52% of British Men want Prostitution Decriminalised, Only 29% of British Women Do

Britons Split on Whether Prostitution Should Be Legal

Men are definitely more likely than women to support a move towards decriminalisation.

People in Britain are not particularly open to the idea of decriminalising prostitution in the country, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found.

The online survey of a representative sample of 2,015 British adults also shows that respondents believe that most of the activities that surround prostitution should continue to be outlawed.

The exchange of sexual services for money is not a crime in the United Kingdom. However, 71 per cent of respondents believe that this practice is currently illegal.

At least four-in-five Britons believe several activities that surround prostitution should continue to be illegal, such as buying sex from a person younger than 18 (94%), controlling prostitution for personal gain (86%), causing or inciting prostitution (84%), and soliciting sex on the street (also 84%). In addition, two thirds of respondents (67%) think it should continue be illegal to place adverts for sexual services in phone boxes, and half (49%) believe running a brothel should be illegal as well.

In some countries, existing regulations make it a criminal offence to buy services from prostitutes, and contemplate both fines and sentences to “clients” of prostitutes. Two-in-five Britons (39%) believe that both prostitutes and their “clients” should be punished, while the exact same proportion (39%) think nobody should be punished, and would like to see adults being able to engage in consensual prostitution.

One-in-five respondents (21%) believe prostitution should be prohibited entirely in the UK, while about one-in-four Britons (23%) would keep the status quo which criminalises some of the activities surrounding prostitution. Two-in-five respondents (40%) would decriminalise some of the actions that are currently illegal and allow adults to engage in consensual prostitution.

As was observed in a Canadian study on this topic conducted last year, there are some marked gender differences in Britain. Women are more likely to call for an approach that punishes both prostitutes and “clients” (44%) than to support a move towards consensual prostitution (30%). Conversely, men are more likely to believe that nobody should be punished (49% to 33%). The notion of decriminalisation is definitely more popular with men (52%) than women (29%).

 

PDF of the survey results

Leader of ‘Far Right’ English Defence League in Paedophile Twitter Spat

Are all members of the far right paedocrites?  Loyal and esteemed reader ‘Columnist‘ recently informed us of the case of Jan Teijn – a prominent white nationalist in the Netherlands who had personally led marches calling for the execution of paedophiles and who was subsequently found in possession of child porn involving 13 year old girls.

Now Tommy Robinson, the leader of the ‘English Defence League’, which campaigns against the Islamification of England, has been involved in an embarrassing spat on Twitter which has seen him accused of being a paedophile.

The leader of the far-right English Defence League has come under fire after racially abusing a girl who told him she was 15-years-old on Twitter.

Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, told Twitter user ‘Asianish’ “You’re pretty fit for a Muslim”. Defending herself, she wrote back “I’m 15 and you’ve got the cheek to call Muslims paedos.”

Robinson’s Twitter abuse comes after the EDL boss highlighted the race of the Asian men convicted in Rochdale grooming case, linking their Pakistani and Afghan origins to the sexual exploitation of under-age girls.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/16/edls-tommy-robinson-twitter-muslim-racist_n_1521110.html

Just as Jan Teijin suddenly seemed able to grasp the difference between paedophilia and ephebophilia (otherwise known as healthy male sexuality) after his arrest, by claiming that underage teens aren’t really children, Tommy Robinson appears to have also seen the light.  As well as claiming that the girl wasn’t really 15, he is also at pains to differentiate between hot jailbait and fucking pre-pubescent children :

tommy robinson edl

In a later tweet a couple of days ago, Robinson stated his belief that murderers and ‘kiddy fiddlers’ ought to be executed.  It is not known whether he would first require an honest public discussion as to the true definition of paedophilia, and a possible revision of UK and international feminist laws that currently make little or no distinction between 17 year olds and 5 year olds, before we embark on the mass hanging of ‘paedophiles’.

Calling Someone Fat Could Soon Be A Hate Crime in the UK

rosi prescott
rosi prescott

Great news for mangina critics of the men’s rights movement – ridiculing somebody as fat could soon be added to the growing list of thought hate crimes that can get a British person locked up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9297496/Calling-someone-fatty-could-become-a-hate-crime.html

However, there are already fears that even doctors may be afraid to tell patients that they are overweight for fear of being arrested under the proposed new hate crime.

