Sunday 21 August 2011

Family law reform


Family Law reform

The whole area of family law needs drastic reform. In almost every way it’s totally unfair to men and of course there are different ideas on what should be done and how to fix the problems created by feminists.

There’s the gender equality approach, the moderate masculist one and the radical masculist solution. All would be better than what we’ve got now and I’ll go through them and explain them.

The way things are right now is that feminist laws have got us into the following situation. Women don’t bother to get married at all or if they do they get divorced at the drop of a hat. If they split up they got the family home, sole custody of the children, huge sums in alimony from the ex-partner and they can more or less deny him any access to the kids if they feel like it.

Even worse, if men object to how they’re being treated then they can be arrested for “domestic violence” and no matter how much they struggle to pay the alimony the woman always wants more. If the man can’t pay then he can be arrested and thrown into prison more or less indefinitely.

And that’s just one of the many areas of family law that needs reform. Let’s start by looking at the various ways we could improve things.

In the first place, the divorce laws need reforming. Gender equality advocates want to scrap the whole idea of “no fault” divorces and for divorce only to be legal if there’s clear proof of adultery or cruelty. They still want both sexes to be able to get a divorce, though.

Moderate masculists take a different approach, arguing that there’s no reason to scrap the grounds for existing divorces – in fact, they want divorce to be easier than it is right now – but that it shouldn’t be an option for a woman. They argue that a man should be able to divorce his wife freely but that she should be absolutely forbidden to apply for a divorce from him.

Radical masculists agree with the moderate ones but go further. They want a two-tier system of divorce, one a “no fault” divorce where the husband divorces his wife without laying any blame on her and a second layer of “aggravated divorce” where he complains about her behaviour or attitudes.

So who’s right? Should we just let everyone get divorced willy-nilly like they do now? Should we only allow it in the case of adultery or cruelty? Should both husbands and wives be able to apply for a divorce? And should we have a two-tier system where “aggravated divorce” leads to tougher penalties against the “rogue partner,” as radical masculists describe the wife in their suggested reforms?

I’ll come back to those questions later in my post. Let’s look at another big problem in terms of divorce – custody of children from the marriage. At the moment almost every divorce ends up with the wife getting the sole custody of the children. Gender equality thinkers want joint custody to be the norm and only in very exceptional circumstances should the court grant sole custody to either parent. They also want the claims of fathers to be weighed equally with those of the mother when it comes to custody.

Moderate masculists broadly agree but want a two-tier system, one where joint custody is the norm but the presumption of the court is in favour of giving “primary custody" to the father rather than the wife and one where sole custody is awarded to the man. Radical masculists want to turn the existing system on its head and insist that sole custody must always be given to the father in the event of a divorce.

I’ll look at these ideas later on. In the meantime I’m going to look at money, property and other assets. Is it right that, as happens now in almost every case, the husband loses his home, his kids, is forced to pay huge sums of alimony and child support to his wife and is basically asked to finance the theft of his own children? And if it isn’t right, what can we do about it?

Again, there are three approaches to the question. The gender equality advocates want alimony and child support to be abolished altogether and for all assets within a marriage to be assessed by the court on the basis of who contributed them and then make a decision based on the proportion of money and so on contributed by each partner.

Moderate masculists take more or less the same view but want the court to award a higher proportion of the assets to the husband than the wife and also to make the wife contribute a larger share of child support costs than the man on the grounds that, even with joint custody, they want the man to be recognised in law as the “primary carer.”

Radical masculists want not just to turn the existing laws on their head but to make them even more unfavourable to an ex-wife than the ones we’ve got right now are to ex-husbands. They want to keep alimony and child support but make it only payable by the wife to the husband; give all assets from the marriage 100% to the husband and 0% to the wife; and to keep all the feminist-inspired harsh sanctions against “deadbeat Dads” but to use them against “deadbeat Mums” instead.

Then there’s the question of “no fault” divorces and “aggravated divorce” proposals. In a no fault divorce, the court just recognises that the man wants a divorce and that it’s not a question of anyone being at fault. In an aggravated divorce, the wife’s behaviour is held against her as being a reason for divorcing her.

The following grounds are suggested by radical masculists for aggravated divorce: adultery, cruelty, mental cruelty and unreasonable behaviour. As always with the masculist approach, these charges can only be made by a husband against his wife, not the other way round. If she’s found guilty of these offences then the court can order all sorts of additional types of punishment against her.

The question of access to children from the marriage also needs to be reformed. Gender equality wants each partner to have 50-50 access to the kids; moderate masculists want to see a 4-3 or 5-2 split in favour of the father; and radical masculists want it to be entirely up to him where, when, how often and even if she can see the children. Radical masculists want “no access” to be the norm for a mother if it’s an aggravated divorce and “limited access” – once a month or less often – to be the general rule even in a no fault divorce.

Those are the basic options (though radical masculists also want to use the existing feminist laws against husbands and fathers and turn them on wives and mothers instead.) I’ll deal with them in a separate post because they’re more part of the discussion about reforms in the criminal code in general rather than just in the area of family law.

