Wednesday, 17 September 2014

Personality and personhood - Part One

What exactly IS a person? What makes us people rather than animals or objects?

On my previous blog post about consent this issue was raised by a reader in his comments. He argued in effect that women are NOT people and that therefore human rights, or consent, can’t apply to them.

There’s an obvious difference between personality and ‘personhood.’ Certainly animals DO have distinct personalities even though they’re obviously NOT people at least in the ordinary sense of the word.

Then there’s the question of maturity. A child is obviously not as capable, experienced or as able to reason and make decisions as an adult. Are they less of a person than an adult? Or is it just that adulthood entitles them to greater rights (and of course also lays greater responsibilities on them)?

There’s no doubt that women, like animals, have personalities of their own. The question is whether or not they also have ‘personhood.’ In effect, I suppose the question is – are women human?

Recent scientific discoveries have shown that the biological differences between men and women are much greater than was previously believed. Here are some key examples:

1 Both animals and women have an oestrus cycle when the egg is ‘produced’ although in women this is also overlaid with a menstrual cycle when the egg is ‘destroyed.’

2 The DNA of women is MORE closely related to apes than male DNA. Women are genetically CLOSER to apes than men are.

3 A woman’s vagina is directly connected to her brain in a way and to a degree that is not true of men and their penis.

4 Rape is the NORMAL form of sex in the animal kingdom and even though that’s not true of women in the human world what IS true is that when a woman is raped her chances of becoming pregnant are DRAMATICALLY higher. Most women who are raped also orgasm which clearly shows that their body consented, wanted and preferred rape – the natural way of fucking – to ‘lovemaking.’

5 Evolutionary scientists have also demonstrated that rape is not only MORE natural than the ‘lovemaking’ that society approves of but that children born through rape tend to be stronger, healthier and less likely to have genetic defects than children born from ‘lovemaking.’ They believe that the sperm of rapists tends to be healthier and stronger and that, biologically speaking, the rapist is doing the girl as favour by giving her stronger and healthier offspring.
6 Women have smaller brains than men which also function in a completely different way. It’s no accident that women as a whole (there are always a few exceptions all of which turn out to have masculine characteristic and a higher share of male genes) are less intelligent and less capable than men.

So can we decide on the basis of this evidence whether or not women are people?

Genetically women are closer to apes than men and so must be at least LESS human than men.

Women DO have an oestrus cycle as well as a menstrual one so again they are MORE closely related to animals than men are (and therefore LESS human).

Our cunts are directly linked to our brains while a man’s cock is not so once again women are LESS human than men.

Rape shows again that women are animals because men don’t orgasm from being raped.

The inferior size and capabilities of the female brain also show that women are closer to animals than men are.

So can we assert that women are NOT human or simply that they’re LESS human than men?

This question is important for lots of reasons but perhaps most obviously because if women are NOT human then human rights can’t and shouldn’t apply to them.

There seem to be five basic ways of looking at the status of women.

1 The female supremacists believe that women are superior to men which is obvious nonsense

2 Feminists believe that women are equal to men which again is obvious nonsense

3 Women should be regarded as being on the same level as children

4 Women are animals and not human at all

5 Women are objects and not human at all

There’s a lot of good arguments in favour of the third, fourth and fifth views. A child can’t have the same roles, responsibilities or rights as an adult but they still have certain human rights.

Even if women are animals don’t we still have the idea that cruelty to animals is wrong?

So do we still have some rights even if we’re not human?

On the claim that women are objects although it’s sometimes fun as a fantasy I don’t believe it. Objects can’t think or feel or do anything by themselves while women can. So we’re not objects.

So are we animals like dogs cats, horses, pigs or whatever?

Women might have MORE ape DNA than men but men have it too.

Basically my researches and analysis led me to the conclusion that none of the five theories about women are true,

1 Women are NOT superior to men

2 Women are NOT equal to men

3 Women are NOT perpetual children because adult women can do loads of things that kids can’t

4 Women are NOT animals because they can do things animals can’t

5 Women are NOT objects because they can do lots of things and objects can’t do anything

So what’s the solution? When you think about it, it’s obvious, really.

We need a sixth theory to explain women, which is:

6 Women are an intermediate species; not fully human like men are but partly human and partly animal. They’re definitely a lower and less evolved species than men but their intermediate status means that they DO have some human characteristics.

In my follow-up post I’ll examine what legal, moral and practical consequences follow from the recognition of women as a separate semi-human (perhaps the words ‘subhuman,’ ‘hominid’ or ‘feminid’ would be better terms) but inferior species to men in every way.

