A group of feminist students at a leading Madrid university have been videoed stripping naked in protest at alleged sexual harassment by their professors. The feminists, wearing masks to hide their repulsive visages, stripped naked inside the university whilst reading out a list of their grievances. Describing themselves as members of the ‘feminist assembly of the University of Complutense’, the frightful banshees wailed that a proposed law against sexual harassment had not yet been implemented, and that staff at the University regularly ‘put their hands around the waists of students’ and often ‘asked questions of a sexual nature’.
The type of feminist who protests against ‘sexual harassment’ by stripping naked, protesting topless, or engaging in ‘slut walks’, is usually so remarkably ugly that it must be obvious to any sane bystander that the feminists are in fact protesting at men ‘sexually harassing’ better looking women and completely ignoring them.
Last summer I was sitting on a park bench next to a twenty something frump who was trying to seduce me into chatting her up. I had no interest, and when the frump finally realised this she decided to loudly eject gas from her rectum, whilst giving me a smug satisfied look. The stench from her fart was clearly designed to kill my libido for any woman, a kind of ‘if I can’t have you, I won’t let any other bitch have you’ spiteful vengeful act.
Slut walks and feminist topless protests probably amount to the same sort of thing.
Just what was Max Clifford found guilty of, then? The only thing he did legally wrong – allegedly (there is no evidence beyond accusation – was to initiate sex with a girl a mere few months before her sixteenth birthday, which in our crazy times is deemed the legal age of consent despite the average age of female puberty being 11 going on 9. The alleged coercion amounted to a few girls claiming they were “forced” but actually simply acquiescing at the time through what the girls perceived to be a likely instrumental gain. For this, the girls themselves are responsible, not Max Clifford.
Being a sleazeball is not the basis of legal sanction. Clifford was not in any state-employed ‘position of authority’, but in control of a classic ‘casting couch’ scenario of which the girls and their parents cannot have been blind. Clearly, though, being a sleazeball is the basis of Clifford’s conviction; the only basis, bar the minor age-of-consent indiscretion.
The wholly politically corrupted CPS was bound, eventually, to find a jury daft enough to be willing to take police-‘trawled’ parallel cases as mutually corroborative despite zero evidence – and this case out of all of these celebrity cases was a Herculean police/media ‘trawling’ binge. The persistence by the CPS with the Yewtree ‘show trial’ witch-hunt is rather akin to the EU foisting repeat elections until there is the ‘right’ result. It was not much of a surprise that if anyone in the Yewtree travesty was to be convicted it would be Max Clifford.
“Without beauty a girl is unhappy because she has missed her chance to be loved. People do not jeer at her, they are not cruel to her, but it is as if she were invisible, no eyes follow her as she walks. People feel uncomfortable when they are with her. They find it easier to ignore her. A girl who is exceptionally beautiful, on the other hand, who has something which too far surpasses the customary seductive freshness of adolescence, appears somehow unreal. Great beauty seems invariably to portend some tragic fate.”
(Michel Houellebecq, Les particules elémentaires/Atomized)
The Spanish Supreme court has acquitted a father accused of sexually abusing his daugther after a local court in Almeria had sentenced him to seven years in prison. The Supreme court heard the original trial had relied exclusively on the testimony of the 12 year old daughter, and ignored the statements from her brother, and from the girlfriend of the defendent, that the girl had confessed that her mother had told her to make a false accusation.
Now the Supreme Court, after reviewing the video of the trial, held last year, consider the testimony of the girl’s brother, 16, to be key, and who said that his sister confessed a year before the trial that the complaint was false and that she made it because her mother pressured her to. Another issue that the Supreme Court noted was the fact that the two children slept in the same room, for, according to the judges, the day on which the events took place in October 2009, the young man would have witnessed them for he used to spend all night at the computer and went to bed early in the morning. The girl had claimed that her father, in a drunken state, got into her bed and touched her breasts and slipped a finger into her vagina, at which time she woke up and upon denouncing him, her father left the room.
People often tell me – ‘feminists will never be able to ban porn’. That may be true in the near term (although they are trying), and especially true in the USA which has some constitutional safeguards to free speech, but feminists and traditionalists can and are waging a stealth war on porn that could effectively at least kill the adult industry.
The latest in these efforts to kill porn by stealth is the increase in reports of pornstars and others working in the industry having their accounts (even personal accounts) closed by mainstream banks :
LOS ANGELES — Chase Bank has reportedly sent out letters to hundreds of porn stars notifying them that their accounts would be closed on May 11. Teagan Presley confirmed to XBIZ that her personal account was one of the ones shut down.
“I got a letter and it was like please cancel all transactions, please fix your automatic pay account and make sure everything’s taken care of by May 11,” Presley told XBIZ. “I called them and they told me that because I am, I guess, public and am recognizable in the adult business, they’re closing my account. Even though I don’t use my account, it’s my personal account that I’ve had since I was 18, when it was Washington Mutual before Chase bought them out
A man who underwent a colonoscopy under general anesthetic recorded his doctor’s voices on cellphone whilst he was unconscious during the procedure. When he played back the recording he found that Tiffany Ingham MD joked about the size of his penis, told him (while unconsious) that she wanted to punch him in order to ‘man him up’, and joked about firing a gun up his anus.
The man is now suing Safe Sedation LLC and Safe Sedation Management for defamation and infliction of emotional distress.
“On April 18, 2013, during a colonoscopy, plaintiff was verbally brutalized and defamed by the very doctors to whom he entrusted his life while under anesthesia,” the complaint states.
D.B. claims that Drs. Tiffany Ingham and Soloman Shah, who are not named as defendants, mocked him from the second the anesthesia kicked in.
D.B. claims he had inadvertently left his phone in the room, set to record, having neglected to turn it off after recording instructions for post-operative care.
“The moment that plaintiff became unconscious, Tiffany Ingham, M.D. commented to all of the others in the operating room ‘Oh – Oscar Mike Goss.’ That is a thinly disguised substitute for the expression ‘OMG’, which is an expression of both exasperation and mockery, and is a well-known abbreviation for ‘Oh my God,'” the complaint states.
It adds: “Tiffany Ingham, M.D. started to mock, and then continued to mock, the amount of medicine required to anesthetize plaintiffs.
“Referring to plaintiff, Soloman Shah, M.D. commented that a teaching physician known to both him and Tiffany Ingham, M.D. ‘would eat him for lunch.’
“Tiffany Ingham, M.D. agreed that plaintiff would be ‘eaten alive’ and also jokingly discussed a hypothetical of firing a gun up a rectum.”
D.B. claims his phone caught Ingham talking to his unconscious self, saying, “And really, after five minutes of talking to you in pre-op I wanted to punch you in the face and man you up a little bit.”