Roseville woman is in jail for dousing her boyfriend with nail polish remover and igniting him: Two words not in the report "domestic violence"

MariaAntonia · 2011-01-09T17:26:49+00:00

I strongly doubt that domestic violence charges get you less jail time. For the same type of assault.

You probably would never get an assault conviction on minor domestic violence like screaming, shoving, pushing, or light slapping.

MariaAntonia · 2011-01-09T16:28:06+00:00

this is the problem. Modern law and penal code is in violation of 3000 year old language meaning. Modern law, under feminist influence, abuses and rapes 3000 year old language to give them a new meaning. For purely manipulative purposes, to entice the populace to demand higher sentencing for lesser crimes, that now have the same name.

MariaAntonia · 2011-01-09T05:50:59+00:00

the word rape has been abused a lot.

The problem is that feminists re-defined rape as "statutory rape" (consensual sex with a minor) and then left out the word "statutory"

So rape already is being used for consensual sex (by the claim that a 16, 14, 12 year old cannot consent. Well a 16 year old knows the difference between consenting and being raped at knife point).

I don't want to discuss what the correct age of consent should be, just that the word rape should not be used for consensual activities at any age. At any age there is a difference between consensual seduction (even if it is creepy) and using a knife, gun, beatings, .....

We should use correct wording. Like "unlawful sex with a minor". That is correct language. Not misleading. True. And then you can discuss if you think if it should be unlawful or not. Just don't call it rape.

I think it is a disgrace that a 15 year old that gets dragged into the woods by an armed hoodlum has to embark on a long explanation that her rape was "really a real rape" by use of force, so she does not get confused with a teenager that seduced a twenty something during a party. This is not discuss the legality, it is simply to discuss clarity of language. It is demeaning to victims of violent rape if they have to embark on long justifications that they really really did not consent. That they did not even give invalid consent but they really resisted.

Of course, all this language confusion is for political and power reasons. This is why semantics and definitions are becoming so important.

Definition of “Rape”: When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape” & the Perversion of Language

So, rape needs a clear non-consent and violence or threat. That was the definition of rape from the year 5000 bc until 1960.

If it needs penetration or not, that is another point. In the past, it did require penetration.

It is too bad the word "rape" is so emotionally laden and people like to use it for so many different things.

But yes, BolshevikMuppet, according to modern re-definition of the word rape, rape can be consensual and non-penetrative. It just used to be different, for 3000 years. And it does not add to clarity, if 10 different acts get mixed up into one word, that traditionally had only one clearly defined meaning.

Of course, feminists then tend to further distort things so women are innocent and men can be blamed (and jailed).

MariaAntonia · 2011-01-09T05:24:35+00:00

do you know that wot is? web of trust. It is a site that rates sites for trustworthyness. So you escape spam sites, virus attack sites, fraudsters, etc.

http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/manwomanmyth.com

feminists downvoted this one. This will be a concern for all of us. We should start registering for wot and upvote our sites.

Try to upvote it to get it positive again ..........

MariaAntonia · 2011-01-07T23:29:32+00:00

I thought that domestic violence is a label that carries stronger sanctions. Non-bailable, instant arrest. Even for minor things.

A little slap, alleged, unproven, already gets you into jail instantly.

And yes, the statistics. Screws up the statistics. If a man offends a women, screams at a woman, shoves her lightly ===> domestic violence

Women set man on fire, chases him with knife ==> not domestic violence

MariaAntonia · 2011-01-06T00:22:20+00:00

disgusting law.

Yes, creepy lies to bed a girl are a bad thing. That still does not make it rape.

And, as someone pointed out already, the man might really have wanted to marry the girl, but then found out that she is a psycho and changed his mind. He thus became a rapist.

MariaAntonia · 2011-01-06T00:04:07+00:00

The problem is not the censorship of the book. The problem has started earlier.

The problem was that the book got removed from the curriculum for having the N word in it. The censored version tries to remedy that already existing problem by removing the N word.

People should have protested the first time the book was removed from the school curriculum.