What should be the legal status of the subhuman group the feminids?

How should their lives among humans (i.e., males) be organised?

I’ll look at these issues in my follow-up post.

Saturday, 21 June 2014

Is 'consent' relevant to sexual activity?

Is 'consent' relevant to sexual activity?

Feminists are fond of saying that only around 3% of men who are brought to trial and charged with rape are convicted. In their eyes that's proof of some kind of sinister conspiracy against women and proof that the law is on the side of rapists and against 'rape victims.'

It never seems to occur to them that the men who are accused of rape are generally acquitted for one of the following reasons:

1  The man didn't have sex with the girl (in other words, he's innocent)
2  The sex between them was consensual (in other words, he's innocent)
3  The girl's account wasn't credible for various reasons (in other words, she's lying or confused or mistaken)

Now the first reason for acquittal is obvious and the ONLY reason why that happens is either a mistaken identity by the girl or, more commonly, deliberate lying on her part.

That doesn't stop feminists objecting even to the acquittal of completely innocent men. A lunatic college professor even said that it did male students who were falsely accused of rape good because it made them wonder if they MIGHT have wanted to rape a woman.

Talk about twisted logic!

Now let's look at the issue of consent.

Under British law one aspect of the parts dealing with sexual offences is that sexual activity is lawful in itself except where there is an 'absence of consent.' This is interpreted in widely different ways by different lawyers and judges and their take on it ranges from demanding active consent at all stages of sexual activity, regarding the question of whether or not the person accused of rape or sexual assault knew that the other party had not consented, examining the question of tacit or implied consent and the capacity of a person to consent to sexual activity.

The law defines the 'absence of consent' in two ways - the first is when explicit consent to sex hasn't been given and the second is when the person consenting is presumed in law not to have the capacity to consent (the most obvious examples are children or women who are drunk or drugged or asleep).

Further refinements of the law come in the thorny areas of belief and knowledge. For instance the law states that rape 'must have the intention to effect the prohibited sexual penetration with the knowledge that it occurs without the consent of the victim.'

So straight away there are obvious problems. Let's list the most immediate ones.

1 The man must KNOW that he's fucking the woman without her consent.
2 The man must NOT believe that she HAS consented but carries on fucking her anyway in full KNOWLEDGE of that fact.
3 The woman MUST have made it obvious to the man that she hadn't consented.
4 The man must have fucked the woman with intent while knowing she hadn't consented.

So if the man - as the law has said on a number of occasions - honestly believes that the woman IS consenting then he CAN'T be found guilty of rape.

And if the man's not SURE - in other words if he thinks she MIGHT be consenting - again he can't be guilty of rape.

And without the conscious INTENTION of fucking her against her will he CAN'T be guilty of rape.

So basically it's the responsibility of the WOMAN at least if she's conscious to make it crystal clear to the man that she DOESN'T want to be fucked because in the absence of that clear demonstration the man CAN'T be guilty of rape.

It follows that if she DOESN'T do that then the man is obviously NOT guilty of rape.

So the entire responsibility for it rests on the WOMAN and NOT on the man for making it totally obvious that she doesn't want him to fuck her.

Unless she sets that down in stone it CAN'T be rape.

So if she DOESN'T make it totally explicit that she's NOT consenting to sex then it can't be rape.

In other words, unless she specifically REFUSES - and makes her refusal clear beyond any kind of reasonable doubt - she is giving at least her TACIT consent to being fucked.

And tacit consent in the eyes of the law is as valid as explicit consent.

It's NOT her consent that needs to be explicit; it's her NON-CONSENT.

Anything short of that IS consent.

So that places the responsibility for establishing consent on the WOMAN and NOT on the man.

That makes the interpretation that a woman who's drunk or drugged and gets fucked has somehow been raped a bit dubious.

The logical conclusion would be that if the woman HASN'T made it obvious that she's not consenting then he CAN'T be guilty of rape. So if she's drunk or drugged and gets fucked has she REALLY been raped?

Or is the fact that she's alone with a man and has CHOSEN to get drunk or drugged ACTUALLY a sign of her CONSENT?

Is her drunken or drugged state actually a ruse on her part to avoid the reputation of being a slut and though the law - rather illogically since it grants tacit consent in other areas of crime and social behaviour - calls it rape is it in fact 'really really rape?'

I can't see how it can be.

But I'll come back to that side of the 'rape laws' later.