Indeed, these fears appear to be justified.  Despite over 2 million British children being overweight, and getting fatter at twice the rate of American children, Rosi Prescott of the YMCA, which advised the Parliamentary group on body image and proposed the new law, believes that there is no reason for anyone to be informed of the fact that they are overweight, even by their doctors.

Society should be more accepting of overweight or obese people, said Ms Prescott, who even questioned whether they should be told if they were carrying too many pounds.

She said: “If there don’t feel overweight, and there are no health indications, what’s the problem?”

However, numerous studies have shown that overweight or obese people consistently underestimate how fat they are, especially if most of the friends and family are of a similar size.

In addition, countless edipemiological reports unequivocally show that those who are overweight or obese at a young age are more likely to develop heart disease, type two diabetes, and cancer, and die at an earlier age, than those of a healthy weight.

Women On the Rise in Mexican Drug Cartels

The high mortality rate in Mexico’s drug war has seen women progress quickly in the shadowy underworld of the cartels and they are increasingly taking on key management roles, a new book says.

“Female Bosses of Narco-Traffic,” by Arturo Santamaria, a researcher at the Autonomous University of the State of Sinaloa, traces the ascent of women in drug trafficking organizations.

“The narco-traffickers will become stronger as a result of this,” wrote Santamaria. “They will be more difficult to fight because the women appear to be acting smarter.”

An estimated 50,000 people have been killed since 2006 in a government crackdown on organized crime that has set off turf wars among rival groups even as they fight off the Mexican military’s counter-narcotics units.

Santamaria said the dead have been mainly males belonging to the cartels, which has led to a changing of the guard with younger men and women rising to the top of drug trafficking organizations.

“Widows, daughters, lovers and girlfriends of the men, who are part of the same criminal families,” have had to lend a hand, he said.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/women-rise-mexican-drug-cartels-173152393.html

“….have had to lend a hand..”   I think the expert means that instead of sitting back and enjoying the ill gotten gains from their boyfriend’s violent criminality, as well  a wet gina at the knowledge that your boyfriend is an alpha male brutal savage who tortures and kills other men, the partners of Mexican gangsters are now having to do some of the dirty spade work themselves.

The vast majority of the victims of the Mexican drug wars, who are often skinned alive and/or slowly beheaded, are men, and even teenage boys. Increasingly, they are simply random civilians plucked off of the street – taxi drivers, bakers, brick layers. Increasingly, the killers are female.  Yet feminists in Mexico are calling attention to the supposed ‘femicide’ taking place there.  Whilst politicians remain utterly powerless it seems to stop the horrific savagery being waged against Mexican men, feminists have succeeded in petitioning the Mexican government to create a new law that recognises ‘femicide’ : http://justiceinmexico.org/2011/06/30/federal-district-legislature-approves-femicide-reforms/

Millionaire’s Daughter Who Helped London Rioters Caged for Two Years

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9289262/Laura-Johnson-millionaires-daughter-who-drove-looters-in-London-riots-jailed-for-two-years.html

A millionaire’s daughter has today been jailed for two years for her role in an “orgy of looting” during last summer’s London riots.

Laura Johnson, 20, was found guilty of burglary from an electronics store and handling stolen goods, and admitted driving fellow looters between targets.

The Exeter University student, from Orpington, Kent had previously claimed she had been forced to drive a drug dealer and his friends around during the mass disturbances.

After seeing photos taken by witnesses of her laughing and joking at the wheel of her car, the jury decided that she was a willing participant in the crime spree.

 

Perhaps this is an opportune time for the mainstream media to engage in a frank debate as to the role that the fixated sexual attraction to black men (negrophilia) plays in the corruption and handicapping of the black community – in particular, inspiring the violent and cancerous gang culture that seduces so many black males?  An attraction based largely, it appears, on disgustingly racist beliefs and stereotypes concerning the black male’s supposed greater capacity for violence, criminality, and animal like sexual prowess – the things that make even the most priviliaged white girl’s gina tingle.

But don’t hold your breath.

India Discusses Whether to Raise Age of Consent to 18

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2141965/FEMAIL-Experts-discuss-raise-legal-age-sex-18.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Does a 16-year-old boy or girl have the right to have sex or not?

Based on the recent Union cabinet move to raise the ‘legal’ age of sex from 16 to 18, the answer is no. The move to criminalise sexual activity in youngsters below 18 has forced everyone to sit up and confront their dilemma over the issue of teenage sexuality and how to tackle it.

