. 

"No" means "No", too.

Minors under 18 (or 16) years of age can not consent to sex.  If s/he says "Yes", it means "No". If she says "No", it means "No", too.

A underage girl’s consent it totally irrelevant

  1. On the way home 3 young men drag 15 year old Maria into an abandoned lot, 2 men hold her down and one rapes her violently, against her protests and screams.
  2. 15 year old Maria begs her boyfriend to make love to her and they have a great love-making session.
What is the difference between (1) and (2)?

Both (1) and (2) are exactly the same: non-consensual rape!. If she consented or fought back makes no difference!

I am really sorry, forgive me.

I am not insensitive to rape victims.

Maria, if you think that forcible rape and love making are not the same, you are mistaken! You are too young to understand the wisdom of the elders, that know that these are the same.

I am sorry,it is not my fault. I did not make this up. I swear.  On the contrary, I dare to challenge conventional wisdom and write against this insanity.

There are cases where a 15 or 17 year old girl begs a judge not to jail her boyfriend and common law husband, father, financial supporter and caretaker of her baby. But, the laws are there to protect her (?from what??), and thus she is left a penniless single mother with a jailed boyfriend in prison. 

We fail to see how this serves the well being of the child, which is of extreme importance to the law.

All rapes are the same

We just learned, from Vice President Biden "Rape is rape is rape" : all types of rape are the same.  British Kenneth Clarke said  that "some "rapes" are less serious then others" but was forced to recant.  Clarke explicitly stated that a 17 year old boy making love with his 15 year old girl friend is not the same as dragging someone into the bushes. A media outcry corrected him and recanted. So it is the consensus, that both are the same.

Feminist manipulative language made sure that almost every sex act is a potential rape. And now it is clarified that all rapes are the same.

"I love you, please make love to me"

=

"NOOO, don’t touch me, leave me alone"
lovey-dovey-feeling

=

(is equal to)

rape-ducks

Offensive to forcible rape victims

"Yes" means "No"

You have a girl friend under the local age of consent, and you (unwisely) want to have sex with her. Don’t bother to ask for her consent to sex.  Just ravish her violently, no matter how much she resists. It makes no difference if she consents or not. Her "yes" means "no", her consent is invalid. Either way, if she consents or not, you are raping her. And all rapes are the same.

This is not my fault. I am not making this up. This is our modern law and modern logic. 

"No" means "No", too.

Minors under 18 (or 16) years of age can not consent to sex.  If s/he says "Yes", it means "No". If she says "No", it means "No", too.

A underage girl’s consent it totally irrelevant

  1. On the way home 3 young men drag 15 year old Maria into an abandoned lot, 2 men hold her down and one rapes her violently, against her protests and screams.
  2. 15 year old Maria begs her boyfriend to make love to her and they have a great love-making session.
What is the difference between (1) and (2)?

Both (1) and (2) are exactly the same: non-consensual rape!. If she consented or fought back makes no difference!

I am really sorry, forgive me.

I am not insensitive to rape victims.

Maria, if you think that forcible rape and love making are not the same, you are mistaken! You are too young to understand the wisdom of the elders, that know that these are the same.

I am sorry,it is not my fault. I did not make this up. I swear.  On the contrary, I dare to challenge conventional wisdom and write against this insanity.

There are cases where a 15 or 17 year old girl begs a judge not to jail her boyfriend and common law husband, father, financial supporter and caretaker of her baby. But, the laws are there to protect her (?from what??), and thus she is left a penniless single mother with a jailed boyfriend in prison. 

We fail to see how this serves the well being of the child, which is of extreme importance to the law.

All rapes are the same

We just learned, from Vice President Biden "Rape is rape is rape" : all types of rape are the same.  British Kenneth Clarke said  that "some "rapes" are less serious then others" but was forced to recant.  Clarke explicitly stated that a 17 year old boy making love with his 15 year old girl friend is not the same as dragging someone into the bushes. A media outcry corrected him and recanted. So it is the consensus, that both are the same.

Feminist manipulative language made sure that almost every sex act is a potential rape. And now it is clarified that all rapes are the same.