In the meantime I'll look at the 'absence of consent' that justifies the feminists in calling rape a crime.

Is even that true?

In the first place I'll post an argument that 'consent in rape cases should be irrelevant.' This is put forward by the feminist writer Catherine MacKinnon. She claims that women 'are so unfree that even if a woman is shown to have given consent to sex, that should never be enough to secure an acquittal.'

In other words, in MacKinnon's eyes even consensual sex IS rape and a woman should be free to accuse a man of rape even though she fucked the man with total consent on both sides. His innocence is 'irrelevant' in her eyes.

So if a strident and extreme misandrist feminist like her thinks that - in her own words - 'consent in rape cases should be irrelevant' - and that 'even if a woman is shown to have given consent to sex' it's still rape then what can you do?

If all consensual sex 'is' rape then all sex is rape.

Which means that whether or not the woman consented is irrelevant.

So if all sex is rape then all sex is a crime.

Or (to take a more normal attitude rather than the feminist nonsense of MacKinnon) NO sex is rape.

Rape not only isn't a crime; it doesn't even EXIST if MacKinnon took her ideas to their logical conclusion.

So instead of trying to criminalise rape MacKinnon should be campaigning for the ABOLITION of the rape laws and the total LEGALISATION of rape!

MacKinnon is quite full of weird and wonderful ideas even by the standards of feminists. One of her brightest 'gems' is the quote: "Whenever I ask 'have you ever been raped', most women answer, 'I don't know,'" MacKinnon said.

So if a woman doesn't KNOW if she's been raped how can she possibly have the nerve to charge a man with rape?

If she is so stupid that she doesn't KNOW the difference between rape and consensual sex how the hell can she possibly go on to cry 'rape?'

I'll deal with another MacKinnon gem when I get to the question about 'capacity to consent.'

But I think I've already done enough to show that the whole idea of 'rape' being a crime is illogical nonsense.

Even so I'll carry on destroying the arguments for the feminist point of view.

What exactly is rape? Rape is either coercive sex - in other words, sex that the woman DIDN'T want and made it CLEAR that she didn't want but the man coerced her in some way (we'll discuss coercion in a minute) - or it's violent sex - sex where not only did the woman NOT want to be fucked but the man used violence against her to subdue her and end her resistance.

Now I can't see how a situation where a woman 'doesn't know' if she was raped or not could possibly be considered violent or even coercive?

Am I missing something or are the women who say 'they don't know' if you ask 'were you raped' just thick as two planks?

And coercion is such a wide term (especially in the way it's deliberately misused by feminists) it's almost meaningless.

MacKinnon for instance thinks that 'women are unequal to men economically, socially, culturally, politically, and in religion' and therefore that all sexual relations between them, however consensual, are inherently coercive.

She goes on to add that 'consent' in the fantasy vision of society she has 'means acquiescence. It means passivity. You can be semi-knocked out. You can be dead in some jurisdictions.' When the interviewer challenged her about her comment on death being 'consensual' MacKinnon responded 'sex with a dead body is necrophilia but it isn't regarded as rape.'

So in her eyes it's impossible for a woman - dead, comatose or alive - to 'consent' to sex.

Well, if she really believes that then she MUST logically support ABOLISHING rape as if a woman CAN'T consent then how can a man fuck her WITHOUT her consent?

Talk about contradictory messages!

Now let's get on down and dirty with the idea about 'capacity to consent.'

If a woman is - as the feminists are always trying to claim - equal to a man in every way (even though men are stronger, cleverer, faster and more capable) then she has an equal 'capacity to consent.'

So if MacKinnon and her mob seriously claim that because of 'patriarchy' she DOESN'T have the 'capacity to consent' then how can a man ever be arrested for rape? If the woman COULDN'T consent, how can the man be charged for having sex with her WITHOUT her consent if she's not CAPABLE of giving consent?

Anyway, the logical conclusion of MacKinnon's argument is that a woman isn't capable of making decisions for herself - on sex or anything else - so basically in HER eyes women are not just incapable of taking any responsibility for their actions but not even really capable of THINKING for themselves.

It always amazes me how much contempt feminists have for women. They look on us as if we're children or even some sort of mentally retarded and completely helpless bunch of wallies who can't do anything.

Another MacKinnon gem shows how deep her contempt for women goes. She says: 'Man fucks woman; subject verb object.'

So in her eyes the woman who gets fucked is just an object!

And she has the nerve to complain about misogyny!

Remember her words 'man fucks woman; subject verb object. Individual consent is beside the point.'