Many say the step to increase the legal age of sex is regressive, and represents a denial of the changing sexual climate. ‘Is the idea to create safety for teenagers or is it to police and control?’ says counsellor Komal Mathur.

 

If the age is raised, India will join the handful of countries in the world where the age of consent is 18.

*EDIT : It would be interesting to know what the very large and established men’s rights movement in India think of this, if anything. I presume that the Indian MRM has even more of a conservative background than our own.

Meanwhile, another British man has been caged for several years for raping a woman ‘too drunk to resist’ : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-18152160

David Benatar – The Second Sexism

the second sexismI’ve finished reading David Benatar’s ‘The Second Sexism‘.  This is a book by a respected philosophy professor at the University of Cape Town, and applies the tools of analytical philosophy to the question of whether males are facing unfair discrimination in society – a second sexism, one that is not taken seriously or even ignored (the title is an adaptation of Simone de Beauvoir’s iconic ‘The Second Sex’).

My overall verdict of the book is that it is an excellent and essential read.  In fact, not only an essential read for all men’s rights supporters, but one that should be re-read and studied.  The detached and logical manner in which the thesis is laid out, defended, and the feminist objections systematically refuted, should serve as a model, as well as unambiguously laying to rest the claim that only hot heads and bitter psychotics (yours truly) believe that men are being disadvantaged against.

It should be noted, and this is something that will understandably rile many, that David Benatar seems to not only be at pains to distance himself from the online men’s rights movement, but also to question both its existence and even need.

However, leaving that aside, and the possible reasons for that stance on the part of the author, this is still a must read work that states the case for men’s rights in a manner that has never been done before, and which ought to be celebrated by every supporter of men’s rights.

A brief description of the format and content of the book.  As I noted above, this is an academic work of philosophy (it’s an extension of a paper that the author had given previously), yet for the most part it is highly readable.  Those not familiar with analytic philosophy may find the first chapter a little hard to digest – an exhaustive analysis of the meaning of ‘sexism’ is conducted.  But most of the book is a pleasure to read (if that’s the right word), especially the second chapter in which Benatar outlines various ways in which men have been disadvantaged as a result of unfair discrimination made by society against them (I quoted a piece of this in my article on the First World War White Feather campaign).

The main areas in which men are discriminated against and which the author discusses are Conscription and Combat, Violence, Corporal Punishment, Sexual Assault, Circumcision, Education, Family and Other Relationships, Bodily Privacy, Life Expectancy, Imprisonment and Capital Punishment.

After devoting a chapter discussing each in turn, Benatar examines the underlying beliefs about males in society that lead to an acceptance (or even ignorance) of such obvious discrimination (chapter 3), then demonstrates for each example of discrimination that such attitudes do not supply any justification (chapter 4), followed by a rigorous and brilliant debunking of feminist objections (chapter 5).  In chapter 6 of the book, the author analyses the concept of affirmative action (Benatar is something of an academic specialist on that topic) and whether it has a role to play in either justifying the discrimination against men, or in rectifying that discrimination.  In the final chapter, the author draws his conclusions and suggests some ways in which the second sexism can be brought to attention and reduced,  if not ever entirely ended.

The reason for the lengthy discussion as to the precise definition of ‘sexism’ in the first chapter becomes clear as the book progresses – the only remotely credible argument that feminists have against taking discrimination against men seriously depends on a particular and implausible account of sexism (‘structural’ or ‘systematic’ sexism) which makes unfair discrimination against men by definition impossible (and Benatar debunks this entirely, using in part his earlier analysis).

The author is aware of and points out the distinction between subtle and explicit sexism.  For example (my example), statutory rape laws can be explicitly discriminatory against males in that female offenders are punished less harshly , or they can be examples(as well)  of subtle discrimination – the laws themselves target males and male sexuality rather than females and female sexuality (r/mensrights take note).

The book is a magnificent read and should be considered an important and possibly breakthrough contribution to the debate.  I don’t want to dwell on the distance that Benatar seems intent on creating between himself and the men’s rights movement, but it’s hard to see any one approach being sufficient in itself to bring the problem of sexism against men into the spotlight.   The author actually states in his conclusion that he sees a need for ‘men’s groups’ in only a very limited fashion (he says the same thing about the need for women’s groups), and claims that such groups inevitably lead to hyperbole and extremism.  I suspect that this might be something of a tactical move on his part.