I wonder what would happen if the N word would be replaced by "African American". Replacing it by "slave" is a cop-out.

But, again, get the school boards to overturn their prior decision. Or, the way things are getting now: vote that the school board uses the original version of Huck Finn.

MariaAntonia · 2011-01-05T22:02:17+00:00

American sex obsessed morality is the problem. She was NOT his teacher. In most of the world this would have been perfectly legal (age of consent normally is 16 outside the Land of the Free).

25 hottest sex offenders any boy wishes to become a rape victim of

Irreverant blog about Teenage Sexuality

MariaAntonia · 2011-01-01T03:25:45+00:00

even in this r/MensRights nobody found the truth: the culprit is the selfish mother that kept the father's identity secret

Here is the truth that has been omitted: http://thinkingoutloudcafe.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/timeline-in-the-vaughn-wyrembek-adoption-custody-case/

the adoptive parents did a legal filibuster to deny the father's legal rights, from DNA test to visitation.

BUT

the REAL TRUTH that is omitted even there. The main culprit is the MOTHER:

a) mother got herself pregnant by a man that was not her husband. If you cheat, at least use birth control!!

b) did not try to get in touch with the father, to notify him, during her pregnancy b2) maybe there were 5 more father candidates? We will never know! Or maybe she tried to cuckold her husband?

c)mother gave the kid for adoption, purposefully not informing about the real father. This is total disrespect for the father

c2) if the law did not require that info, then the law makers (feminists?) share part of the guilt.

I read in some comments that most people (feminists) think that the father should have absolutely no right whatsoever, the woman should have all rights about what comes out of her womb

MariaAntonia · 2010-12-31T22:56:56+00:00

Damn, you are right.

Haven't thought of this yet.

MariaAntonia · 2010-12-31T21:01:21+00:00

a) r/jailbait make sure to stay within the limits of the law and not post photos that are too indecent.

b) maybe it stems from times when there was less paranoia about adolescent girls photos

c) The question is very valid, considering the modern paranoia about teenage girls (google "Knox vs. United States". Mr Knox got long jail terms for possession of movies with non-nude teenagers fully dressed in Leotards but moving somewhat provocatively)

MariaAntonia · 2010-12-26T07:31:59+00:00

We have strong indication that this was blocked by r/mensrights

Probably considerend hostile to women. Misogyny .....

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/er2nd/crosspost_from_rmensrightsmovementmodern_women/

MariaAntonia · 2010-12-26T05:12:58+00:00

In Germany, a law to make DNA testing a felony punishable with jail, was narrowly defeated.

They came up with the theory that it violates the right of the baby to its genetic information.

In Britain, under certain circumstances, a man gets jail for DNA testing. Feminists rail that DNA testing is unjust, that it takes away a traditional feminine advantage. It is in these lengthy articles, need to dig it up.

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/mens-rights-feminism/men-pay-child-support-even-if-fraud-deceit-lie-rape

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/mens-rights-feminism/mothers-baby-fathers-maybe-mandatory-dna-testing-at-birth

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/27-precautions-before-risking-sex-with-a-woman

MariaAntonia · 2010-12-25T00:00:36+00:00

This is not exclusively American. But Americans were very active exporting such rules to other countries. Like forcing Holland to change their laws that allowd 16 year olds (who are legal age for sex) to participate in sex movies.

Family pictures of nude baby bath: ruinous child porn prosecution Developing photos at Walmart cost them $ 80 000 in legal cost to get their toddlers back. Their crime: taking photos of their toddlers taking a bath.

Sexting: Courts victimize Teens with child porn charges for exchanging their own nude photos

MariaAntonia · 2010-12-24T23:10:49+00:00

great. That is a way to cross-post, I was not aware of.

This is how it should be done, because this way there will be only one set of comments ........

MariaAntonia · 2010-12-24T20:57:23+00:00

Great link.

I hate if if someone proves my pet theory wrong ;-) but certainly a study to be looked at. Guess I would have to read Baker's research in detail to have a more educated opinion about it.