Then there’s the question of adultery. Should it be a crime for women but legal for men, a crime for both sexes or for neither?

Gender equality advocates don’t think it should be a crime at all; the moderate masculists think it should be a crime for both sexes and radical masculists think it should only be a crime for a girl to commit adultery.

Then there’s the question of what basis marriage ought to be done on. Gender equality advocates want it to be a free choice by both partners; moderate masculists want it to be a case where marriages are arranged on behalf of the girl by her male guardian and the male suitor but the girl would have the right to say no; and radical masculists want all marriages to be arranged and for the girl to have no say at all in the matter.

Then there’s the question of multiple partners. Should both sexes be able to have as many wives or husbands as they like? Should both only be able to have just one? Or should one gender be able to have multiple partners and the other not?

Gender equality thinks either no one should be able to have more than one husband or wife or alternatively both should be able to. Moderate masculists want men to be able to have more than one wife up to a maximum of ten but women would only be allowed one husband. Radical masculists want men to be able to have as many wives as they like but a girl can only have one husband.

Then there’s the cases of contraception and abortion. Gender equality wants both sexes to be able to use contraception of their own free choice; masculists (moderate and radical) want it to be entirely the decision of the man whether or not birth control can be used.

With abortion, gender equality want both partners to reach a mutual decision but if they disagree they want the woman’s wishes to be the deciding factor; moderate masculists want only the man to decide on the issue; radical masculists want the same but also insist that if the girl is carrying a male child abortion can NEVER be an option.

So how do I feel about the various suggestions? In the first place, who should be able to get a divorce – husband, wife, either, both, neither? IMO divorce should only be an option open to the husband. I don’t think a wife should ever be able to get divorced of her own free will but I think the husband should have the right to divorce her. I also agree with the radical masculists about a two-tier system of no fault divorces and of aggravated divorces.

On the custody issue I agree with the gender equality position. I think joint custody is the best solution and that sole custody is always going to lead to unfairness towards the non-custodial partner. I also agree with them about a 50-50 split when it comes to access because otherwise I think it’s unfair to the non-custodial partner. On the distribution of assets I also agree with them though I’m not so sure about alimony and child support. IMO the partner with more money should pay something extra into the pot to help financially.

Should marriages be arranged on her behalf and the girl have no say at all in the matter? I find that quite a sexy fantasy but I’m not sure it’s a good idea in reality. I can see how it’s probably better overall to have marriages arranged for girls under, say, the age of 30 but over that age I think it should be a mutual decision. And even with the young ones I do think she should have the right to say no.

On multiple partners I’m not sure to be honest. I find it an incredibly sexy fantasy to be, say, in a harem of girls all getting fucked by their hubby and not being able to be unfaithful to him. On the other hand I can also see the problems that might cause. On balance I suppose I’d say it might be worth a limited trial period to see how it works out. And, of course, it could only be on the basis of husbands having multiple wives and not the other way round.

On adultery I’m a bit iffy. To be honest how I feel is I’d always be faithful to my husband and I’d like him to be the same with me. On the other hand, if he did have an affair my first thought would be to wonder what I’d done wrong and what the other woman had to offer that he wasn’t getting from me. I’d try and think about my own behaviour and see how I could improve it to make him stay faithful. But if you absolutely push me and say, should either partner have the right to cheat on the other one, I guess I’d have to say that it’s more understandable when a man does it than when a woman does. If it’s a cheating wife or a cheating husband, I think the wife is more to blame to be honest. And I’d definitely blame the other woman for leading him on and want her to be punished in some sort of way – whether by me beating the shit out of her or by the law giving her some sort of punishment. If the law was going to be changed, though, I guess I’d support making it a crime for the wife (and the other woman) but not for the husband.

On contraception and abortion I take the view that it should be up to the man to decide on those issues. Whatever he wants is the right decision. I also agree with the radical masculists that if the girl’s carrying a boy she should be absolutely forbidden to have an abortion. I think how she feels should be taken into account on the questions of contraception or abortion but the final decision should be made by the man.

By my standards this is one of my more moderate posts – I’m taking the middle ground on most issues and favouring gender equality on most of the solutions!










Thursday 18 August 2011

Reforming the laws on domestic violence


Reforming the laws on domestic violence


As well as reforming the “rape” laws, another area of law that needs to be completely changed is “domestic violence.” Under the present pro-feminist laws, “domestic violence” is defined so widely that almost anything a man says or does could be called “domestic violence” or “spousal abuse.”

The present laws are totally unfair to men and more or less a license for girls to do whatever they like. In the first place, they start from the false assumption that the majority of victims of domestic violence are female and the majority of abusers are men. Actually the figures from police reports and other sources show that it’s really the other way round. Mostly it’s the girls who are the aggressors and men who are the victims of domestic violence.

Even when females make complaints about spousal abuse, in most cases it’s actually them who are the aggressors and the men who were the victims of female violence. 