"I love you, please make love to me"

=

"NOOO, don’t touch me, leave me alone"
lovey-dovey-feeling

=

(is equal to)

rape-ducks

Offensive to forcible rape victims

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Yes means No! Forcibly raping a 17 year old is the same rape as consensual love making.” »
Yes means No! Forcibly raping a 17 year old is the same rape as co…
» continues here »

One out of 3 college students in Berlin would consider doing prostitution, stripping, sex work (Brandenburg Academy of Science)

Sex work an acceptable job option for 1/3 of Berlin college students (29.2% in Paris, 18.5% in Kiev). In a scientific study by "Studienkolleggs zu Berlin", that will be presented Wednesday to the Brandenburg Academy of Science. There is a lot of media gossip about this topic, but rarely scientific studies. 3200 students in Berlin, Paris, Kiev  were inquired about their attitudes about "prostitution as a part time job". 3.7 % (1 in 27) of students in Berlin work in the sex industry. They strip, work as escorts or prostitutes in bordellos or erotic night clubs.

prostitution-berlin30% of students in sex work have debts, compared to 18% of the rest of the student population. Only 50% of sex workers get financial help from relatives, compared to 65%. Most important motive : "higher hourly wage", followed by "financial emergency", "search for adventure", "enjoying sex" in equal percentages. Experts from an agency advising prostitutes said "illusions, dream of easy quick money, desire for physical closeness and sexual curiosity".  One female student said: money is always an object, or else a woman has no need to use a whore house to to act out her sexuality. They earn between 50 and 300 Euro per day.

Surprisingly, men and women work in equal percentage in the sex industry. Only 49% are heterosexual (vs. 85% of comparison group), 33% homosexual (vs. 5.3%), 37.8% bisexual (vs. 8.8% in comparison group).

Human Stupidity Analysis

We at human-stupidity.com wish there was information about gender distribution in sexual orientation. It seems to us that heterosexual male sex workers would have restricted earning opportunities. We are surprised about the openness to prostitution and sex work, compared to the main stream media hysteria, especially in the United States (Feminist arguments against prostitution debunked)

Comparisons to attitudes the United States, Brazil, etc. would be very interesting (legal prohibitions related to prostitituion would hamper such studies) It also does not seem that these students are "trafficked" "victims" that need to be saved from their own action by feminists, justice system or political correctness police.

No major character differences could be found between sex working and other students in terms of openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness. In Berlin, 40% of students showed curiosity, in Paris 40% of students valued sex workers. 60% of sex workers cited problems like stigmatization, sexually transmitted diseases, and problems with their partners.

Sources: Der Tagesspiegel  Welt Online Hamburger Abendblatt

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “One out of 3 college students in Berlin would consider doing prostitution, stripping, sex work (Brandenburg Academy of Science)” »
One out of 3 college students in Berlin would consider doing prost…
» continues here »

Hummer Mom’ Christine Hubbs Convicted of Underage Sex, Says She’s Not a ‘Predator’

s

Double standard: men punished more harshly then women

  • If a man did the same, would it be called "underage sex"? No, it would be called rape. So there certainly is a double standard.
  • Would a man get away with 5 years? A man probably would get 15 to 25 years in jail.
  • In a TV interview, would a man not be treated much worse?

Sex has more serious consequences for boys then for girls: The double standard should be inverted!

In this modern age boys need more protection then girls (due to slower maturation, existing laws and scientific progress)