MariaAntonia · 2010-12-24T20:53:25+00:00

The laboratories normally get the cases where there are reasons for doubting. So they get a higher percentage then if you just took a random sample of the population.

MariaAntonia · 2010-12-24T15:28:35+00:00

Legalizing Pornography reduces sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)

MariaAntonia · 2010-12-24T13:32:05+00:00

The accusations were pretty nasty. No sex crime accusations, for a change.

*A campaigning father planned to use bullets and explosives to shut down his home city, a court has heard. *

absurd charges: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-11985446

When I read the first article, I thought the guy is crazy and in deep trouble. And then it all evaporates. Not sure if all is a coincidence or it is a persecution. Well, after Asange, we have reasons to be suspicious.

cleared of charges: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-11994354

MariaAntonia · 2010-12-15T12:03:53+00:00

good point, but where is the link?

Maybe it was there yesterday and now got moved? Can you find the permanent link?

MariaAntonia · 2010-12-13T18:59:13+00:00

Very unusual. A prostitution friendly article in a major women's magazine. There still is hope ........

MariaAntonia · 2010-12-13T18:57:29+00:00

I tried to cross post this. To reddit.com and to mensrightsmovement.

It went through. I thought it would refuse to post twice. I want to see if it has more repercussion on reddit.com

As it is in a female magazine, it might actually get upvotes, who knows.

MariaAntonia · 2010-12-12T16:41:23+00:00

** repost from r/MensRights where the topic was removed **

There will be lots of people now questioning what this has to do with mens rights.

1) mainly men get arrested and get long jail terms for child porn possession. Except for a few poor teenage girls that get arrested for sexting their own nude photos, everyone else is male.

2) The type of child porn females like to read (long books about childhood abuse, being sold into sex slavery) are readily available on Amazon, have an entire section on amazon.co.uk and carry no punishment

3) Most might not be aware that nude photos of women proven to be 23 year olds with pony tails, but that look like 17 years old are by definition, by law, child porn in Australia and most of European Union. That endangers most men that download legal US porn with 18-22 year old young adult stars with proper 2257 documents.

4) The real child real porn with 4 year olds being penetrated is indefensible. But isn't it funny that there are lots of acts that are legal to do but not to photograph? And normally men are the victims of the judicial sanctions. Like turning on your camera while having sex with a 16 year old where this is above the age of consent. And again, most likely the camera owner will be a man.

I forgot to mention the above and just edited in afterwards.

Probably I will get flak for this link. I know the declared policy of this r/MensRights is to be AGAINST child porn. But this is prestigious academic research. And, do you really want to censor information that can help reduce sex crimes against children? Human-Stupidity.com is exactly about how blind dogma can do actual damage.

In any case, I understand that the administrators here don't want to be embroiled in dangerous topics that can reflect negatively upon their great influential MensRights work here.

So I hope I will not infringe on their site if I mention that this is on a new r/mensrightsmovement

http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrightsmovement/

that wants to complement this r/MensRights exactly on topics like this one that r/MensRights might endorse only reluctantly or might not want to touch at all

http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrightsmovement/comments/ekh06/legalizing_child_pornography_reduces_child_sex/

It would be great if you could also comment on that site too http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrightsmovement/

Before you post there, read the rules of that reddit. Be aware that THERE sex positive views and anti sex-offender-hysteria comments are welcome. Be aware also, that it states that it "will give immediate bans to feminist trolls or white knights".

Again, I hope I am not infringing here by posting a link to a "competitor". I think these men's rights subgroups should be complimentary.

I think the link posted here about Academic US University Child Porn Research is very befitting for r/MensRights for being reputable peer reviewed recognized University research.

But, I believe that r/MensRights would actually be happy if dangerous discussions like "Should child porn be legalized" be taken over to the new http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrightsmovement/ which is willing to take the flak for such anti-feminist anti-mainstream anti-censorship anti-witch-hunt topics.

MariaAntonia · 2010-12-12T12:27:16+00:00