Let’s look at some specific ways in which the present pro-feminist laws are unfair. If you raise your voice to a girl, she can have you arrested for “domestic violence.” The US Justice Department defines domestic violence as including “extreme jealousy and possessiveness,” and “name calling and constant criticizing.” Men are routinely put into American prisons for such “crimes” even without having had a trial. Females are allowed to admit in court that they are lying and yet receive no sort of punishment for doing so. Lawyers routinely advise them on how to make up totally false accusations of “domestic violence” and the girl’s word is always taken regardless of the evidence. A judge in New Jersey even had the nerve to tell his fellow judges “your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man you’re violating.” The New Jersey laws openly admit they ignore “due process” because “it perpetuates the cycle of power whereby the perpetrator remains the one with the power and the victim remains powerless.” The burden of proof rests on the defendant to prove his innocence and NOT on the prosecution to prove his guilt.

There are also so-called “integrated domestic violence courts,” where not only is the man’s guilt presumed but his property can be seized even if he is not found guilty or even formally charged. He can have this type of “decision” against him even if he’s not there to defend himself or refute the accusations.

In Pennsylvania, things are even worse. There, men can be imprisoned without trial until they sign confession forms stating “I have physically and emotionally battered me partner.” Even if he insists that he did NOT commit any kind of abuse, he is still made to “describe” the “violence” he used and to say “I am responsible for the violence I used,” the forms declare. “My behaviour was not provoked.” In other words, a completely innocent man can be held in prison indefinitely until he confesses to a crime that he didn’t commit, just to satisfy the vengeance of a partner and in the interests of feminist lies.

So how can we reform this crazy and unfair system? There are basically three options we can choose. One is to go down the “gender equality” road and treat men and women as equally capable of violence, subject to the same penalties if they’re found guilty, the burden of proof being on the prosecution rather than the defence, and false accusations being punished by giving the accuser the same sentence the perpetrator would have got if they’d been found guilty.

Another is to redefine domestic violence so that ONLY physical abuse can be looked on as a crime. All the complaints about nagging, jealousy and so on would be totally outside the scope of the law.

Then there’s the masculist approach. This comes in two forms, one just to abolish the offence altogether and redefine it as a victimless crime. On this approach, masculism argues that a man possesses the “absolute and unfettered right to use “all reasonable methods of control, education, and punishment to maintain discipline over all the female members of his household.” The crime of “domestic violence” will be struck from the statute book and reclassified as “the necessary maintenance of discipline over the lazy, recalcitrant, rude, dishonest, feckless or any otherwise unsatisfactory attitudes or behaviour displayed by female members of a household.”

That approach would mean that no man could ever be arrested, brought to trial or imprisoned for domestic violence. On the other hand, it doesn’t deal with the question of how we should deal with female violence.

What sort of behaviour by a female would be looked on as being “domestic violence” under masculist philosophy? Radical masculists believe that the answer is to turn the existing feminist legislation on its head, partly as a deserved punishment for feminists and partly just because they want to show girls how inferior they are to men and how much a gentleman can make them suffer if he wants to.

It does agree with moderate masculists that “domestic violence” by men should no longer be a crime and instead should be officially reclassified as only “domestic discipline.” On the other hand, it wants to make it possible to punish females who step out of line.

The radical masculists suggest a number of legal reforms but as some of them overlap with a wider field of reforms to “family law” I’ll deal with them when I post on that subject. Specifically in terms of the question of domestic violence, they argue that what’s needed is not just to change the definitions to make “domestic violence” the legal and legitimate act of “domestic discipline” by a man but also to turn the existing laws on their head.

They want it laid down in law that a man can NEVER be guilty of “domestic violence” and that whatever he does is only “domestic discipline” to keep the woman in check and under control. So far, all masculist thinkers agree on decriminalising the existing law on male “domestic violence” and just making it the legal act of justified and praiseworthy “domestic discipline” by a man against an uppity girl.

No crime at all there, then; only just, fair and thoroughly well-deserved punishment or education for females!

On the other hand, radical masculists want the domestic violence laws to be kept on the statue books. From now on, though, only females could ever be found guilty of that crime and, of course, punished severely for it.
They suggest adopting a combination of the New Jersey and Pennsylvania models in terms of the way the crime should be handled but this time, instead of men having to be on the receiving end, only females would be subject to what radical masculists call “the tough justice programme for female abusers.” They’ve also adapted some of the existing child abuse laws in the United States to strengthen the legal framework when it’s dealing with a girl accused of domestic violence.

Here is how their proposals for changes in the law would work.

To begin with, the law will now say that if a girl raises her voice to a man, he can have her arrested for domestic violence. The Supreme Court will define domestic violence as including not only physical abuse but “jealousy” “possessiveness,” “name calling” “criticizing her partner,” “nagging and scolding,” “raising her voice,” “making faces or other insulting gestures,” “inappropriate laughter or smiling,” “threatening facial expressions,” “unreasonable attitudes,” and “a general demeanour of aggression and violence.”

