I rest my case, your Honour. Now if you’ll excuse me…
I rest my case, your Honour. Now if you’ll excuse me…
Over at The Guardian a lady writes about the phenomenon of ‘LADS’, as she puts it. Her complaints are regarding an online magazine where guys take the piss and call members of the opposite sex various names, like slut, wench, bitch etc. Now apart from the fact she name drops literally all of the magazines’ accounts (publicity cough) she (gently) berates these guys for being so disrespectful and laments that the site / community as she states in her byline:
sends a message to young girls that their role is clearly delineated – you’re worthless.
The irony of talking about feminism (she writes for a femrag called Vagenda) while assuming that guys are responsible for the esteem of these girls is typically insular, but the double standard of women claiming to be ‘independent / just as good as / better than‘ men when it suits them, only to expertly feign innocence, rocking one of their feet on its toe while playing with their hair when they don’t like the consequences of something is ancient man-knowledge, just like it is ancient woman-knowledge that it’ll most probably work on men. And they’re right. Grr. This takes a much darker turn when women lie about rape, but let’s keep this on a lighter note. She continues;
Those little feminist-baiting scamps are well-known for their lax grasp of the term sexual consent, not to mention their constant assertions that all women are “wenches” and “slags”.
Saying they have a lax grasp of the term implies they’re rapists, surely? I’m sure they know what sexual consent is. I would go so far to say, if they actually caught a guy raping a girl, they would probably beat the shit out of him. They’re just lads, not grooming-gang rapists, for that you’ll have to look to our imported Muslims (which funnily enough, feminists don’t seem to touch).
Also, many women are slags. Vacuous, fame worshipping talentless meat sacks. You just have to look at the billions of photos they take of themselves and their SELF imposed objectification, with their cleavage shots, gallons of makeup and bum-in-the-mirror shots. (Not that I’m complaining about that last one). This includes so-called celebrity women who are climbing over each other to act sluttier than the next publicity whore. Who are they pandering to? They’re already rich and famous. Oh right, they’re competing with EACH OTHER. Women responsible for the issues of women? Well I never!
Back to feminism. Women want to be treated equally to men do they not? If they are going to roll in men’s circles and peek into men’s communities they better toughen up and learn to give as good as they get. Not just roll over and cry, because you just encourage them as they smell blood (but not in a nasty vicious way like girls do to each other when bullying in the playground). So just take the jest like a
man woman! The writer should listen to how (male) best mates talk to each other, about each other. Shit, she has no idea…
Now I would post an example but a: men already know and b: women don’t need to know. (Plus not telling them winds them up even more).
Any guy with a few notches under his belt knows that a woman is unlikely to be impressed with his ability to draw a giant knob in the sand using a supercar, let alone appreciate being called a “student slut” who he’d “do up the arse” to a chorus of “LAD!” from his mates.
Well if the guy has a supercar she will put up with it because that’s what wenches do, she’ll probably even take it up the arse if he’s rich enough. These guys are just saying what guys can think. Don’t fret, I’ve heard what women say about men and believe me they don’t slouch there!
She goes on to ask if this misogyny is just a phase. First, a definition;
Misogyny (pron.: /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls.
And now, a question;
Would you create / join / contribute to a website dedicated to talking about / looking at pictures of / having sex with something you hate or dislike? That isn’t logical. But then she is female (feminist), even if she is a bit of a babe. I’d probably do her…
Oh sorry I’m objectifying.
She goes on to attempt to categorise this male behaviour (as if women don’t objectify men), not realising that this is a male thing full stop. It doesn’t belong to ‘middle class males’ or ‘maybe some working class’. Not all men talk about women like that but we do communicate about them in encrypted ways…
… Ever seen some hot wench in your office bending over and you catch a glance and then look around, only to see another guy look and then make eye contact at you? Then you both smile /snigger, do the man-nod and walk on?
Of course you have. If a bunch of guys outside a pub all watch some stunner strut by and afterwards you all just nod quietly to each other and sip your pint?
It’s normal. It’s in our DNA. What she doesn’t realise it that those ‘lads’ on that site are simply fascinated by women. So much so that they created an entire website about it. If any of these women actually tried to code a website they would begin to appreciate how much affection that actually entails. (Not the coding, which is mildly creative but mostly boring, I mean the motivation to do it).
Now, just because they aren’t fitting her and her ilks’ definition of how men should talk is utterly irrelevant. They don’t give a shit what women think, and they should they? They’re speaking with each other, they set the rules. That’s what happens when MGOTW. In a way this website is evidence of my interest in them. I do actually find women interesting, not in a study-breakthrough-in-science type of way, but in a ‘WTF how does that even make sense?’ way.