  • adolescent girls mature faster then boys, physically, intellectually and psychologically. Legal age for marriage was, and still is much lower for girls then for boys in most countries in the world (Marriagable Age | Wikipedia, Elisabethan marriage customs, Historical Age of Marriage). This has also to do with gender roles with the more mature man the provider and protector.
  • pregnancy, the real sex-induced "damage" to girls can be avoided by birth control. Girls have total freedom to decide if they carry a pregnancy to term or use their reproductive freedom for an early term abortion.
  • Things have changed since the EEA, where evolution has shaped our inborn moral feelings, and since biblical times, when our religious code was written down. Fairly recently, we devised birth control, abortion, DNA tests, government welfare and legal child support obligation for men.
  • In biblical times and the EEA, a girl had no option to avoid pregnancy through birth control, no option to terminate pregnancy through (early term) abortion, no courts nor police state  pursuing the father for support (except shotgun weddings due to pressure by the girl’s kin), no government welfare, no child care and job opportunities for single mothers. And her marriage prospects would have gotten really dim after having an out of wedlock baby.
  • Thus, girls and women can have risk-free sex with no long term consequences.
  • Boys, on the other hand are totally powerless once a woman got pregnant. Boys/men  have absolutely no chance to avoid the serious trauma of
    • decades of enforced ruinous child support  and alimony duty
    • with no automatic visitation rights to even see the child or influencing how the money is spent.
    • No rights but payment duties enforced by police and prison, not much different from slavery.

Thanks to the AntiFeminist for calling our attention to some of the above issues.

Now that we clarified that adolescent boys are in more need of protection then girls, Human-Stupidity dares to question if any adolescent needs government protection against his/her own decisions.

Are draconian punishments needed to protect adolescents from their own actions and decisions?

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Hummer Mom’ Christine Hubbs Convicted of Underage Sex, Says She’s Not a ‘Predator’” »
Hummer Mom’ Christine Hubbs Convicted of Underage Sex, Says …
» continues here »

6-year-old charged with sexual assault for consensual doctor play

Grant County authorities have accused a 6-year-old boy of first-degree sexual assault of a child for allegedly playing “doctor” with a 5-year-old girl in September.

The case, which is plowing new legal ground in Wisconsin, calls into question when a child’s act can be considered criminal — particularly when it involves behavior some experts say is normal for children that age —

Normal behavior is criminalized (Overcriminalization)

Of course, normal behavior is criminalized at all ages. Playing doctor for kids, adolescent sexuality later, sexting and photographing legal sex acts (child pornography). Or attraction of grown men to adolescent women. All is illegal.

According to the petition for protection or services filed Nov. 12, the girl’s mother found her daughter in the boy’s yard “with her skirt and underpants around her ankles” and the boy sitting underneath her, penetrating her with his finger. The petition alleges the boy “did have sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 12.”

State law defines sexual intercourse, in part, as “intrusion, however slight, of any part of a person’s body.”

Toddlers need legal counsel and classes in stupid adult sex laws

The boy failed to read Human-Stupidity.com’s advice about playing doctor

Typical problems:

  • Only one witness, the mother. If she has a grudge with the boy, his family, or if she is mentally instable suffering from phantasies, her accusation is accepted.
    • The daughter, after being exposed to mother’s hysteria, is not a reliable witness.
    • The boy’s confession to the mother is hearsay. He needs to be read his Miranda rights and be advised to plead the 5th (not to say anything because he could incriminate himself).
    • Furthermore the boy is not fit to stand trial
    • I know, this is ridiculous.
  • language abuse: slightest penetration with the finger is called "sexual intercourse". Why does modern feminist inspired law have to pervert our language?
  • Discrimination against males: why can’t the girl be guilty for statutory rape?
  • No Romeo and Juliet clause for being of similar age

The girl told her mother they were playing “butt doctor” and told authorities the boy only touched her on the outside of her body, court documents state. A third child, a 5-year-old boy, also was with them, but he did not touch her inappropriately, the girl said.

All hinges on mother’s statement. Maybe she is hysterical?

Judge Leineweber refused to dismiss the petitions, saying the relevant part of the sexual assault allegation is the mother’s observations.  Case asks: Can a 6-year-old commit sexual assault?

Next problem:

  • confounding consensual* acts with sexual assault. Did he hold down the girl against her will? Yes, I know, the girl is unable to consent. So is the boy.

The boy needed only to have penetrated the girl and known she was under a certain age, he wrote, adding, “Even the most immature 6-year-old could appreciate these two concepts.”

Why should a 6-year-old know that playing doctor is a felony? Did we teach him?