Domestic violence would be divided into two parts, “active aggression” and “passively aggressive behaviour.” Physical violence by a girl and the other things mentioned above would all be classed as “active aggression” on her part and would attract a more severe level of punishment than “passive aggressive behaviour.”

Passive aggression would be defined as “lack of consideration,” “lack of sensitivity,” “lack of enthusiasm,” “laziness,” “lack of respect,” “not praising her partner,” “ingratitude towards him” and “a failure to remind him continually of his own superiority to her.”

New Female Abuse Courts would be set up in which the girl’s guilt would automatically be presumed unless she could conclusively demonstrate her innocence; her money, property or other assets could be seized even if she is not guilty or even not formally charged; and these judgements can be made against her even if she is not there to defend herself or dispute the charges against her.

Judges in these courts will be guided by the masculist principles that “your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the girl you’re violating.” They will also ignore “due process” because “it perpetuates the cycle of power whereby the perpetrator remains the one with the power and the victim remains powerless.” The ENTIRE burden of proof will rest on the defendant to prove her innocence and NOT on the prosecution to prove her guilt.

Even if the girl gets to the Female Abuse Court, she won’t be allowed to have a lawyer to defend herself; she won’t be allowed to know what the evidence against her is; she won’t be allowed to know the “specifics” of the charges against her, only that she’s accused of domestic violence; she won’t be allowed to cross-examine witnesses or dispute the testimony they give; she isn’t allowed to call any witnesses on her behalf; hearsay evidence is admissible against her; syndrome evidence will be admissible against her (see more on that in a minute); she has no right to confront her accuser; she has no right to dispute any of the testimony or evidence against her; and she has no right to produce any evidence of her own to dispute the prosecution’s case.

She’ll be compelled to take the stand; compelled to testify even if what she says incriminates herself or might do so; forced to answer leading questions by counsel; constantly interrupted, contradicted and generally browbeaten while she gives her testimony; reminded constantly that she is under oath and that perjury carries an automatic two-year prison term with hard labour; reminded that a full confession by her of her abuse of her partner will lead to a lesser sentence and that therefore it’s in her own best interests to be “honest” and “confess” rather than “lie to the court” in a “futile attempt to deny her aggressive and violent behaviour” against her “abused partner.”

In a domestic violence case, the man doesn’t have to appear in court to face the defendant. He can give his testimony through a videotape made by the prosecution which is valid as evidence and can’t be challenged by the female defendant. Even a simple written statement by him will be accepted in court as “sufficient evidence” of abuse. In domestic violence cases an “outcry” witness can also give hearsay evidence against the girl which is always admissible and regarded as clear “evidence of guilt.” Again, their testimony can’t be disputed by the girl.

“Syndrome Evidence” is where an expert witness testifies that the man is suffering from “female domestic abuse syndrome” (FDAS). This is a theory put forward by masculist psychologists which states that if a man behaves in a certain way it’s because he’s a victim of domestic abuse. By using syndrome evidence, that state doesn’t have to provide any proof of abuse. If the man shows certain “patterns of behaviour” then he was obviously a victim of domestic abuse. If he cries or shouts then he must have been abused; if he has nightmares, he must have been abused. If he is silent or withdrawn, he must have been abused. If he’s loud or extraverted, he must have been abused; if the man is happy in the presence of his female partner, it’s either because he’s afraid of her or the girl has managed to “condition” him to “enjoy” the abuse. 

The new laws would lay down that there was no need to produce any sort of physical evidence of abuse. The testimony of expert witnesses, not just in FDAS but other areas of “gender medicine” in which doctors, nurses and other health workers specialise are enough to convict a female defendant of domestic violence. They will give their expert opinion that a man HAS been abused by his female partner. In particular their opinion that the man’s “behaviour” or “symptoms” are “consistent with domestic violence” will be regarded as “overwhelming proof of guilt.” Just on the basis of testimony from these “gender medicine” specialists, girls can be found guilty without any other evidence against them.

The average time of the hearings in the Female Abuse Courts is between five to fifteen minutes. During the course of that brief trial, girls can be sentenced to months or years in prison. And there’s no right of appeal by the girl against her sentence.

And, of course, that’s once it GETS to a Female Abuse Court. Girls can simply be arrested and held in prison without trial until they sign a confession form stating “I have physically and emotionally battered me partner.” Even if she insists that she did NOT commit any kind of abuse, she is still made to describe the violence she used and to say “I am responsible for the violence I used,” the forms declare. “My behaviour was not provoked.” In other words, the girl can now be held in prison indefinitely until she confesses to her crimes.
Only if the girl makes a full confession of her guilt or her male partner petitions the Female Abuse Court to bring her before them for judgement will she finally be brought to trial. Until then she’ll be held in prison indefinitely. Radical masculists expect a nearly 100% confession rate as a result of these reforms!