Of course, the other argument is that if women don’t like such sites, just don’t visit them. But although they won’t admit it, women are also fascinated by men, even feminists. We can’t get enough of each other.
I very much doubt those guys actually speak like that to women. You can just imagine them all cracking jokes about women to each other but as soon as a real woman talks to them they’d be on their best behaviour and she’ll probably have the dude around her little finger before he knows what hit him. But that’s what separates the LAD from the MAN.
As always, the problem with feminists is that they want women to have respect without having to earn it, but in this environment created by feminism, this new age of equaliteeeeee, men have simply put women in the same group that men put other men in and being men, the rules are simple and effective.
Earn my attention. Earn my respect. Earn my loyalty and then, and only then, will we have your back. And as long as you keep it up, we’ll have your back forever.
But seeing as you happen to be a hot chick, a few more pictures of DAT ASS wouldn’t go amiss…
I’m back. It’s been a few years. I’ve been here and there, compiled even more research and have much to put on here for you. Conclusions I have reached that I have to share. I will be going to places I maybe shouldn’t be going to, but I’ll keep pushing it until you tell me to stop.
It’s going to be a little while until I hit my stride, I have lots of comments to approve, spam to clear, templates to reset, links to gather, I need to organise.
I’ll give you more personal thoughts in coming posts.
Thanks for reading.
And as far as the system is concerned? THIS IS WAR.
This contains additional information and quotes added by yours truly to give the article wider context.
From almost the first moment of recorded history, one set of relationships has been at the heart of the human experience and the basis of civilisation itself: a mother and father who depend on each other; the children who rely on them both; a supportive network of grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins.
Without the loyalties and obligations of the committed family, our ancestors would certainly have struggled to survive in a dangerous and frightening world.
How else but with the help of kin could they have coped with the critical moments in life: birth, sickness, old age, the need to educate and train their young? Without such help from the very beginning, it may be asked whether humankind would ever have developed the capacity to build an advanced civilisation.
That is because it probably wouldn’t have. Matriarchal societies move males to the periphery. They are at the bottom of the social ladder and are therefore not motivated to take the risks to advance the society with technology, as is evidenced by Daniel Amneus in his book, The Garbage Generation. A must read.
This week a report from Unicef, the UN’s child welfare agency, warned that working mothers take a massive risk when they put their offspring into low quality childcare.
This is in regards to the state deciding to force women into work once their child is one years old. No doubt to not only pay for the disgusting debt these socialists have put Britain in with the bankers, but also to control the next generation.
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” – Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
Until very recently, in fact, the importance of the family was taken for granted, not only as the basis of society, but as the foundation of our human identity.
Today? In western societies – and especially in the English-speaking world – we think we know better. Forget the wisdom of the ages. Forget our deep-rooted instincts.
Forget precepts that have governed every society in every era of history.
The importance of the ‘traditional’ family is being challenged as never before.
The idea has taken root that human families can be constructed in any way people want. The message is that biology counts for nothing.
Biological mothers don’t matter to their children. Biological fathers don’t matter either.
All that matters is what adults want – and children must adapt to it, whether they like it or not.
The sheer speed of what is happening is quite astonishing. In less than 50 years, the old values have been stood on their head.
Today, legislators don’t hesitate to plunge into ‘reforms’ that tear up the rights, duties and obligations that have underpinned the family for millennia.
They rush into new ‘ postmodernist’ concepts of family, partnering and parenthood. Indeed, they are even attempting to banish the word ‘marriage’ from the statute books.
Everywhere in the West, the liberal consensus is on the march. In Britain, for example, a Labour Government has discouraged the use of the ‘m’ word in official documents, while in the U.S., the American Law Institute recommends that marriage should be ‘ deprivileged’ and not be given a status above any other relationship.
Yet on any rational analysis, this reckless embrace of a brave new world is simply perverse, since there is no doubt whatever that the traditional family, underpinned by marriage, is the best way of bringing up secure, happy children and maintaining social stability.
Which is precisely why the liberal-fascists/ socialists/ feminists are so keen on destroying it. This is not news, this is historical fact.
“[The nuclear family is] a cornerstone of woman’s oppression: it enforces women’s dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation.” – Alison Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature
“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” – Robin Morgan (ed), Sisterhood is Powerful, 1970, p.537
Feminism plays a very important role in destroying the family (softening up society for enslavement). The socialist state can not tolerate competition to its control over the population. It is an ideology of social engineering. The nuclear family represents a unit stronger than the bond between individual and state. It also gives men and women much to lose, which makes all the more difficult to enslave. This is no accident.
You don’t have to be a religious believer or a Victorian moralist to take this view. The evidence speaks for itself (despite the strenuous efforts of the liberal establishment to ignore it).