So the only logical conclusion on MacKinnon's 'principles' is that rape CAN'T even exist because a woman 'can't give her consent.'

Women have no 'capacity for consent.'

If that's true then what does it mean?

Surely it means that women are on the same level as objects, pets or at best children?

So in the feminist universe women never grow up!

They can't think for themselves, take decisions on their own or give 'consent' to anything.

Are all feminists stuck in a Victorian timewarp or what?

I'm going to discuss another side of the rape issue in another post.

But I think it's pretty obvious that whichever way you look at it a man CAN'T be guilty of raping a woman!

Sunday, 25 May 2014

Why every girl should learn to be a good cocksucker

Why every girl should learn to be a good cocksucker

OK, I’ve been asked about this question recently so here are some of my random thoughts on the issue. I’ll start by listing some of the main reasons why it’s a good thing for us girls to suck men’s cocks and then talk about attitudes, actions and stuff like that.

Reason number 1 – this should ALWAYS be top of a girl’s list of reasons for doing anything – the man enjoys it when you suck his cock! You are giving him pleasure which is what you’re SUPPOSED to be doing when you’re being fucked or otherwise sexually active with him! So let’s list the many reasons why a girl should dedicate her time to sucking his cock.

1        The man enjoys it!
2        Keeps his cock hard!
3        Reduces the risk of colon cancer
4        Reduces the risk of erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation
5        Remind you he’s always the boss
6        Slightly degrading which makes you remember to show proper humility
7        More likely to make him stay with you
8        Sperm is high in protein!
9        Reduces wrinkles - sucking cock is the best form of facial exercise there is and will reduce wrinkles and keep your jaw from sagging
10    Good for your teeth – sucking his cock stimulates saliva which fights germs, prevents bad breath, fights tooth decay and gum disease
11    Reduces stress – semen contains cortisol, a hormone that is known to reduce stress
12    Prevents insomnia – sperm contains the natural soporific agent melatonin which will help you sleep easily!
13    Makes you feel good and happy – spunk has two chemicals, estrone and oxytocin, that are known to make your mood more cheerful. It also contains thyrotropin which is a natural anti-depressant.
14    Reduces the risk of breast cancer – the glycoprotein and selenium in spunk will reduce the risk of breast cancer.
15    No pregnancies – of course you can’t get pregnant from sucking cock! (Though the decision on pregnancy/contraception/abortion should always be the man’s decision. As I put it in a slogan about a year or so ago, ‘her body, his choice!’
I’m sure there are lots of other good reasons why us girls should always be keen and enthusiastic
cocksuckers but those will do for starters!

Now let’s talk about attitudes towards cocksucking. Too many girls seem to think it’s THEIR choice
whether or not to suck cock and whether or not to spit or swallow.

WRONG – it’s always the MAN’S choice what he gets to put inside your mouth!

(Just as it’s his choice what he does with any other part of your body!)

So a girl should approach cocksucking as her duty and as something that’s pleasurable for the man and
helps to keep her properly humble. When a man’s thrusting inside your mouth and filling it with his seed a
girl should be grateful, humble and totally submissive to his demands. She should recognise that having
his prick inside her mouth is an honour and being allowed to taste his spunk is a huge honour.

So how to go about it? Here are a few suggestions.

1 Get on your knees while you're sucking his cock. It's uncomfortable for you but very pleasurable for him which is all that matters. A lot of men like to use your back as a footrest while you're sucking their cock which also adds to the element of humiliation that reinforces the humility us girls OUGHT to feel in the situation.
2 Remember the whole business is all about HIM and about HIS pleasure. Let HIM control the pace and always be in charge. If he wants to fuck your mouth gently let him; if he wants to fuck it hard, banging your face and mouth against his cock, using your ears or hair as handholds, that’s fine. It’s HIS choice how he decides he wants to fuck your mouth – NOT yours!
3 Don’t even THINK about spitting out his cum. He’s doing you an HONOUR by cumming inside your mouth and spitting it out is being rude, disrespectful and rejecting him which is just not on under any circumstances. Let HIM decide what he wants to do with his spunk.
4 If he wants to cum on your face, let him. That’s degrading for a girl and the humiliation of it is pleasurable for him.
5 If he wants you to swallow his spunk, let him. It’s always HIS decision and never yours!
6 Don’t forget to kiss his balls as part of the process.
7 When he’s finished clean his cock and balls with your tongue and mouth. Make sure you get every last bit of spunk off his prick.

