new

[From "British Judge Says Sex With Wife is a “Fundamental Human Right” and Everyone Loses Their Minds"]

The Jewish media puts sex everywhere to make people think about it constantly, but the Jews also make heterosexual sex much more difficult to achieve by introducing convoluted ideas about “consent” and about what marriage is supposed to be.

One man is taking a stand against that bullshit. This judge is bringing old ideas and common sense back into the discussion about the role of marriage in our society, and he’s doing all of that by… saying that a husband should be able to have sex with his wife.

RT wrote:

A British judge has invoked the ire of online commentators, activists and politicians after remarking that it was a man’s “fundamental human right” to have sex with his wife during an already controversial court case.
“I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife… I think he is entitled to have it properly argued,” senior High Court judge Justice Hayden was quoted as saying during a preliminary hearing on a case involving a married couple of 20 years.
The wife has learning difficulties and her condition is deteriorating, prompting social services to raise the alarm about the potential for sexual abuse in the relationship as they felt the woman was no longer able to make decisions about whether she consented to sexual relations. Social services ultimately brought the case to the Court of Protection in London.
The husband has pledged to no longer sleep with his wife but prosecuting lawyers are still pushing for a court order barring sexual relations to prevent the woman from being raped.

Let’s get something out of the way first: all women have learning difficulties. It’s just a matter of how severe those difficulties are.

That said, if she can say yes or no to a question such as “do you want some ice cream?” or “do you feel like watching a movie?” then she can absolutely consent to sex.

This whole “consent” thing is a retarded Jewish invention that overcomplicates basic male-female interaction. If a woman doesn’t want to have sex, she resists, if she wants to stop having sex while having sex, she makes it known. If she for some reason decides to pretend to be okay with having sex while not feeling like having sex, then that’s her problem. Literally something that happens in her mind that can’t be measured or proven.

The insanity of this story is augmented by the fact that even though the poor husband pledged to no longer sleep with his wife, prosecutors still push for a court order to officially make him unable to have sex with his wife.

Do you understand how insane that is?

If a man can’t have sex with his wife, why does he have a wife?

[...]

The idea about marriage that most people have in their subconscious was put there by tales of old, by their grandfathers, and by the Jewish social-engineering media machine.

If marriage doesn’t ask anything from women, and gives them half of your stuff or more whenever they please, it not only does nothing to stop relationships from breaking down but it actually provides incentives for relationships to break down.

These whores will destroy your life if you let them.

The moment they feel they’ve secured you, that you have no alternative front-hole, and that you’re socially and legally prohibited from looking for their replacement… that’s the moment they’ll decide to stop having sex with you. Sex will become less and less frequent. She’ll never be “in the mood,” she’ll always be tired or with headache. She’ll never treat you the same. She’ll look at you with disdain. She’ll resent you. She’ll feel trapped by you even though you’re the one that’s really trapped. She’ll feel you’re abusive even though she’s the one being abusive.

She’ll file for divorce and she’ll take as much from you as she possibly can, and then she’ll tell everyone you know about how terrible you are. She’ll go fuck some loser that can’t compare to you but that will have more than you because she’ll share the stuff she took from you with him, and they’ll laugh at you every time you go get your kids on the weekends.

Your kids won’t understand why daddy looks so poor now while mommy and her new boyfriend seem so well off. You’ll want to explain to them… but you won’t be able to. You wouldn’t even know where to start.

As time passes, you’ll see how your own kids prefer mommy’s boyfriend. They’ll tell you how funny he is, how many great things they do together, and how much time they spend together. Every time you send them back to her house… you’ll feel like a shadow. An empty human husk trapping the echoes of the man that you once were and mixing them with the cries of the man that you wanted to be.

All because you thought marriage meant something other than your doom.

[From "Frequently Asked Questions About NAMBLA and Man/Boy Love"]

Q: What do you seek to accomplish?
A: NAMBLA was formed in the belief that if people knew more about the actual nature of typical man/boy love relationships, that there would be less unjust scapegoating and persecution of boys and men who have such relationships.

Q: Why do you oppose age-of-consent laws?
A: Opposing age-of-consent laws is not our only focus; it is one part of our broader criticism of North American social and legal practices. We believe that these laws do great harm to people and relationships that do not deserve to feel the crushing weight of the heavy hand of the law. Just as important, age-of-consent laws do not adequately protect young people. They have often been applied arbitrarily and unjustly, and have long been used to terrorize gay males. Gay youth in particular have been targets of extreme persecution through the selective application of age-of-consent laws.

Q: What is this “ageism” you refer to?
A: Ageism refers to age-based discrimination, and includes the tendency to discount and devalue the feelings and opinions of children and youth. This tendency pervades our society and has implications in every area of a young person’s daily life: at home, at work, while shopping, hanging out with friends or going places, and especially at school. It has the socially corrosive -- and costly -- effect of breeding fear and distrust between the generations and isolating them from each other.