Fact: one in two unmarried couples splits up before their first child is five years old. The figure for married couples is just one in 12.
Fact: children from broken homes are 75 per cent more likely than their classmates to fail at school, 70 per cent more likely to be involved with drugs and 50 per cent more likely to have alcohol problems.
They are also more likely to run away from home, find themselves in the care system and end up in jail.
At the very least, those bleak statistics should give us pause. The truth is that some of the most intractable problems facing Britain today – from our tragically high rate of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases to petty crime, gang membership and welfare dependency – have their roots in family breakdown.
Harriet Harman MP, the socialist/ feminist fasicst is recorded as saying:
marriage was ‘irrelevant’ to public policy and described high rates of separation as a ‘positive development’, as it reflected ‘greater choice’ for couples – never mind the children.
Take the shabby way successive governments have treated marriage in this country, even though they know perfectly well that it is one of the great foundations of society.
It was a Tory Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, who dismissed the married couples’ tax allowance as ‘an anomaly’. And it was former Home Secretary Jack Straw who proclaimed: ‘This Government will not preach about marriage.’
The result? In Britain today it just doesn’t pay to get married. Our tax and benefits system is so arranged that if lower-income couples who are living together get married, they will significantly increase their tax payments and lower their benefits.
Perhaps it’s no wonder that this country has a higher percentage of lone-parent families than any other country in Europe, apart from Sweden.
The system is designed to create family instability. And the costs, both social and financial, are huge.
How to explain this bizarre discouragement of an institution so important to the happiness, stability and financial health of the country?
Politicians are terrified of being thought ‘judgmental’ about the way citizens live. And they obviously take the defeatist view that nothing can be done to improve matters anyway.
Nonsense, they are only in power because they subscribe to the Marxist school of thought, whether that be socialism or its logical extension, communism. Both are collectivist totalitarian regimes that place the State as the all important construct and reduce the individual citizens to the position of slaves to its function creep and ever growing power. Reminds me of how the matriarchal society treats men. No wonder women subscribe to it.
The same aversion to moralising applies increasingly to the laws on marriage and divorce.
Not only are we witnessing ever easier divorce – whatever the children may need or want – and same-sex marriages, but there is also growing pressure to remove the words ‘father’ and ‘mother’ from birth certificates and replace them by ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B’ (as is already happening in Spain).
Whatever the motivation behind such trends, the ‘ traditional’ family structure is being badly eroded.
All this reminds me of the grim ideas floated in ancient Athens 2,500 years ago. In the vision sketched out in Plato’s Republic – a philosophical treatise on the most fundamental principles of the conduct of human society – mating would be random.
Children would be raised by the state. Neither mothers nor fathers could claim their biological offspring as their own. Nor could they raise their children.
And yet the family in its traditional form is crucial to us all – not simply because it underpins social stability or because it connects us to the past and the future, but because it’s also a bulwark of freedom itself.
Why? Because the invisible bonds it creates between its members generate loyalties and affections capable of resisting any tyranny.
Exactly. Why would these agents of the elite do this? Maybe it is because their plan for the global socialist dictatorship depends on it. They must destroy the institutions that make a strong society so it can then be taken over with ease, using lots of small changes over time, changing the structure of society to one which will be more susceptible to the type of tyranny they wish for us all. This is Fabian Socialism and it is happening to Britain NOW.
“To achieve One World Government it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, their loyalty to family traditions and national identification.” – Brock Chisholm, while director of UN World Health Organization.
“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” — Statement made before the United States Senate on Feb. 7, 1950 by James Paul Warburg
“National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing of a new world order.” — Adolph Hitler during World War II
“Mankind’s problems can no longer be solved by national government. What is needed is a world government. This can best be achieved by strengthening the United Nations system.” – Human Development Report, published by the UN Development Program, 1994
“The creation of a United Europe must be regarded as an essential step towards the creation of a United World.” – Jean Monnet, founder of the European Economic Community, 1948
“We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.” – Mikhail Gorbachev, 1987
“Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go – even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics, and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity, and precision on which the former depend.” – A quote from Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, “Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies” (New York, Basic Books, 1994), p. 116
December 12, 2008
According to a study led by David Schmitt, a professor of psychology at Bradley University, Illinois, Britons lead the western world in casual sex. The number of ‘one-night stands’ by both men and women are up and they are “the most promiscuous in the world.” While some praise this behavior as being “sexually free” it does have devastating consequences for human civilization. Consider the recent headline, “Drunken one-night stands over New Year will bring a record number of abortions” among teenagers.
While many “liberated” women say that they can separate sex and emotional attachment like men can and that casual sex is no big deal, testimonials do not bear this out. Besides the physical consequences of sexually-transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, the emotional toll is not something that is casual – it may be consciously ignored, but it is deep and long-lasting The elite know that the more sexual partners one has, the less able they are to maintain a long-term monogamous relationship like marriage. This is an insidious way to undermine the natural bonds that form marriages and create children.