The issue of men’s rights needs the academic detachment and rigour of the ‘The Second Sexism’, but it also needs the hot heads, little hot heads like the author of this blog, and the far more important hot heads such as Angry Harry and Paul Elam.  To realise this one only needs witness the absurdly lazy and even mocking way in which feminists are already dismissing the arguments presented in the book.

For example :

Benatar also seeks to use the discrepancy between the treatment of gay men and lesbians as evidence for discrimination against men. He says there are many jurisdictions in the world that criminalise male sexual acts but not lesbian sexual acts. He also contends that there are more acts of “gay-bashing” perpetrated against gay males than lesbians. While this latter statistic may hold, in both cases the reason for the alleged preferential treatment meted out to lesbians is surely also because they are simply less visible, not necessarily more accepted.

The Torah, for instance, prohibits man-on-man sexual relations without a comparable proscription against lesbian sex – not because women were allowed to have sex with women, but probably because it takes for granted that men are the principle actors during sex.

 

and :

Benatar’s argument also seems frustratingly divorced from economic and political realities in some ways. In an interview with the Observer, he said: “It’s true that in the developed world the majority of economic and political roles are occupied by males. But if you look at the bottom – for example, the prison population, the homeless population, or the number of people dropping out of school – that is overwhelmingly male. You tend to find more men at the very top but also at the very bottom.”

 

For a start, that very fact surely suggests a social and economic mobility unavailable to women in the same way. Secondly, if Benatar is saying that the fact that some men are better off than some women is not enough evidence to prove that women have it worse, then the opposite has to hold too – the fact that some men have it really, really bad, by that logic, doesn’t prove a wider disadvantage either.

 

http://dailymaverick.co.za/article/2012-05-22-the-second-sexism-discrimination-against-males

The Second Sexism has also been featured in the British (left-wing) press :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/13/men-victims-new-oppression

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/16/second-sexism-men-blaming-feminism?newsfeed=true

It also provoked the BBC to ask – ‘Just who are the men’s rights activists?’, as well as a terrible piece from the New Statesman.

BBC Promoting Sex Trafficking Bullshit Again

Trafficked : Sex Slaves Seduced and Sold

Every year thousands of women are forced into prostitution and traded from Mexico to the United States. The BBC investigates the sex trafficking business, which makes some men very wealthy at the expense of vulnerable young women.

 

Typical piece of shoddy man hating ‘journalism’ from the BBC.

I have no way of determining if the individual women featured in the report were indeed trafficked under false pretences, and then forced into prostitution.  A horrible crime, to be sure, if true. But given the repeated lies and exaggerations that feminists have broadcast through the media in the past, including the BBC, and given that the report contains so many cliches and even contradictions, I have no hesitation in suspending belief, or even stating that in all probabilities, most of the report is typical outright and evil bullshit.

The first video of the report – ‘Traffickers Town’ – even blatantly contradicts itself.  The report claims that ‘everybody’ in the small Mexican town of  Tenancingo knows what is going on (i.e.that women are being ‘trafficked’ to the capital in order to work as prostitutes) – not surprising really when the report also claims that 1 in 10 of the population are actual traffickers.  Yet throughout the 3 minute clip, the absurd claim is repeated that the women from the town who are trafficked are duped into it, by rich men who they so naively and innocently believe are in love with them.

Several Mexican ‘anti-trafficking’ organizations talk openly in the report about their efforts to stamp out this cruel trade, which apparently is worth $32 BILLION a year for the gangsters who run it.  The same gangsters, one would have thought, who have no qualms about hunting down and disemboweling any Mexican who so much as says bad things about them on a website..anonymously.

Meanwhile, it is now becoming a standard practice of these ruthless Mexican gangsters to pluck random civilians from the street, men that is – taxi drivers, bakers, students, and to torture and behead them, before leaving their dismembered torsos in the territory of an enemy gang (in order to provoke a military presence on their rivals ‘turf’).

Unfortunately, this is all too real, not feminist bullshit – http://www.nwherald.com/2012/05/14/mexican-cartels-victims-may-be-civilians/adjepxf/

And what turns these men (and increasingly women) into such beasts, ready to kill and torture not only rivals, but innocent men?  The riches that control of the drug route into America brings is only part of the story, and not an end in itself.  Money, after all, is simply a means to obtain the good things in life….

http://theantifeminist.com/40-percent-mexican-girls-dream-romance-drug-gangster/