Why should a boy understand that playing doctor is a heinous crime?  That is about as asinine as criminalizing taking one’s own photos.

has he been taught that in school? Is teaching stupid adult laws a mandatory kindergarten subject? Is Human-Stupidity’s playing doctor advice. Our blog must be mandatory reading in kindergarten.

Why should 6-year-old boys know that consensual doctor play constitutes sexual assault?

He  probably does not know what sex is. But he knows what consent is and the girl certainly consented.

The most immature 6-year-old understands the concept of consent. Adults and judges don’t understand the difference between consensual*  activities and sexual assault/rape.

Playing doctor is normal for 6-year-olds

The boy’s lawyer, Stephen Eisenberg of Madison, called the allegations “crazy” and said he has never heard of a 6-year-old being accused of first-degree sexual assault. The boy is now 7.

Right. A sensible comment.

Sexual exploration normal in young

Dr. Lucy Berliner, director of Harborview Center for Sexual Assault and Traumatic Stress in Seattle, Wash., said it is “completely outside” accepted medical practice to characterize a 6-year-old’s actions as sexual assault.

Another sensible comment

Read the entire case: Case asks: Can a 6-year-old commit sexual assault?

Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them

Sex is legal, but sensual erotic photos require a 15 year jail sentence. 34 year old Rinehart has relation with 16 and 17 year old girls, above the age of consent in Indiana.

Whatever you might think of Rinehart’s judgment or ethics, his relationships with the girls weren’t illegal. The age of consent in Indiana is 16. That is also the age of consent in federal territories. Rinehart got into legal trouble because one of the girls mentioned to him that she had posed for sexually provocative photos for a previous boyfriend and offered to do the same for Rinehart. Rinehart lent her his camera, which she returned with the promised photos. Rinehart and both girls then took additional photos and at least one video, which he downloaded to his computer.

Brooke Shields 15 years, re-victimized millions of times whenever someone looks at the photo. The girl produced, possessed, distributed child porn. Why is she not in jail?  So she will learn not to victimize herself with her own photos! And the previous boy friend! Why has the FBI not arrested him yet?

In 2007 Rinehart was convicted on two federal charges of producing child pornography. U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton, who now serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, reluctantly sentenced Rinehart to 15 years in prison. Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, Hamilton wrote, his hands were tied. There is no parole in the federal prison system. So barring an unlikely grant of clemency from the president, Rinehart, who is serving his time at a medium-security prison in Pennsylvania, will have to complete at least 85 percent of his term (assuming time off for good behavior), or nearly 13 years.

Hamilton was not permitted to consider any mitigating factors in sentencing Rinehart. It did not matter that Rinehart’s sexual relationships with the two girls were legal. Nor did it matter that the photos for which he was convicted never went beyond his computer. Rinehart had no prior criminal history, and there was no evidence he had ever possessed or searched for child pornography on his computer. There was also no evidence that he abused his position as a police officer to lure the two women into sex. His crime was producing for his own use explicit images of two physically mature women with whom he was legally having sex. (Both women also could have legally married Rinehart without their parents’ consent, although it’s unclear whether federal law would have permitted a prosecution of Rinehart for photographing his own wife.)  You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them

Of course not. Why would one have the right to stay out of jail for photographing the own wife if she is under 18? The wife needs to be protected, by putting her husband in jail for a decade or two.  Remember, each time someone looks at child pornography, the child is victimized.  Even if the adolescent can be fully clothed in a movie, it still can be child pornography (Knox vs. USA).

The girl is in urgent need of protection. Locking away her beloved boy friend is for 1-2 decades is for her own good. He is a creep anyway, what does a 34 year old do with TWO girl friends, 16 and 17 years old? He deserves 15 years in jail. The antifeminist is right: these laws are to instill terror in men, so they will not even look at or talk to women under 25.

Even if the woman presents you a fake ID, you still go to jail for sex or child porn. Women with fake ID need protection too.