And the ubiquitous sexual messages we encounter are no accident. Contained in television, movies, music, general advertisements and even now in virtual worlds, to which the public is retreating from this increasingly upsetting real-life world, these ever-present reminders of the cult of youth, beauty and sex are targeted at the young.
And the youth are absorbing those messages and putting them into practice as the results of this study show:
“Twenty-one percent of girls and 18% of boys said they have posted nude or partially nude pictures of themselves online. Forty-nine percent of teens and young adults have sent sexually suggestive text messages or e-mails of themselves. Fifteen percent of teens who sent sexually suggestive content said they have done so with someone they only know online.”
With more and more children being raised online, and coupled with the intensive mandatory sex education at public schools, they are subjected to more degrading influences and less direct family input than ever before. The deleterious effects of utilizing their unprecedented freedom online, participating in virtual worlds where anything is acceptable with no consequences, these children are literally becoming unable to form and maintain even simple friendships with actual peers they encounter in their real lives.
All of these contribute to the planned decline of civilization and the institution of . The social engineers have cleverly devised a top-down approach to tearing apart the nuclear family due to its threat to their plans for their New World Order. It is imperative to achieving their plans that the youth and young adults are inculcated with the ideas that procreating is selfish, greedy and inconvenient. They are taught from a very young age by teachers cum “change agents” to believe that human life is not as valuable as flora and fauna, that cultural morés and morals are “outdated and outmoded” and therefore should be discarded in favor of new “liberated” thinking of secular humanism, which espouses the belief that there is no concrete “right and wrong” therefore anything is justifiable with enough rationalization.
Marie Stopes, friend of fellow eugenicist Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, created the first birth control clinic in Britain and advocated “’sterilization of those totally unfit for parenthood be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.’ And in The Control of Parenthood, (1920)… wrote that were she in charge, she would ‘legislate compulsory sterilization of the insane, feebleminded… revolutionaries… half castes.’ She opposed the marriage of her own son merely because his bride-to-be wore glasses. And upon her death a large portion of her fortune was bequeathed to the Eugenics Society.” Marie Stopes International carries out one out of every three abortions in the UK, and promotes “voluntary sterilization.”
Most people instinctively recoil at the prospect of either voluntary or state-imposed sterilization, but sadly there are many who have been so brainwashed that they have aborted their pregnancies because having children is not “eco-friendly” and many others who have been voluntarily sterilized because of outright selfishness (”it would hamper my lifestyle and I wouldn’t be able to do the things I want to do”), others being “repulsed by… the idea of being pregnant and having a child” or just total lack of any maternal instinct.
This is a source of joy to the eugenicists and population control/reduction proponents because their mildly coercive population control via “education” and constant propaganda is working so well in the western world. The rampant promiscuity and resultant high divorce rate, astronomically increased infanticide, children’s lack of ability to form even the most basic relationship – friendship, legions of children being raised less by parents and more by teachers (e.g., the State) all accomplish the population reduction plan quite nicely without having to resort to bloodshed, except of course for the infants that are aborted.
But, as Bertrand Russell stated, “I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full… The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”
We who value Freedom must resist the New World Order by educating ourselves and others, and refusing to participate in eugenics and voluntary population control.
Apparently it is because he ‘seduced’ her. A 14 year old seduced a 39 year old.
No, I’m not kidding.
A mother who had sex with a 14-year-old walked free from court today after the judge said the boy seduced her.
Sharon Edwards’ husband, who suspected that she was having an affair, discovered that his love rival was a youngster from their two sons’ school.
The couple’s marriage was on the rocks when he began checking the 39-year-old’s computer for MSN messages and found his identity.
He told the boy’s mother who called in the police, said prosecutor Tina Dempster.
Blonde Edwards said that they had sex for the fourth and final time that night, and on another occasion it happened at her sister’s home when the sister was away.
Miss Dempster told Teesside Crown Court that Edwards’ husband Mark first became suspicious because she was exchanging 50 text messages a day with the boy.
The Edwards’s marriage was rocky by the end of 2007 and they decided to try to make a go of it.
But it became apparent to him by the end of October last year that his wife was having an affair. When he confronted her she denied it.
He spoke to her about the number of text messages she was sending to the boy but she said they were just having a laugh.
Yeah, it’s hilarious when female paedophiles get off scot-free. HAHAHA. Continue reading
Showgirl and men’s magazine model Raffella Fico, 20, told an Italian magazine: “I can’t wait to see who’s going to pull out the money to have me.”
Don’t hold your breath love, you have enough air in that head already.