If she’s confessed then the court will just rubber-stamp her guilt and decide on a sentence; if she’s still refusing to confess and her male partner has brought her before the court she’ll get a much MORE severe sentence when (as she almost inevitably will be) she gets found guilty than if she’d just confessed in prison.

Sound like a fair way to reform the laws so the feminists get what they dished out to men?

Privacy


Privacy

For a girl, the whole idea of privacy, which can only be based on the idea of having a separate, independent self and an individual personal identity, is ridiculous and should be firmly squashed. 

Only gentlemen are entitled to a private life; a girl’s whole existence must be lived out in public, before a (mainly) male audience. She HAS no private life, every aspect of a girl’s existence having to be as an extension of a man. Every action in her life, however small, must always be carried out in public, in full view of others, preferably gentlemen.

She must be under constant observation twenty-four hours a day. No matter how trivial or how intimate an action she is carrying out, she must be at all times closely watched, either physically or on CCTV and preferably by using both methods.

A girl, even when she is alone, must never be out of the sight and hidden control of her male superiors. Her continual nudity is yet another way of reinforcing her lack of privacy. So is the legal requirement that if she goes out of her home she must always carry an identity card with her. 

The identity card itself is deliberately designed to demonstrate her innate inferiority as a mere female, being a full-length portrait of her naked, with her legs spread, and both front and rear views of her nudity being required on the document, as well as her fingerprints and personal data. Only females have to carry an identity card; males are exempt. Any male has the right to stop a female anywhere outside her home at any time and demand to see her identity card. He also has the right to carry out an on the spot strip search and full body cavity search. She has no choice but to hand over her ID card and to allow him to strip search her naked body. He has a legal right to do it and she has no legal right to refuse.

Even the most intimate of activities are not carried out in private. The law forbids what it calls “voluntary masturbation” by girls, although it allows “supervised masturbation” with a male watching and directing every aspect of her self-stimulation. A girl isn’t even allowed to frig herself off in private – only with a man watching and directing the whole thing!

Because of the mandatory nudity for females, even if a girl’s having her period she isn’t allowed to wear a sanitary towel. She’ll only be allowed to use a tampon to deal with her menstrual flow.

Even when she’s having sex it must always be recorded on DVD and if the man who was fucking her decides he wants to, made to watch an “action replay” of the whole process, especially if he wants to use the film to criticise her “performance,” her body or the girl in general. Carrying on like that is likely to be pretty standard practice among gentlemen in the new post-feminist order. It all helps to remind her of her inferiority to him in every possible way.

Girls have to get used to being naked, never allowed any privacy, not allowed access to a phone, a computer, the internet, not allowed to send a letter or see anyone without the express permission of a man. Even when they sleep they will be monitored 24 hours a day by CCTV cameras and hidden tapes that will pick up everything she does or says.    

Even when she goes to the toilet that will be monitored too. If she’s on her own at home cameras and recording equipment will record every second of the girl doing her business; if she’s outside the home and needs to “go” she’ll have to stop the nearest male she sees and ask him to allow her to piss or shit. 

Since it’s against the law for a girl to use any public toilet without being accompanied by a man, he’ll go with her and stand in front of her while she goes in. The cubicles in female toilets don’t have any doors so he’ll be able to see the whole thing from start to finish. Her doing her business will also be recorded on the cameras and sound tape equipment in the toilets.

Like I said, EVERY aspect of a girl’s life has to be carried out in public and in full view of gentlemen. She has NO life of her own and her ONLY existence is as an extension of gentlemen.



Wednesday 17 August 2011

Nudity for females


      Nudity for females

In the early days of slavery, right up to around the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when the influence of Puritanism began to be felt, wearing clothes was an outward and visible sign of the difference between being a slave or free. Although most females weren’t slaves as such, and many of them had very fine, elaborate and expensive clothes, especially the aristocracy and the wealthy women, millions of girls WERE slaves and, as a mark of their own lowly status, they went about naked all the time, even in public.

IMO that’s the way it ought to be now, except that I reckon all females without exception should be naked for the whole of their lives. Not just in private, but in public too. Clothes should be a privilege only men are entitled to.  

From the very earliest time the girl should become used to being naked in the presence of clothed men. For a gentleman, nudity is a free choice; for a girl, it is her normal state and acts as an obvious and immediate reminder of her own inferiority to him as a mere female. A girl should get used to her constant nudity in the presence of clothed gentlemen and simply accept it as her natural lot in life.

Girls will grow up being naked themselves, seeing all the other females around them naked and the gentlemen wearing clothes, unless they choose to be naked. Over the course of time it will become a natural state to her and she won’t even think about it, just accepting that’s the way it is for a girl.