In his sentencing statement, Hamilton urges executive clemency for Rinehart. He points out that under federal law Rinehart received the same sentence someone convicted of hijacking an airplane or second-degree murder would receive. For a bank robber to get Rinehart’s sentence, Hamilton writes, “he would need to fire a gun, inflict serious bodily injury on a victim, physically restrain another victim, and get away with the stunning total of $2.5 million.”

Capricious cruel senseless punishment

Having provocative photos of your 16 year old girl friend needs a much higher jail term then inflicting serious bodily injury while robbing a bank.  And you thought laws are supposed to make sense?

Is this not senseless, capricious, cruel, unnecessary punishment for photographing perfectly legal acts that harm nobody? Big government infringing on individual freedom without any need whatsoever? Is this not a human rights violation?

But, this is the essence of victimless crime. Punishing people for private use of fairly harmless drugs, or for consensual polygamy among Mormon adults is similar.

Sex is legal, but sensual erotic photos require a 15 year jail sentence. 34 year old Rinehart has relation with 16 and 17 year old girls, above the age of consent in Indiana.

Whatever you might think of Rinehart’s judgment or ethics, his relationships with the girls weren’t illegal. The age of consent in Indiana is 16. That is also the age of consent in federal territories. Rinehart got into legal trouble because one of the girls mentioned to him that she had posed for sexually provocative photos for a previous boyfriend and offered to do the same for Rinehart. Rinehart lent her his camera, which she returned with the promised photos. Rinehart and both girls then took additional photos and at least one video, which he downloaded to his computer.

Brooke Shields 15 years, re-victimized millions of times whenever someone looks at the photo. The girl produced, possessed, distributed child porn. Why is she not in jail?  So she will learn not to victimize herself with her own photos! And the previous boy friend! Why has the FBI not arrested him yet?

In 2007 Rinehart was convicted on two federal charges of producing child pornography. U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton, who now serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, reluctantly sentenced Rinehart to 15 years in prison. Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, Hamilton wrote, his hands were tied. There is no parole in the federal prison system. So barring an unlikely grant of clemency from the president, Rinehart, who is serving his time at a medium-security prison in Pennsylvania, will have to complete at least 85 percent of his term (assuming time off for good behavior), or nearly 13 years.

Hamilton was not permitted to consider any mitigating factors in sentencing Rinehart. It did not matter that Rinehart’s sexual relationships with the two girls were legal. Nor did it matter that the photos for which he was convicted never went beyond his computer. Rinehart had no prior criminal history, and there was no evidence he had ever possessed or searched for child pornography on his computer. There was also no evidence that he abused his position as a police officer to lure the two women into sex. His crime was producing for his own use explicit images of two physically mature women with whom he was legally having sex. (Both women also could have legally married Rinehart without their parents’ consent, although it’s unclear whether federal law would have permitted a prosecution of Rinehart for photographing his own wife.)  You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them

Of course not. Why would one have the right to stay out of jail for photographing the own wife if she is under 18? The wife needs to be protected, by putting her husband in jail for a decade or two.  Remember, each time someone looks at child pornography, the child is victimized.  Even if the adolescent can be fully clothed in a movie, it still can be child pornography (Knox vs. USA).

The girl is in urgent need of protection. Locking away her beloved boy friend is for 1-2 decades is for her own good. He is a creep anyway, what does a 34 year old do with TWO girl friends, 16 and 17 years old? He deserves 15 years in jail. The antifeminist is right: these laws are to instill terror in men, so they will not even look at or talk to women under 25.

Even if the woman presents you a fake ID, you still go to jail for sex or child porn. Women with fake ID need protection too. 

 

In his sentencing statement, Hamilton urges executive clemency for Rinehart. He points out that under federal law Rinehart received the same sentence someone convicted of hijacking an airplane or second-degree murder would receive. For a bank robber to get Rinehart’s sentence, Hamilton writes, "he would need to fire a gun, inflict serious bodily injury on a victim, physically restrain another victim, and get away with the stunning total of $2.5 million."

Having provocative photos of your 16 year old girl friend needs a much higher jail term then inflicting serious bodily injury while robbing a bank.  And you thought laws are supposed to make sense?