Miss Fico, who appeared in the Italian version of Big Brother earlier this year, said she would use the cash to buy a house in Rome and pay for acting classes.
“I don’t know what it’s like to have sex,” she told the magazine, Chi, adding that if the man who bought her virginity was ugly then she would quickly get over it.
So it is guaranteed to be crap then. Maybe she should use the money to get some lessons on sales techniques. I mean seriously, selling a service by saying you’ve never actually done it before? That’ll work!
“If I don’t like him I’ll just have a glass of wine and forget about it,” said the aspiring actress from Naples – hometown of screen siren Sophia Loren.
Her family insisted that despite her good looks and sexy image, she remained a virgin.
“She’s never had a boyfriend. I swear on my mother’s grave. She’s a devout Catholic and prays to Padre Pio every night,” her brother told the magazine.
She is the not the first woman to auction her virginity for a large sum. An 18-year-old US student in San Diego, Natalie Dylan, recently told the Howard Stern show she would have sex for the first time for $1 million to pay her college fees.
How much are college fees? Where is she studying, on the fucking Moon?
In 2005 a Peruvian model, also 18, put herself up for sale to help pay her family’s medical bills but ended up having second thoughts and turning down $1.5 million.
1 million to stick your member in a stupid, useless virgin? I’d rather buy a gold plated Porsche. And crash it.
Source: Daily Mail
A man who admitted raping a 12-year-old schoolgirl walked free from court after convincing a judge she tricked him into believing she was an adult.
Barman Michael Graham, 25, met the girl through a social networking website.
She had posted pictures of herself on the site and her web profile said she was a 19-year-old college student and single mother who enjoyed drinking and having sex.
The girl was inundated with offers from admiring men, but only replied to Graham because he was the best looking, Leeds Crown Court was told.
They arranged to meet and went to Graham’s flat where they watched television, drunk vodka and beer and smoked skunk cannabis, the court heard Graham and the girl had ‘consensual sex’ four times during the overnight stay, but he admitted four counts of rape because legally a child under 13 cannot consent to sexual activity with an adult.
Well she obviously bloody did consent didn’t she? Not only was she willing, she sought him out, and what does smoking skunk have to do with this? She obviously consented to that too. I guess the author thought they could attack the drug through association while they are at it.
The girl’s parents thought she was staying overnight at a friend’s house and called police when she didn’t return home the next day.
She picked up a morning after pill after leaving the flat at 5pm and by the time she got home her parents had found her incriminating website on the family computer and she admitted the truth.
After hearing the full background the judge took a sympathetic view towards Graham and gave him a 12-month conditional discharge.
Judge Jennifer Kershaw, QC, said there was a ‘striking’ contrast between how the girl looked in school uniform while giving video evidence to police and the image she used of herself on her personal website.
Explaining the sentence to the court, she said:’I accept the defendant did not know how old this girl was. I accept he did not know she was under the age of 16, still less did he know she was in fact 12.
Once upon a time a man could reasonably guess a female’s age. Now, with the proliferation of make-up, provocative clothes, young people being used sexually as models etc, the lines have blurred.
‘It seems to me that this defendant was deceived. He was deceived in a number of material respects, both beforehand and during their encounter. Continue reading
By Henry Makow
“Natalie Dylan”, the 22-year-old San Diego woman who is auctioning her virginity to pay her tuition is a Women’s Studies grad.
Her decision to prostitute herself is the natural result of an “education” ( i.e. indoctrination) that trashes marriage and family. It also shows how feminism, which pretended to oppose the sexual objectification of women, has had the exact opposite effect.
Sounding every bit the feminist, Ms. Dylan (not her real name) says: “I don’t have a moral dilemma about it. We live in a capitalist society. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to capitalize on my virginity? I understand some people may condemn me. But I think this is empowering. I’m using what I have to better myself.”
This girl has a degree in Woman’s Studies and yet thinks her most valuable asset is her vagina?
Yet she wishes to raise the price of that commodity by recalling the traditional morality that held virginity in high regard.
Can she have it both ways?
Men put a value on virginity only in a wife. Virginity in a prostitute is not an asset, but a serious liability.
Dylan proposes to complete the transaction at a Nevada brothel where her sister already works. Why would a man pay an exorbitant price for an amateur when he is surrounded by pros?
In 2004, Rosie Reid, an 18-yr. old British lesbian sold her virginity for $20,000. Reid admitted the experience was “horrible” but blessedly brief. “It was horrible. . . I felt nervous and scared,” she said.