Q: What do you propose in place of age-of-consent laws?
A: Age-of-consent laws are those which say that if you are under a certain age, then what you say doesn’t matter. We believe young people would be much better protected by laws -- and social attitudes -- that take their opinions, feelings and decisions into consideration. We have never proposed specific laws, but in general we advocate changes in society and the law to include greater respect and consideration for children and youth -- not merely in the abstract, but in each individual case. We reject the cookie-cutter approach often used by authorities, moralists, and legislators who presume to know what someone wants without asking them, and who claim to know what is best for every person without having met them. Individualism -- the belief that each person is important and deserving of respect -- is one of the core founding values of North American society. We advocate for a society that lives up to this ideal, as it applies to people of all ages.

Q: How can society best protect vulnerable people?
A: The claim is made that age-of-consent laws protect the vulnerable. In practice, they give undue power to those who already have power -- police and prosecutors -- while removing power from some of society’s most vulnerable populations -- notably, gay youth. We believe that vulnerable people are better served by giving them more choices, not fewer. Children and youth can be made less vulnerable by giving them more options. Those who need to escape abusive family members or other abusive situations need more options than we as a society currently provide them with. Those who live in poverty, those who face racial, religious, and sexual prejudice -- all need more options, not fewer.

Q: You make this seem like such a noble cause, but isn’t it really just a selfish one?
A: There is a much bigger dimension to the issues we raise, with implications for everyone. The interest that all people share in widespread access to truthful information is more than just philosophical. Too often, politicians take advantage of gaps in public knowledge, and play on public fears to divert attention from their own actions. When they are allowed to do this, the result is bad government for everyone (something we’ve all seen plenty of in the last few decades). Our efforts to educate the public on the issues of man/boy love, ageism and anti-sexualism are intended to help bring about better informed public policy and an electorate less vulnerable to politicians who would use their fears against them.

Q: Do you believe it’s possible for a boy and a man to have a close, even sexual relationship, without any harm?
A: Yes it’s possible, and it happens every day. Many studies have confirmed that the large majority of sexual contacts between boys and older partners are both consensual and harmless. See below for a listing of some of these published, peer-reviewed studies.

Q: But aren’t these relationships always initiated by the adult?
A: No. We know from experience that some boys do initiate sexual contacts with adults. This is confirmed by several published studies, which have found that a substantial percentage of boys' sexual contacts with older partners were initiated by the boy (see references below for details).

Q: Do you believe there are actually boys who find men attractive that way?
A: It is well established that some boys do find men very attractive. Certainly, plenty of gay men have reported being infatuated during early- and middle-childhood (5 to 10 years of age) with masculine icons such as the “Marlboro Man” and even Peter Graves, the silver-haired leading man of Mission Impossible. Gay novels, biographies and autobiographies provide abundant examples. And not all boys who find men attractive identify as gay. It is very easy to underestimate the sheer scale of the multidimensional rainbow of human diversity -- and the strength of teenaged male sexuality.

Q: Ok, but if a boy does come on to you, wouldn’t it be better simply to refuse the advance?
A: If your concern is for the safety of the man (any man), in today’s climate, then the answer is probably, yes -- walk away, and stay away, and just don’t have anything to do with kids in general. But boys take rejection very hard, and they take isolation even harder. It has a deeply negative effect on their outlook, which can have lifelong implications -- and broad implications for society. Unfortunately, this kind of self-segregation of men from boys has become a major social problem in its own right -- a problem which will never be solved while man/boy love is stigmatized as harshly as it is now.

Q: So, does this mean you believe the relationship can benefit the boy?
A: We know it can; some of us have seen examples in person. And several peer-reviewed studies have shown that boys who have consenting relationships with men usually feel positively about their relationship and feel that the relationship has had a positive effect on them.

Q: Ok, so if sex is so great, why do educators and doctors tell us it's harmful to kids?
A: Well, people in very similar positions used to say with authority that masturbation would cause insanity and physical infirmity. They told us that gay men had mis-shapen penises and weak fathers, and that women who didn’t bear children would go crazy. They recommended clitoridectomy for girls who masturbated and circumcision for boys to prevent them from doing so. Few know that this is the sole reason why infant circumcision became a routine practice in Western Europe and the U.S. in the late 19th-century (of course, it didn’t work, and the practice was discontinued in Europe).1

Q: But isn’t the harmfulness of sex supported by scientific research?
A: Actually, no it isn’t. Peer-reviewed studies have shown clearly that there is nothing intrinsically harmful about sexual experiences between boys and men. For a full explanation, see: Outcomes: Can Science Shed Some Light?