European parliament has voted to criminalize the purchase of sex.

Feminism and political correctness are creating unfree police states in Europe. Prostitution is on the way of being eradicated everywhere.

Nobody cares about needy sexless men, whose happiness is greatly increased by a chance to have sex. It also has clearly been shown, that prostitution, and porn availability gives men an outlet and thus reduces true violent sex crimes.


MEPs vote to criminalise buying sex

European parliament backs the ‘Nordic model’ of prostitution, which legalizes the selling of sexual services, but criminalizes buying it. Thus it makes sure that women never are at fault and all criminal responsibility goes to men, for their sex drive and for their wish to have sex with a consenting women, for money.

In "EU’s Zero tolerance policy and the Swedish State – The Coming Censorship‘, Lucian Vâlsan describes how centralized EU mandates trickle down to the EU countries, mandating "gender equality", ending violence against women (but not against men) at the cost of abolishing due process

In this context, Thilo Sarrazin‘s book is very relevant, though it focuses more on immigration, education, then on gender politics. I will post more on Thilo Sarrazin‘s book.

UK urged to follow Nordic model of criminalizing prostitution clients

Sweden pioneered the approach of criminalizing the user and police say the number of street prostitutes working in the country has fallen by two-thirds, to about 1,000, since the law prosecuting sex buyers was introduced in 1998.

Norway followed suit – as did France last week. Belgium and Ireland are considering moving in the same direction and even the Netherlands, famously permissive and home to the best-known red-light district in Europe, is making a shift to tighten laws around prostitution. Currently prostitution is allowed anywhere unless the municipality restricts it with a licence, but a new proposed law trying to make it past the senate would make it illegal to have a premises for prostitution unless a permit was granted by the local authority – turning the current situation on its head.

Corinne Dettmeijer, the Dutch rapporteur on trafficking, called it a "huge change".


"I’m amazed that no one has yet brought forward legal action against this government because current policy on prostitution does so little to live up to our own EU commitment on trafficking," he said. "We have to recognise that prostitution is a deeply exploitative trade that has a massive impact on gender equality. We have to change social attitudes, but in my opinion you can’t do that without changing the law."


The most radical feminist ideology got in power and more than one million men have been accused of violence, deprived of their homes, their children, their income, marginalized by the state and treated as plague spreaders. A small fraction may indeed deserve condemnation, but the great majority of them are innocent victims of defamatory falsehoods taken at face value by the judiciary. The saddest thing is that the consequences are paid by hundreds of thousands of boys and girls who deprived of their fathers. Is it just an ideology? Of course not, it’s a business.  4


Author: Human-Stupidy (Admin)

Honest Research, Truth, Sincerity is our maxim. We hate politally correct falsification, falsification, repression of the truth, academic dishonesty and censorship.

7 thoughts on “European parliament has voted to criminalize the purchase of sex.”

  1. “Our topics don’t concern everyone on a daily basis”

    This could be your false self-identification of being a ‘hebophile’.

    Given that 99% of men surf for porn and, in Europe at least, surfing for porn regularly is almost certain to potentially criminalize you given the wide range of vague and draconian illegal porn definitions, then I would suggest that alone makes our topics an everyday concern for most men.

    Most men have had sex with prostitutes. Most men have casual sex, especially young men. Every man is affected by paedohysteria in a wide variety of ways (suspicion, fear, career choices etc)

    Porn, prostitution, paedohysteria, false rape, sexual harrassment laws – I would suggest these issues affect most men as much as taxes, health care, immigration etc. It’s simply that these topics are largely taboo in society.

    It might take slightly less logical and a little more emotive argument to break through to men that these are issues that affect them.

    Do you honestly not think that you may have aspergers syndrome, and that this may be affecting your judgement when it comes to tactics?

  2. You didn’t really answer my question.

    If the vast majority of people are irrational and/or self-deceitful, what chance in hell do you have of trying to convince enough ‘casual readers’ by your arguments to change society and defeat feminism? Especially when it comes to emotive topics such as ‘child porn’?

    I would suggest that you might be getting one or two ‘casual readers’ each year viewing your site and being won over by studying your cold logical scientific arguments.

    Not worth the effort really.

  3. I see nothing wrong with this, I think we could use less pornography and more freedom of speech too.

    It only seem that since obscenity have been made legal, everything else became hate speech.

    It seems more effective, I am against prostitution and pornography, therefore I see absolutely nothing wrong with handing out harsher penalties on the clients.

  4. Jack, there are worse inequalities. Like 2 drunks having sex and the drunk man being the rapist, the drunk woman being the victim.

    Of course, the man as victim of his sex drive and lack of sex is often the exploited party, especially if the woman charges in an hour what the man earns in several days of work.

  5. God I hate this crap. If society decides to outlaw the selling of something it should be illegal for both the buyer and the seller. To make it illegal for only one of the parties creates a situation in which that party can be exploited by the other for profit.

    If that party happens to be men, well, no-one cares.

  6. That is a good point. I personally am dedicated to absolute peaceful non-violent means. Of course, one can get angry and still be non-violent.

    I sometimes mention that MRA (men’s rights advocates) could try to use the same outrageous tactics, unreasonable demands that women actually put into laws. But this is probably not going to happen.

    The Thilo Sarrazin book, which unfortunately is not available in English, is very enlightening. He is a former top Central Bank official and irritatingly calm and restricted. But that is the reason that no-one can find objective, logical refutation to his arguments. Which makes him even more annoying.

    The entire press and political establishment rail against him, and a large percentage of the public laps up his writings, shocking the establishment. He gets put down in interviews, and the spectators become hostile to his normally popular interviewer.

    But his main topics are immigration, crime, welfare, taxes, low wages, bad schools, topics that hit home strong for a large number of people. Almost everyone suffers from these problems, on a daily basis.

    Our topics don’t concern everyone on a daily basis. People only notice when suffering prosecution, or getting shamed. It is harder to rally support for this.

    He also writes about the manipulativeness of press, movie industry and politicians, who all have certain leftist egalitarian and feminist attitudes.

    He mentions how rational discourse can be shut off by calling someone “Nazi” or “racist”. And how the meaning of these words gets ever more extensive.

    In our case, “pedophile” is the word that shuts off all discourse. No matter if “pedophilia” is re-defined to mean attraction of a 22 year old to a 17 year old.

    But it seems that men will not win against women with their own female weapons. Logic could be a major part of it. Logic understanding could then cause emotional angry feelings.

    I know, Sarrazin analyses that visceral feelings move people, and logic comes only secondary, with much less power.

  7. @HumanStupidity

    There’s one question I’d like to ask you regarding your whole approach to anti-feminism.

    You think that the majority of human beings are stupid and irrational – hence the title of this site (and I agree with you entirely).

    However, you appear to be placing all of your faith in defeating feminism through logic, reason, empirical evidence, and wikipedia links.

    You seem to believe that feminist trolls can be persuaded by calm reason. You feel that adopting any of the tactics or language games of feminists is the last thing we need. You will even forgive feminists for calling on you to be arrested or tortured or murdered and never attack them back.

    In other words, by your own admission that humans are irrational, you’re engaging in a suicide mission in believing that this fight can be won through pure rational discourse.

Leave a Reply. We appreciate a discussion: if you disagree, your comment still is welcome.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.