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.

[In a discussion about Saudi Arabian and Muslim women in general driving. Hijab = head scarf and/or facial veil, fitnah = temptation, disorder, struggle to remain pious, etc.]

Salam alaikum, here is opinion in the light of Qur'an and Sunnah.

Praise be to Allaah.

The ruling on women driving should be clear, because women driving includes a number of evils, including the following:

1 – Removal of hijab, because driving a car involves uncovering the face which is the site of fitnah and attracts the glance of men....This is how things usually develop; they start out in an acceptable fashion then they get worse.

2 – Another evil consequence of women driving cars is that they lose their modesty, and modesty is part of faith as is narrated in a saheeh report from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Modesty is the noble characteristic that befits the nature of women and protects them from being exposed to fitnah. Hence it is mentioned in a metaphorical sense (in Arabic), in the phrase “more modest than a virgin in her seclusion.” Once a woman’s modesty is lost, do not ask about her.

3 – It also leads to women going out of the house a great deal, but their homes are better for them – as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said – because those who love to drive enjoy it very much, hence you see them driving around in their cars here and there for no purpose, except to enjoy driving.

4 – You may find a divorced woman going where she wants, whenever she wants and however she wants, for whatever purpose she wants, because she is alone in her car, at any time she wants of the day or night. She may stay out until late at night. If people are complaining about this with regard to young men, then what about young women, going all over the place the length and breadth of the country, and maybe even beyond its borders.

5 – It is a means of women rebelling against their families and husbands; at the least provocation they may go out of the house and drive in the car to wherever they think they can get some peace, as happens in the case of some young men, who are able to put up with more than women.

6 – It is a cause of fitnah in many places: when stopping at the traffic lights, or at gas stations, or at inspection points, or when stopped by policemen at the scenes of traffic infractions or accidents, or if the car stalls and the woman needs help. What will her situation be in this case? Perhaps she may come across an immoral man who takes advantage of her in return for helping her, especially if her need is great to the point of urgency.

7 – It causes fitnah to flourish because women – by their nature – like to make themselves look good with clothing etc. Do you not see how attached they are to fashion? Every time a new fashion appears they throw away what they have and rush to buy the new things, even if it is worse than what they have. Do you not see the adornments that they hang on their walls? In the same way – or perhaps more so – with the cars that they drive, whenever a new model appears they will give up the first for the new one.

With regard to the questioner asking, “And what is your opinion on the idea that women driving cars is less dangerous than their riding with non-mahram drivers?” – what I think is that both of them involve danger, and one is more serious than the other in some ways, but there is no necessity that would require one to do either of them.