Although she’ll get used to her nakedness, especially once you’ve got a whole generation of girls who’ve been nude from birth, it’s important to remember that her nudity is quite different from that of a man. A man or boy can choose to wear clothes or to be naked; for a female, there IS no choice about it. Her nakedness is an open symbol of her inferior status and of the innate superiority of gentlemen. It is important to make sure that the girl understands that she IS naked simply BECAUSE she is female and, therefore, simply because she IS female, inferior in every way to the superior male gender. Her nakedness is an outward sign of her natural inferiority, of her respect for and submissiveness towards men, of her total and unquestioning willingness to serve them, as a constant reminder to her of her own inferiority and the superiority of males, and of course as a visible display and a continual awareness of herself as being above everything else, a “sex object” for men’s sexual gratification and use.

A girl’s nakedness also serves other useful purposes, the most important of them being keeping her in a continual state of humility towards men; having a constant sense of her own vulnerability – both on the physical and sexual level; making her more easily available to men if they want to use her body for their pleasure; and constantly reinforcing the hard but necessary lesson of the inherent difference between men and girls, which is that HE has a strong, manly prick that thrusts forcefully inside her three female orifices, while she only has a weak, feminine cunt that must wait passively for man the giver of life to thrust inside it.

I’ve mentioned the connection between nakedness and a girl’s inferiority. This sense of subordination and lesser status should be reinforced in as many ways as possible and as often as possible. Her nakedness can be used as a way of making her continually aware of her own inferiority and also of making her aware of her status as a sex object. From the early days of her life she’ll be constantly reminded that she has a cunt and that it’s her cunt that makes her different from and inferior to men. The girl will have to get used to having her naked body touched and also commented on by other people. As she gets older and develops tits they’ll be compared with those of other females. She should be made not only to be constantly aware of her naked body but to feel ashamed of it.

For instance, whatever size her tits are, they will always be criticised as being either too big or too small. Her tits will never be the “right” size and this constant criticism of them adds to her humiliation and her feelings of shame and inadequacy. Her cunt, arse, belly, face, mouth and hair will also be constantly criticised and compared unfavourably with an “ideal” feminine picture that will never be recognised in her.

It will also be explained to her from the earliest age that her body does NOT belong to her and that she has NO control over it. She must submit to being felt up, groped, probed, prodded, pinched and spanked by complete strangers without complaining or resisting their attentions.

I could write a lot more about this but it’s probably better if I break down the various ways it works in specific situations.

But that's for tomorrow! 


Monday 15 August 2011

Prostitution in a post-feminist society


        Prostitution in a post-feminist society

At the moment the laws on prostitution are crazy and totally unfair to Men. It’s crazy that gentlemen should have to pay a whore to use her body and that she should then be able to live off the proceeds of that. It’s even more unfair that a gentleman can be arrested and punished just for doing that. I mean, how crazy is it that a whore is willing to sell her body for money and yet he gets punished just for giving the girl what she wants?
      So what’s the best solution? IMO, the post-feminist society will institute such radical changes in sexual relations that prostitution in future will be pretty much a specialist market mainly for rich gentlemen.
      In terms of the law, it should still be IMO a criminal offence for a girl to solicit men for sex; after all, that’s her trying to get money out of gentlemen for something that she ought to be giving them for nothing! I reckon it should also still be an offence for a girl to earn money out of selling her body because otherwise she’s living off immoral earnings and we can’t have her doing that, can we?.So if she tries to make money out of selling her body that makes her a whore and whoring should still be a crime.  
      So how should we regulate the limited amount of prostitution that will remain for rich, specialist clients? The most obvious solution is to grant licenses to gentlemen, organisations run by gentlemen or possibly the local authorities to operate brothels. In these places the girls will be subject to the authority of the owner and management of the brothel, who obviously can only be men. They will hire out the girl for gentlemen to use and they will take all the profits of the transaction between the gentlemen wishing to buy and those offering the girl’s services.  That would mean that the girl could still be fucked or used sexually by the gentlemen in any way they wanted as long as they’d agreed on it beforehand with the brothel or the girl’s legal owner. A gentleman who wanted to pay to use a whore for more specialist services could still do so but she wouldn’t be able to live off immoral earnings any more since the fee to use her services would, quite rightly, be paid by the gentlemen to the brothel management or the girl’s legal owner instead of to the whore herself. A win-win all round; the sex goes on, the money changes hands but this time not a penny of it goes into the girl’s pocket! She’d still be a whore but the law would classify her as a “voluntary whore” rather than as a “whore for money.”
      I think it would also be a good idea (I’ll write more about it when I post on education) if whores went into schools to give sex education classes to the students. They’d be able to make sex education really come alive and give the youngsters the benefit of all their experience so they’d be able to enjoy the full range of sexual activities from an early age through direct hands-on experience!
      Obviously the girls would have to be checked out by doctors on a daily basis to make sure they’re clean.  After all, we wouldn’t want the whores passing on any of their nasty sexually transmitted diseases to their gentlemen customers, would we?
So how exactly would prostitution be regulated in a post-feminist society? In the first place it would be a legal requirement for the girl to be registered with the local authority and a central database as a “voluntary whore.” Her legal owner or the management of the brothel would sign a legally binding document in which they give a clear undertaking that under no circumstances will the girl receive a penny for any services that she offers to her gentlemen customers, all the money she makes going directly to the brothel or to her legal owner.
She is not even allowed to accept gifts like a meal, a box of chocolates or even a bunch of flowers. Only her owners may profit financially from her whoring. They also promise to pay 1% of the income from her services to the government in tax. She will have no say in what the customers want to do to her and no right to refuse to let them do anything they want as long as the management of the brothel or her legal owner have first agreed the transaction between them.
The girls would be given “performance ratings” by the customers and those who got high scores would be rewarded while the ones with low scores would be punished. If a gentleman complains about a whore only his word will be taken and of course the girl will be punished for failing to give him satisfaction. Anything goes with a voluntary whore and she’s not allowed to refuse any demand or to complain about her treatment.
I could say a lot more about this but it’ll do for starters, right?

