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.

During a talk about the meaning of Bible verses on male headship — where men are leaders in the home and the church — an image of newly-shorn actress Kristen Stewart flashed onto an overhead screen.

Was this platinum blonde buzz cut, asked the speaker, Carmelina Read, appropriate for a woman? Was it feminine and submissive, or instead flagging independence and rebellion?

But what disturbed some attendees more — roughly 3,000 Anglican, Presbyterian and Baptist women were there, with an estimated 1,600 watching by livestream — was that another thread had emerged at the Sydney Convention Centre: that women should also consider themselves "helpers" of men in the workplace.

While it is generally accepted amongst conservative Christians that "headship" means women should submit to men at home and in the church, extending the idea to the world beyond is considered controversial, a form of mission creep.

Eternity reported that one conference speaker said if a woman became a CEO, "she should perform her role in a way that was helpful to men".

And a video was shown in which a female minister said, "what makes her happy is when she is able to make her male colleagues 'shine'".

What is the doctrine of headship?

The doctrine of headship means, in short, that men are to be the heads of women in the church as well as in marriage.

The idea of headship has long divided Protestants in Australia, with the conservative pockets — where women are not allowed to be priests, such as the Sydney Anglican diocese, and Presbyterian church — adhering to it most vigorously.

Those who argue for male headship are called complementarians; the idea being that women and men are equal before God, but have different and complementary roles to play (as per literal interpretations of verses in Ephesians 5, where wives are told to submit to their husbands as their heads, and 1 Timothy 2, where women are told not to teach or have authority over a man).

Those who believe those verses should be read in their cultural context and were never intended to permanently ouster women from leadership — and that the hallmark of a Christian marriage is mutual submission, not male headship — are called egalitarians.

Many complementarians are wary of feminism, and Ms Read reportedly said her experience showed her that it is not possible to be Christian and a feminist.

Feminism would "trick me into thinking that God's design isn't good," she said, leading her to indulge in sinful thinking: "I want headship; I want control."

It's not enough to say Islam does not condone domestic violence. We must also challenge the idea of male headship that normalises the violation of women's rights.

"More and more the world thinks in a gender-neutral way that we're people and not men and women," she said.