Remember at all times that HE is in control and when you suck his cock you are making a conscious and open sign of your submission to his superior male equipment.

And never forget – there are only a few purposes for which a female’s mouth is intended.

Number one is sucking a man’s cock and that is more important than ANY of the other things our mouths do!

Tuesday, 15 April 2014

What sort of roles should we have?

Over the last few years I've noticed a lot of different ideas on how men and women should be. Relationships, work, home life, dress, behaviour in public, legal status, education and sexuality are some of the areas where there seems to be huge disagreement.

I'm going to ignore the various schools of feminism becase I assume that no one here believes in them. We all I assume broadly accept the idea of male headship of families and male leadership of society.

But beyond that I sense different approaches to gender issues, the organisation of society and questions of dress and behaviour. There also seems to be a divide between people who are mainly orientated towards a BDSM-tpe sexual relationship and don't go beyond that and those who genuinely want to establish a patriarchal society.

Even among the supporters of patriarchy there are differences of degree, emphasis and approach. The role of men and women isn't seen identically even by that group of people. Some want a sort of 1950s housewife type of set-up, others want a more hard approach where the sexual rights of the male outweigh the possible lack of enthusiasm of the female to an absolute and unqualified degree, some believe that domestic discipline is essential, and some look on females as less than human - at best a lower species of animal and at worst an object to be used.

So are we 'angels in the house' to be supported financially, treated like children or pets, our role seen as housewife and mother and cook and cleaner? Or are we sex objects to be fucked and used and nothing else about us matters? Or what?

Of course as a writer of many BDSM stories and a lot of articles and other posts I've sometimes written satire, sometimes fantasy and sometimes written how I really feel and think about things. And I'm not sure that even my own positions are necessarily consistent.

There are certain areas where I feel absolutely sure about the right way to think and act and the right direction that society should be taking. On the other hand there are others where I'm not sure at all or even where I find myself more in sympathy with women than men.

And there are whole aspects of life where I really feel that it's almost impossible to correct an injustice in one place without creating an equal injustice in others.

And of course there are different attitudes towards what both men and women feel is the right way to behave. Look at the thorny issue of the niqab/burkha - is a woman who wears one being submissive or not? Many Muslim feminists claim that to wear this garment does NOT mean that you are accepting male headship.

Anyway let's leave that specific issue aside and concentrate on more general aspects. How SHOULD women dress? Like nuns, like Doris Day or like sluts? Or does it depend - on the time and place and situation, on the individual relationship?

I have a marriage where my Husband has very definite ideas about how He wants me to dress. As those of you who know my blogs and groups and stories and other articles I've posted elsewhere know by now, in my case He wants me to dress like a total slut most of the time and only dress in a more 'modest' style at, say, parents' evenings at school or that sort of thing. But should there be general rules on dress? Or is it an area where different Masters will have different ideas?

A related area is modesty of speech. I think it's a given that we should be polite and respectful to Gentlemen but what about the way we speak? Is dirty talking out, only for the bedroom/relationship situations or can - maybe even should - us girls be foul-mouthed and swear like troopers all the time?

Another area of conflict is in the field of work. Should the husband work and support a stay-at-home wife? Or is that not just old-fashioned but economically unrealistic with the strains on people's incomes these days?

On purely sexual matters I think it's more simple on the whole. Girls really do have a duty to let men fuck them; going out on a date IS an implied contract where sex is on offer by the girl at the end of it; and IMO it's totally ridiculous to think that a husband, partner or boyfriend could POSSIBLY be guilty of 'rape.'

Date rape just ISN'T rape in any meaningful sense of the word.

It's a contract where the girl implicitly accepts that the man will want to fuck her and if she refuses at the end of the date then she's broken the contract and only SHE has done anything wrong.

If he DID decide to rape her when she acts like that then it's her own fault and she's only got herself to blame for what happened to her.

In the same way I think that if a girl gets pregnant - whether through a relatuonship or through rape - then ONLY the father of her unborn child should have the right to decide on whether or not she keeps the baby or has an abortion. The woman should have NO say in the matter whatsoever. It should be purely the man's decision.

As I put it in a slogan on a feminist message board where I went along to wind them up, 'her body; his choice.'

If a girl is in a relationship - marriage, partnership or boyfriend - equally she's entered into a contract where the man has the right to decide if and when to use contraception; if and when and how they have sex; if and when she can have an abortion; and every aspect of her sexuality should be controlled by him.

I could say a lot more but this post is already too long so I'll sit down and write part two!