Sex is legal, but sensual erotic photos require a 15 year jail sentence. 34 year old Rinehart has relation with 16 and 17 year old girls, above the age of consent in Indiana.

Whatever you might think of Rinehart’s judgment or ethics, his relationships with the girls weren’t illegal. The age of consent in Indiana is 16. That is also the age of consent in federal territories. Rinehart got into legal trouble because one of the girls mentioned to him that she had posed for sexually provocative photos for a previous boyfriend and offered to do the same for Rinehart. Rinehart lent her his camera, which she returned with the promised photos. Rinehart and both girls then took additional photos and at least one video, which he downloaded to his computer.

Brooke Shields 15 years, re-victimized millions of times whenever someone looks at the photo. The girl produced, possessed, distributed child porn. Why is she not in jail?  So she will learn not to victimize herself with her own photos! And the previous boy friend! Why has the FBI not arrested him yet?

In 2007 Rinehart was convicted on two federal charges of producing child pornography. U.S. District Court Judge David Hamilton, who now serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, reluctantly sentenced Rinehart to 15 years in prison. Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, Hamilton wrote, his hands were tied. There is no parole in the federal prison system. So barring an unlikely grant of clemency from the president, Rinehart, who is serving his time at a medium-security prison in Pennsylvania, will have to complete at least 85 percent of his term (assuming time off for good behavior), or nearly 13 years.

Hamilton was not permitted to consider any mitigating factors in sentencing Rinehart. It did not matter that Rinehart’s sexual relationships with the two girls were legal. Nor did it matter that the photos for which he was convicted never went beyond his computer. Rinehart had no prior criminal history, and there was no evidence he had ever possessed or searched for child pornography on his computer. There was also no evidence that he abused his position as a police officer to lure the two women into sex. His crime was producing for his own use explicit images of two physically mature women with whom he was legally having sex. (Both women also could have legally married Rinehart without their parents’ consent, although it’s unclear whether federal law would have permitted a prosecution of Rinehart for photographing his own wife.)  You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them

Of course not. Why would one have the right to stay out of jail for photographing the own wife if she is under 18? The wife needs to be protected, by putting her husband in jail for a decade or two.  Remember, each time someone looks at child pornography, the child is victimized.  Even if the adolescent can be fully clothed in a movie, it still can be child pornography (Knox vs. USA).

The girl is in urgent need of protection. Locking away her beloved boy friend is for 1-2 decades is for her own good. He is a creep anyway, what does a 34 year old do with TWO girl friends, 16 and 17 years old? He deserves 15 years in jail. The antifeminist is right: these laws are to instill terror in men, so they will not even look at or talk to women under 25.

Even if the woman presents you a fake ID, you still go to jail for sex or child porn. Women with fake ID need protection too. 

 

In his sentencing statement, Hamilton urges executive clemency for Rinehart. He points out that under federal law Rinehart received the same sentence someone convicted of hijacking an airplane or second-degree murder would receive. For a bank robber to get Rinehart’s sentence, Hamilton writes, "he would need to fire a gun, inflict serious bodily injury on a victim, physically restrain another victim, and get away with the stunning total of $2.5 million."

Having provocative photos of your 16 year old girl friend needs a much higher jail term then inflicting serious bodily injury while robbing a bank.  And you thought laws are supposed to make sense?

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them” »
Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can H…
» continues here »

What is a Pedophile? Hebephile, Ephebophile, Teleiophile, Infantophile

15 year old Brooke Shields - no pedophilia, rather Ephebophilia, or Teleiophilia.