Sunday 14 August 2011

Do we need prisons for females?


Do we need prisons for females?

This is an interesting question that was raised by a member of my message board and which drew some interesting responses. I’ve been giving the whole thing a lot of thought ever since.

In the first place, I guess I need to make it clear that most of the current problems with female crime are directly the fault of the way that feminism has brainwashed and distorted women’s views of the world as it is and the way it should be.

I look forward with a lot of hope to a post-feminist world in which the madness that these women inflicted upon all of us is nothing more than a distant nightmare like Nazism.

In the meantime I’d like to look at it from two different angles. One is that right now we certainly DO seem to need prisons to hold dangerous females. The other is more arguable.

Basically I guess the question is would we still need prisons for females in a post-feminist society, especially if it was based on masculist principles rather than just abolishing the worst abuses and excesses of feminism?

My answer is a qualified, yes. In the first place, during the transitional period when females are being re-educated to understand that feminism was an evil lie and that the true role of a girl is to serve men the best way she can, we’ll still need ways to punish female criminals.

Secondly, even once a masculist new world order is firmly established, I think it would be naïve to think that you’re not still going to get girls who do bad things.

OK, there are other ways of punishing them besides prison, agreed. In the first place we need to have the death penalty back in place though of course only girls would be subject to it. Second, the extensive use of judicial flogging, public punishments in the stocks, pillory, ducking stool, scold’s bridle and stuff like that would take care of most of the petty crime without needing to send the girls to prison. Thirdly, the new reforms in family law and the status of girls generally will decriminalise many acts for which men were previously unjustly imprisoned. The most important of these new legal reforms are the legalisation of all types of rape except “stranger rape” and the reclassification of the crime of “domestic violence” as the new legal right of “domestic discipline.” Finally, girls can be sentenced to hard labour in public places rather than sending them to prison.

All these are good and necessary measures but even so I still see a place for prison as a way of punishing bad girls. I’ll give you my reasons.

First off, what about all the men who were unjustly convicted of rape or domestic violence under the bad old feminist laws? OK, they’ll all be released from prison and get monetary compensation for their ordeal. Even so, wouldn’t it be fair for their false accusers to be sent to prison themselves and the men they’d wronged to be put in charge of them as prison guards?

Second, hard labour only really works if it’s done on the basis of the criminal being based in a secure prison unit and led out each day to carry out their work duties.

Thirdly, what about all the girls who are too old, ugly or whatever to be much use to gentlemen in terms of pleasing them sexually? Shouldn’t they be sent to prison so they can be punished and made to work their arses off there?

I guess it goes without saying that prisons under the new post-feminist society would be totally different from the way they are now. Here’s how I see the way that prisons for girls should be in the future. Of course I’ve got lots of other ideas as well but these will do for starters.