How much pleasure can a man get from sex with such a woman? Dylan’s venture exposes her (and society’s) naive attitude about sex. If a man’s satisfaction were merely sexual release, he could masturbate. His pleasure comes from the woman’s total emotional and physical response to him. A prostitute or a professional virgin is not going to satisfy him. Continue reading
Horray! Now if London females weren’t stuck up, selfish, self-righteous tramps maybe there wouldn’t be such a booming market for this service. So view this article as an indicator to the quality of women in London, which, like the air quality, is atrocious!
London’s brothel industry has spread to “every corner” of the city, according to a charity’s report.
Brothels in the city offer sex for as little as £15, and some are charging £10 extra for unprotected intercourse, the Poppy Project in Southwark found.
Free market capitalism at its finest. Big fat LOL. See, all those feminist ball-breaker bitches aren’t very attractive. Easier to just have sex with a whore and be done with all the nagging and girl-power bullshit.
Its report said 85% of brothels in the city operated in residential areas and researchers posing as sex buyers found brothels in all 33 London boroughs.
Westminster had the highest number with 71, compared with eight in Southwark.
The study was compiled by the Poppy Project, which provides education about prostitution and helps victims of sex trafficking.
Westminster, where all the politicians work and next to the City. Who would have thought.
Together the brothels generated between £50m and £130m a year, the researchers estimated.
Now check this out. Obviously, beeing the BBC, they have to start trying to paint women as victims in this. The next paragraph is headed ‘Underage girls’ although there is no proof of it.
The average age of the women was 21. Several places offered “very, very young girls” but did not admit to having underage girls available. Continue reading
Terrible, a selfish little woman experiencing accountability. She did it for the lulz?
Source: Daily Mail
Just a fortnight ago, she was pictured frolicking topless on a yacht with her new multi-millionaire actor boyfriend, but Sienna Miller has spent the past week in hiding after being snubbed by friends on both sides of the Atlantic.
For those who don’t know, she dumped former boyfriend Rhys Ifans, slept about and eventually ran off with married multi-millionaire family man, Balthazar Getty, causing untold grief and upset to his family, although he isn’t exactly innocent either.
The 26-year-old actress, who has been nicknamed ‘Sluttyienna’ and ‘Serial Miller’ because of her increasingly long list of lovers, has fled to New York – where her father, banker Ed Miller, lives – to escape the backlash over her affair with Balthazar Getty, 33, I can report.
Sources close to the GI Joe star say she has been ‘stunned’ by the fallout since her affair with the married father of four was revealed.
What is there to be surprised about? She targeted a married man. She’s been sleeping around with men like she’s on commission. People call her a slut, because she’s acting like a slut. I guess these little princesses aren’t used to being criticised for anything. Stunned. Idiot.
Sienna has told friends she plans to keep a low profile for the rest of this summer.
Run rabbit run. Continue reading
Feminists don’t seem to understand their own sex very well. I was considering making this part of the Matriarchal Self Worship Series, but it is more of a woman’s projection of her superficiality and narcissism onto her daughter. Like that never happens! Sexualization of girls or women being blamed for girls’ image problems for example.
Source: Daily Mail
At 11, Sasha Bennington is too young to remember the days when Jordan was just a country and being branded ‘fake’ was something to be ashamed of.
But maybe the youngster’s biggest tragedy is that her mother, Jayne, 31, is in no hurry to paint a picture of how it used to be.
Jayne is talking breezily about how Sasha had her first set of false nails glued on at eight, and now enjoys the sort of rigorous beauty regime – hair extensions, fake tans, pedicures – that was once the preserve of porn stars and Dolly Parton, not school children from Burnley in Lancashire.
Still, times have changed. ‘All the kids are at it now,’ insists Jayne. ‘We spend about £300 a month on beauty treatments for her.
‘Sasha’s friends are the same. All girls their age are. Of course they are! Why else would you be able to buy make-up for pre-teens at Boots?
Um, because Boots wants to make money? And all girls aren’t the same, it’s their mothers that are the same. Using their daughters to compete with each other. The attitude of this ‘mother’ is alarming to say the least, with lines like;
‘I don’t understand why people get so upset about it. None of it is permanent. Tans wash off. Hair extensions come out. Why all the fuss?’
They kept saying they wanted the girls to look natural. Why? Let them slap it on! What’s the harm?’
What else does one expect? They scurried off to a U.S. beauty pageant with a film crew, where the mother revealed how sacrificial and noble she is;
‘I fell in love with a pink dress that made her look like a princess, but the people advising us told us you should always match the dress to the eyes – so we went for green.
‘That was OK, though. I wasn’t there to have the dress I wanted. I was there so that Sasha could win. I was amazed at how much there was to learn, but I knew I was in the hands of the experts.’
It seems that the main lesson learned was that her darling daughter could look like a plastic Barbie, and be rewarded with a sash to prove it.
‘People always said she looked like a Barbie in Miss British Isles, but the girls in Texas truly did,’ enthuses Jayne.