Hebephile, a newly proposed diagnostic classification in which people display a sexual preference for children at the cusp of puberty, between the ages of, roughly, 11 to 14 years of age. Pedophiles, in contrast, show a sexual preference for clearly prepubescent children. There are also ephebophiles (from ephebos, meaning “one arrived at puberty” in Greek), who are mostly attracted to 15- to 16-year-olds; teleiophiles (from teleios, meaning, “full grown” in Greek), who prefer those 17 years of age or older); and even the very rare gerontophile (from gerontos, meaning “old man” in Greek), someone whose sexual preference is for the elderly. So although child sex offenders are often lumped into the single classification of pedophilia, biologically speaking it’s a rather complicated affair. Some have even proposed an additional subcategory of pedophilia, “infantophilia,” to distinguish those individuals most intensely attracted to children below six years of age.
Based on this classification scheme of erotic age orientations, even the world’s best-known fictitious “pedophile,” Humbert Humbert from Nabokov’s masterpiece, Lolita, would more properly be considered a hebephile. (Likewise the protagonist from Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice, a work that I’ve always viewed as something of the “gay Lolita”).  
Why most "pedophiles" aren’t really pedophiles, technically speaking | Scientific American

Photo of 10 year old Brooke Shields might be just artistic photography. But those who feel sexually attracted are pedophiles.The meaning of the word "Pedophile" was manipulatively changed and distorted. Pedophile is a clearly defined scientific term meaning an adult that has attraction to pre-pubertal children.

We are discussing grammar, semantics, and politics of language manipulation here.
We are not defending or condoning pedophile activities.

Brooke Shields (2008). Is she getting victimized each time one watches her movies or adolescent nude/bikini photos? 1000's times per day?Correct Terminology

Hebephiles, Ephebophiles, Teleiophile were grouped into the "pedophile" group. So a "worse label’ can be attached to a sexual offender. An "adolescent lover" who had a 17 year old girlfriend is called "child lover" (or rather, in a second step of vilification, child rapist). Sure helps to secure longer jail terms and to get the population angry.  This is exactly identical to the manipulation that extended the word "child" from under 12 or under 14, to under 18, admittedly for the purpose of enforcing child protection laws for adolescents.

Additionally, child mutilators and murderers are usually called "pedophiles" in the press. Killing children has nothing to do with "child lovers" or sexual attraction for children.

Brooke Shields re-victimized constantly?

Thus someone gets arrested for possession of Brooke Shields 15 year photos , falsely called a pedophile, and the average Joe thinks he is a baby murderer. Note that the bikini photo of a 15 year-old  becomes child pornography in case one collects the photo for sexual arousal (Copine level 4).

According to child porn persecution theory, "children" (under 18) get re-victimized whenever someone looks at their depictions.. We prevented the re-victimization of Brooke Shields through the first 10 year old photo by putting black bars at all private parts.  Add to this the famous Brooke Shields movies (Blue Lagoon, …) , one can see that Brooke Shields constantly gets re-victimized thousands of times per day by people who watch these movies with an impure mind.

Ruinous persecution of mother and father for innocent  baby bath photos.  It is preposterous to assume that parents or a large number of men are "infantophiles".  We want to stress that attraction to infants is a serious sexual aberration and certainly must not be acted upon.

Infantophiles

Of course, Infant abusers can be labelled with a stronger label then "pedophile". Those attracted to 17 year olds are more ostracised by the incorrect application of the name "pedophile" or child lover, then by "teleiophile", late adolescent lover. To reach the maximum vilification, the word "infantophile" is now, correctly, created. It is undesirable that perverts that mess with infants can hide behind the word "pedophile", which could mean attraction to 9 year olds.

We are discussing grammar, semantics, and politics of language manipulation here. We are not defending or condoning pedophile activities.

There are also law abiding pedophiles who declaredly do not act upon their attraction. These, in spite of being accused merely of thought crimes, are in danger of being hurt by angy pedophile vigilantes.

Other Language manipulation ("rape", "consent")

Human-Stupidity has assailed the manipulative distortion of language is very common in the service of criminalizing adolescent sexuality.  The meaning of "rape" and "consent" have been manipulatively changed, just like "pedophile" and "child".

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “What is a Pedophile? Hebephile, Ephebophile, Teleiophile, Infantophile” »
What is a Pedophile? Hebephile, Ephebophile, Teleiophile, Infantop…
» continues here »

Former Army Major Daniel Woolverton Sentenced For Raping Baby. What kind of rape?

A former Army Major from our area was sentenced to 27 years in federal prison for a horrific crime: raping a baby.