1                     All females have no “rights” but female prisoners have even less of them.
2                     All guards in female prisons would be male and preferably recruited from men who’ve been wrongly convicted of rape or domestic violence offences under feminism.
3                     They would have an absolute license to fuck any of the girls under their control without worrying about the law. It would be LEGAL for them to “rape” the female prisoners. (In fact, to encourage recruitment, it could be advertised as one of the “perks” of the job.)
4                     They’d also have an absolute license to use whatever means they liked to control, subdue, punish or discipline the girls in their charge, up to and including deadly force.
5                     Girls held in prison would be naked and held in strict restraint 24/7.
6                     Hard labour for girls would be an automatic and integral part of a prison sentence.
7                     All girls in prison would receive a daily “maintenance” flogging in addition to any other punishments they might be liable to for any bad behaviour.
8                     Female prisoners are absolutely forbidden to complain about their treatment on pain of even more severe punishment.
9                     Any complaint by a guard about a female prisoner will automatically be upheld no matter what the evidence might be.  She will ALWAYS be found guilty of the charges.
10                 There will be NO parole for female inmates. Any girl sentenced to prison must serve at least her full sentence as ordered by the court. NO exceptions are allowed.
11                 A girl sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment can have it increased by a day for every violation of the prison rules she’s found guilty of, up to a possible maximum of double the girl’s original sentence. (I suspect that in practice almost all girls will serve double whatever sentence they originally got handed down by the court!)
12                 Girls in prison would be fed only the most basic rations. Dry bread and water, porridge made with water instead of milk, cereal with water instead of milk, salad and (since the prisoners will be carrying out very hard physical labour) the following substitutes for “dog food” to help them keep their strength up but with the food still being as disgusting as possible) – a) bitch broth – take a can of beef or chicken, a box of cereal and a carton of gravy. Heat the meat and drain off the water. Add the same amount of cereal as there is meat in the can. Then stir till it’s all blended into a gooey mush, stir in the gravy to make it wet, let it cool to room temperature and serve; b) cunt stew – cook the canned meat, let it cool down in the fridge in a plastic container. Serve cold with mashed potatoes and raw cabbage. To get the maximum effect out of these dishes I recommend serving them to the girls in dog bowls. Disgusting all round but a great way to add to make the girl’s life in prison even more miserable than it already is!
13                 A girls’ day in prison starts with her being woken at 5 o’clock in the morning and dragged out of her cell to carry out her bodily functions. She’ll be ordered to piss and/or shit in full view of the guard into the potty provided in her cell, the only form of toilet facilities she’ll be allowed in prison. Then she has to go to the shower block. Her restraints will be removed so she can shower but there will be no doors on the shower, CCTV will be fitted to the shower cubicle as it will be inside her cell, and she will have to shower in full and constant view of the male guards. Then the girl will be put back into restraints, fucked or otherwise used by the guards for their pleasure, led out to roll call where the governor of the prison will check off the girls against his list and then they’ll be allowed to eat their breakfast before being sent off to work. Any punishments the girl’s earned the previous day will be administered before she goes off to work.
14                 Work in prison won’t be anything cushy like it has been in the past. Hard labour under the new rules will make Sheriff Joe’s methods look positively liberal and soft. Girls will have to carry out strenuous physical labour, doing all the dangerous and unpleasant jobs that men used to have to do. Now female prisoners can be sent out to carry out heavy lifting, heavy hauling, construction work, mining, forestry, rat-catching, sewage work, digging ditches, that sort of thing. Their labour will be farmed out by the prison to local employer who’ll pay the institution for using them to carry out the work. The girls, of course, won’t be paid a penny for their labour but it will help to make the prison an entirely self-supporting institution rather than a drain on the taxpayer. That way the girls actually end up paying indirectly for the cost of their own imprisonment and carrying out hard manual labour! How it should be, right?
15                 The working day for a female inmate will start at 6 o’clock in the morning and won’t end until around 10 o’clock at night. Of course compulsory overtime can always be imposed on the girls if necessary! The girls will be allowed a five minute break at 7.30 a.m., a ten-minute break at 9 a.m., another five minute break at 10.30 a.m. a half-hour break for lunch at 12 o’clock, another five minute break at 1.30 p.m., another ten minute one at 3 o’clock, another five minute break at 4.30 p.m., a fifteen-minute refreshment break at 6 o’clock, a five-minute break at 7.30- p.m., and a ten-minute break at 9 o’clock at night. During the short breaks they will be given water to drink and allowed to rest; during the fifteen and thirty minute breaks they will also get some food, preferably dry bread for the shorter break and bitch broth or cunt stew for the longer break, served either in dog bowls or (my personal preference!) in their potty. To prevent time-wasting by the girls they will have butt plugs securely fastened up their arse all day so that they won’t be able to take a shit. If they want to piss they’ll have to ask one of the male guards or work supervisors for permission and they’ll have to piss into their potty in full view of him! And of course every time they ask to take a piss he has the right to punish the girl for wasting his time with her trivial wishes! During the course of her working day a girl on hard labour can expect to get a fair bit of flogging at the hands of her overseers – and rightly so!
16                 Each day the girl will have her performance monitored by the supervisors or guards. They’ll assess how much work she carried out and check it off against the daily quota they’ve assigned her. If she doesn’t manage to meet her quota she’ll be punished but if she does it will be increased the next day until she can’t! Fair enough, innit?
17                 When the girl’s working day is over at last she’ll be taken back to the prison, made to take another shower and sent back to her cell to sleep. She won’t have anything like a bed, blankets, duvets or linen in her cell, only a hard wooden plank to lie on without any pillows for her to rest her head on. Before being allowed to go to sleep the butt plug will be taken out of her arse but she’ll be fitted with a chastity belt, not to protect her from the guards – she’ll never get any protection from them! – but to stop her going in for lezzy sex with other inmates or being able to frig herself off.  Of course the guards have a key to her belt so if they fancy unlocking it during the night they can come right in and fuck her before locking her up again!
18                 Her cell won’t have any natural light coming in, just a bare bulb that burns night and day. In winter no heating at all will be provided but in the summer the heating will be turned up to the maximum possible temperature. No chair, table or any sort of facilities will be in the cell which will just be bare whitewashed walls.

I reckon all that ought to make prisons for girls so unpleasant that it really will deter female crime!

Just my two pennyworth, anyway!