‘It was wonderful. I watched them on the catwalk, with their arms held so precisely, walking slowly and turning just so. They reminded me of little ballerina dolls.’
What sort of mother wants her daughter to look like a doll? The image I have in my head is of Exorcist Barbie, but Jayne sees something else entirely.
The article author cottoned on to the matriarchal projection however.
Her response to the pageant pictures of Sasha – looking shocking with deep red lips and heavily smoked eyes – probably says more about her than her daughter.
‘The pictures are amazing, and Sasha is such a lucky girl to have them. I’d love to have those sort of pictures, nice pictures, rather than ones you hide away because you can’t bear to look at them.’
It was about the same time she started dabbling in beauty pageants that Jayne declared she wanted her daughter to be the next Jordan. She still does.
For those readers who do not know who ‘Jordan’ is, curse you, you lucky buggers. Just imagine Mister Geppetto with a Barbie Doll instead of a piece of wood. With about the same amount of personality.
‘Of course. Jordan is her idol and I fully support her in that. She’s a great role model, this really down-to-earth woman who has made a big success of her life. She’s a better role model than Britney Spears – any day.’
Okay, this is her. Content with making her daughter into an object, she then attempts to sell her.
In the forthcoming documentary, Jayne takes Sasha to a major agency, in the hope that she will be signed up.
The model booker says a vehement ‘no’, horrified by her portfolio, and tells Jayne that clients want their child models to look like children, and that for this sort of career success she would have to stop bleaching Sasha’s hair and encouraging her to wear plastic nails. Jayne refuses to comply.
It comes as no surprise that Jayne used to be a model herself, and one who worked in the ‘glamour’ side of the business.
She started at 23 – which, she explains, was ‘far too late’ for real career success – and now believes that earlier is better, in order to maximise profit and notoriety.
One of her own happiest memories is of entering a beauty pageant and winning the coveted sash. ‘I was on top of the world. One day I was an ordinary clerical worker, the next everyone was looking at me. It was wonderful.
Bloody hell. This mother didn’t sell her body as much as she’d hoped in her time, so obviously her daughter is the next best thing.
‘She’s always wanted to be a model, 100per cent. I’m just helping her do what she wants, like any good parent would. It’s not pushing her into anything. I hate it when people say I’m a pushy parent. I’m not. I just want the best for her.’
I’m not a parent, but I don’t think that doing whatever the child wants is a good parent. That’s how you get this. You are supposed to set rules and boundaries for children. Instil morality, good behaviour and constructive attitudes.
But maybe that’s just me. I wonder where the father is?
And what Sasha wants, Sasha clearly gets. Last Christmas, Jayne and her husband, Martin, a builder who works all over the UK and is barely at home, spent £26,000 on Sasha’s presents, which included a swimming pool.
Goes some way to explaining the situation.
What will become of the child, who turns just 12 in two weeks? We might hope for a reverse teenage rebellion – one in which she dyes her hair mousey brown and professes a desire to study political science at university – but it’s unlikely.
Ask Sasha how she sees herself and she replies: ‘Blonde, pretty, dumb – I don’t need brains.’ Her mum laughs her head off at this, proud that the child is so like her.
Indeed. How far Britain has fallen.
That old chestnut ‘a real man would…’ tends to be used by a woman or metrosexual twit when they want to control your behaviour or thoughts. It is usually followed closely by them recommending an action that benefits them, and not you.
This article is preceded by the one about female role models, which are obviously worse. Judging by my research these ‘men’s mags’ aren’t far behind.
I was mainly prompted to write this article from a comment by Reality Seeker, and this article in the Daily Mail.
Once, men were simply men. But then feminists decided they were chauvinist pigs who didn’t spend enough time doing the dishes. So along came the guilt-ridden New Man, swiftly followed by sensitive, moisturising Metrosexual Man. Of course, women soon missed the whiff of testosterone and were calling for the return of Real Men. Now a new book, The Retrosexual Manual: How To Be A Real Man, has been published. David Thomas tip-toes through the unashamedly macho details. . .
So now men need books to be told how to be men apparently. Nice way of making money I guess, and going by the extracts of this book from the article, it is obviously meant to be taken as a comedy. Obviously.
If most men are like the ‘real man’ described below, we are truly fucked.
Remember, you have a number of qualities, almost all deriving from your testosterone, which women can’t help but admire. For example:
1. Your mind is uncluttered. Consider the female brain, filled as it is with multiple anxieties about its owner’s hair, figure, health, diet, clothes, shoes, emotions, digestive transit, sex life, competitive female friendships, multi-tasking duties as a worker/lover/ wife/mother/whatever.
Instead, your mind is focused on the important things in life: sex, beer, football. Women secretly envy a mind like that.