Federal authorities found 30,000 images and 100 videos of child pornography on the computer of 35 year-old Daniel Woolverton.

Daniel Woolverton was a 1997 West Point graduate, with a career as an Army trial lawyer that appeared to be on the fast track. Now, hes behind bars after raping a boy as young as three months old, an act he videotaped.

"Well, its repulsive," said an Arlington neighbor.

"Raping an infant? Oh boy. Thats terrible," said another. wusa9.com/news/


Video from wusa9.com/news/

Raping a 3 month old infant! We found this terrible, too. So terrible that we consulted a medical doctor to inquire about the consequences of forcible penetrative rape of an infant. He confirmed our suspicion: The absolute mismatch in size would cause extreme, grave, life threatening injuries in an immature infant. So, how come, there is no mention of such grave injury?

We remembered Definition of "Rape": When a "Rape" is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word "Rape": indecent touching of a minor is "rape". It is absolutely impossible for us to know what kind of activities Daniel Wolverton engaged in Our language lost its precision and its power. The new "rape" definition serves purely to mislead the public as to the nature of the crime. To incite the mob. 

Isn’t the truth enough? Most likely he did indecent touching and fumbling with an infant. Yes fumbling in places and ways he should not fumble. But it seems he did not engage in activities that would permanently hurt, mutilate and hospitalize the child.

Compare: Woman causes permanent brain damage in infant: 2 years. Kills baby: 4 years.)

Aren’t we insensitive? Defending a infant rapist? No, we don’t say what he did was right and defensible. We just say we should not mislead the public as to what he did. One thing is for sure. Thanks to the new definition of "rape", we can not know what he did.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Former Army Major Daniel Woolverton Sentenced For Raping Baby. What kind of rape?” »
Former Army Major Daniel Woolverton Sentenced For Raping Baby. Wha…
» continues here »

Consent, rape & minors. What is consent to sex?

Any six year old knows perfectly well if s/he is coerced while overpowered and threatened, or acts consensually out of free will.

Try to explain her/nim that the stupid adults have defined all sexual activity even of late 17 year or 15 year old  adolescents as non-consensual. So it is the same "non-consensual rape" if a 17 year old takes the initiative to work hard to seduce an adult to have sex, or if the same adult rapes him/her at knifepoint. 

The first example is "statutory rape"  and the second is "forcible rape", the reader might retort. That differentiation has long been lost outside theoretical academic discussion.

The press happily reports about trials and conviction of "rapists" that raped the victim 300 times. No, she did not lock up the "victim" in a dungeon for years, like Mr. Fritzl. The victim came always came back for more, but did not consent (by our weird definition of legal consent). Human-Stupidity even documented a case where the rapist, unbeknownst to him,  was duped by the victim into raping her.

Children of 6,8, or 15 years risk serious legal consequences, even jail, if they don’t know these confusing definitions and regulations. Therefore this ought to be be mandatory elementary school subject.

Human-Stupidity has repeatedly, assailed the tendency in modern law, incited by feminism, to "rape" and manipulate language, to use inaccurate and deliberately inflammatory, emotive language to try to foster a hidden agenda. 

Due to feminist zeal to vilify consensual lovers of adolescent women, we belittle the true suffering of victims of forcible rape victims.

Human-Stupidity thinks it it truly offensive to the underage victims of real forcible violent rape to equate their suffering to the the "suffering" of willing participants in sex, to equate their resistance and unequivocal non-consent to the voluntary though legally invalid consent, or to the suddenly withdrawn consent in a "six second rape".

Minors under 18 (or 16) years of age can not consent to sex.  When spoken by a minor under the age of consent, then by this definition, the following absurd equality holds.

"I love you, please make love to me"

=
(is equal to)

"NOOO, don’t touch me, leave me alone"
lovey-dovey-feeling

=

rape-ducks

 

Both statements above are non-consent of rape-victims, in case the birds are under the age of consent.

 

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Consent, rape & minors. What is consent to sex?” »
Consent, rape & minors. What is consent to sex?
» continues here »