2. You can make decisions on your own. You don’t need to talk it over for hours with all your friends, or consult a horoscope, or worry about feng shui.
3. You have strong arms which come in handy whenever bottles need opening, cases need carrying, or a girl just feels like gazing at a strong, muscular limb.
4. You do not clutter up the bathroom. No woman wants a man who owns more beauty products than she does. A man who showers, shaves, then gets out of the way is ideal.
Maybe this is marketed towards women (like almost everything else). Important things in life are sex, beer, football. Acquiring knowledge, fighting tyranny and working to make the world a better place are obviously soooo-twentieth century. Nowadays we should all just be consumers, oh and live our lives around pleasing modern women! (Point 4 and 5).
Hmm, being a man, you also have no idea how to treat women. The following points can be condensed by yours truly. Treat her as her deserves to be treated. Let’s see what a ‘real man’ is supposed to do.
1. When on a date, you pay – even if she offers. Don’t stand for any nonsense about going Dutch. And pay in cash – retrosexuals don’t use credit cards.
2. You open doors for women, and you stand for pregnant women on a bus, train or Tube. You do this because you are a man, and you’re proud of it.
3. You do not cook anything more sophisticated than Pot Noodles or baked beans. Cooking is her job. But when you have a Sunday roast – and you do, obviously – you carve with manly precision and flair.
4. Women like to talk, bless them. So don’t try to stop her getting her feelings off her chest, however daft they might be. There’s no need to actually listen, however. Nor does she expect, or even want you to express an opinion of your own. A nod of the head, roughly every 90 seconds, combined with a concerned frown, or a cheery laugh, where appropriate, is perfectly sufficient.
5. Of course, you want to have sex. Afterwards, however, it is important to avoid saying ‘I love you’ or ‘I’m sorry, that’s never happened before’.
6. She may be interested in commitment. You are not. It is vitally important that you never even acknowledge the possibility that you are in a relationship. The moment she uses a sentence that includes words such as ‘wedding’, ‘children’, or ‘meet my parents’, make your excuses and leave.
7. No woman ever comes between you and live TV football. Only a very special woman will come between you and the edited highlights on Match Of The Day.
8. There is no woman on Earth for whom you will go to see Sex And The City – The Movie.
Sorry for wasting the few minutes of your time that it took to read points 1 to 7 (I agree with 8.) But this is what we are dealing with. Feel free to visit the article to read the rest. It doesn’t get any better. Firstly, this article comes across as nothing more than a silly little marketing ploy in order to sell books that are written to appeal to women who then buy them as presents for the males in their life, just like businesses market to children in order to get parents to part with their money. Secondly, the many attempts at redefining men over the decades all have something in common:
They all involve a move towards consumerism and materialism. Making men more feminine makes it easier to control them, instil fear and make money from them (including selling debt).
The number one website for Men’s Lifestyle is FHM.com
Funnily enough, I couldn’t find anything about tyranny, the Lisbon Treaty, our Bill of Rights, the nature of Fiat Currency, Cheap Credit = Expensive Debt, Marxism, Collectivism, The Dialectic etc on its many colourful pages. I guess these things just aren’t important eh. These lads mags are consumer bibles. Like little boys, obsessed with girls bodies (which I guess is better than their brains these days).
Of course, a few generations of broken homes where the boys are raised by single mothers has helped, as young men look about for a male role model to fill the vacuum left by feminism and find corporations and big government!
We are seeing an almost textbook example of the application of various psychopolitical mechanisms on our society.
The realm of defamation and degradation, of the psychopolitician, is Man himself. By attacking the character and morals of Man himself, and by bringing about,through contamination of youth, a general degraded feeling, command of the populace is facilitated to a very marked degree – The Soviet Art of Brain Washing
Our of sight, out of mind… Make Man feel like his species is animalistic, collectivist and devoid of hope and who will stop our enemies from conquering us? Not people like this.
Of course, part of the speaking out against such psychological warface (such as with this blog) must be dealt with accordingly, from the above document;
The populace must be brought into the belief that every individual within it who rebels in any way, shape, or form against the efforts and activities to enslave the whole, must be considered to be a deranged person whose eccentricities are neurotic and insane, and who must have at once the treatment of a psychopolitician.
The lack of good, strong male and female role models is part of the plan to undermine the resistance of a people. It also makes lots of money. It perpetuates bad behaviour and reliance on media. This enhances the effectiveness of the psychopolitical campaign. Further degraded and mentally shattered, the sheep consume in the hopes of it improving their lives, the reality of which is getting worse due to the tyranny and Treason of our government. This makes even MORE money. Money that can pumped into creating better adverts and subverting more leading figures to corporate fascism. And so on and so forth…