A Swedish UN ‘humanitarian worker’ – Zaida Catalán – was found beheaded along with her male colleague in darkest Africa last week, presumed murdered by rebel millitants. She was in the war torn Congo at the tax payer’s expense working for the UN to combat ‘sexual violence’ in the region. Her Facebook profile, however, reveals that she found the time to ‘Live la vida local’ with the local black men, as well as paint pictures of naked breasts. According to her Wikipedia she was a Swedish Green party member known for her role in pushing through the infamous ‘sex purchase law’ which criminalizes Swedish men (and only men) for paying for sex. This piece of legislation has been the inspiration for other countries (becoming known as the ‘Nordic Model’) most recently Ireland and likely the UK very soon. Thanks to that law and her role in it, it’s fair to say that Zaida Catalán has huge responsibility for destroying the lives of tens of thousands of men worldwide, denying incels and the disabled the right to experience sexual pleasure, putting untold thousands on the sex offenders register now and in the future, many of them to be raped and beaten whilst in prison.
Whilst thousands of Swedish men have already been arrested or shamed for ‘paying for sex’ thanks to Zaida’s law, it is known that Swedish females make up one of the largest sources per capita of the tens of thousands of white female sex tourists who flock each year to Jamaica (and increasingly Africa) to ‘chase the big bamboo’ and pay for sex – oh sorry, I mean ‘romantic companionship’ – with well endowed poverty stricken uneducated black males. Not one of these Swedish female sex tourists has ever been arrested.
While there is no suggestion at all that Zaida had headed to Africa for any other reason than to enjoy a freebie sun drenched vacation at the tax payer’s expense whilst advising local feminists on drawing up laws to criminalize catcalling in the street etc., female ‘aid workers’ elsewhere have come under scrutiny recently for abusing their position to molest vulnerable and even underage Third World refugees in places such as the Calais ‘jungle’.
The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.
Some interesting comments in the Roosh V forum thread devoted to the story, including several that bear the hallmarks of acquaintance with the ideas and anger of this site, but can any readers who are RVF members please log in and educate them in what the ‘sex purchase law’ is?
The mainstream loves a salacious story about the sexual misconducts of men. With the recent Ashley Madison data leak the narrative was one of blaming and shaming the overwhelming majority of men who signed up for an account to cheat in their spouses. This has resulted in more than one suicide. A topic of the Man in Demand Q&A session I fielded was how the Red Pill lens isn’t limited to just scoffing at the Blue Pill in popular media, but that it also gives men a sensitivity and awareness to better understand the motivations for social narratives like this.
Red Pill aware men understand that if there is an opportunity to cast blame or doubt on a man over his sexual impulse, or the consequences for allowing it to lead to behavior that conflicts with a feminine-primary social order, shaming will always be the go-to, socially acceptable strategy. Sex will always be a clichéd thumbscrew to gauge men’s personal resolve, and this is a built-in failsafe of control for the Blue Pill’s conditioning of men.
YouTuber Sargon of Akkad takes apart a repulsive femihag who rationalizes her rapist’s desire to inflate the price of pussy through state violence as ‘protecting prostitutes from the patriarchy’.
You may also have seen this week the corrupt ‘liberal progressive’ ‘human rights’ group Amnesty International declare that it was in favour of the legalization of prostitution – of course, soley because it would obviously (to anyone but femihags) help keep prostitutes safe. Naturally, whether locking up thousands of men, often lonely INCELs, physically deformed or disabled, to be anally raped as sex offenders for paying for sex with a whore (who may be legally enticing him) is not a human rights issue. Even when these laws are built on femirapist junk theorizing, ‘science’, and outright lies.
Telegraph writer Rebecca Reid vents her fury over a (female) academic’s call for prostitution to be legalized on the grounds of a ‘male sexual deficit’. What the academic (Catherine Hakim) means by this is that women have traditionally barted sex for monetry and other reward. Reluctantly, as women in general are not as horny as men. Sex for women is a tool, whereas sex for men is a need. Unfortunately, due to ‘female emancipation’, women no longer have the need to barter their bodies for financial compensation, leading to a lack of availability for sex for men, and the consequent need to redress this by legalizing prostitution.
Disinterested in the potential social, economic and health benefits of legalising sex work, Hakim suggests that prostitution should be legalised, because the empowerment of women has created what she terms a “male sex deficit.”
In short because men need sex and modern women aren’t providing it.
What selfish creatures we’ve become. All that working and voting and striving for equality? Well apparently it’s led to an international blue-balls crisis that only legalised prostitution can cure….
… Hakim believes that as women become more empowered, and therefore more financially independent, they are likely to withdraw sexual availability further. She writes that the “male sex deficit” is likely to grow in the 21st century, as women become increasingly economically independent and withdraw from “sexual markets and relationships that they perceive to offer unfair bargains”.
Which tells you everything you need to know about her attitude towards sex.
No wonder she wants to legalise prostitution. She seems to think every sexually active woman already is one.
And of course, she is correct in that assumption – all women are essentially prostitutes, and feminism is a prostitute’s trade union/cartel which operates to prevent competition and to artificially keep the price of sex high.
A few of the reader’s comments below the article are priceless…
There are interesting cultural differences between Americans and Japanese. Americans fear the Terminator movie scenario of a robot or Artificial intelligence apacolypse. However, Japan is facing sharp population decrease from lowering birth rates. This could be accelerated with more realistic sexbots that extend the Japanese sex doll industry. This is part of Japan’s greater cultural acceptance of robots where they think that robots will like Astroboy or the manga fembots or the bots that care for the elderly.
The Japanese sex doll industry is reaching new levels with the release of a new line of dolls, which claims to be more genuine than ever. The dolls, which are made of rubber and silicon, were described in a video as having realistic feeling skin and authentic looking eyes and hair.
The nasty if comical piece of extreme-feminist man-hating obscenity that is Fiona MacTaggart, MP for Slough, last night was defeated in her absurd amendment to the ‘Modern Slavery’ bill in the House of Commons to criminalise men paying for sex but not the women selling it. She was strongly attacked from both sides of the House for going against all of the academic evidence and all of the groups representing prostitutes, that criminalising does nothing whatsoever to reduce the scale of prostitution, and merely pushed it underground. Moreover, it is the surest way to bring criminal elements into prostitution – just as did prohibition of alcohol … and drugs – and thereby to make prostitution less safe for both parties. In any case, the consequent driving underground would make it far more difficult for prostitute and client to pre-assess each other, thus likewise increasing the potential danger for both parties – as the many groups representing prostitutes have unanimously most vociferously repeatedly indicated.
MacTaggart indeed is a wholly evidence-free zone. She has no interest whatsoever in any evidence because her position is about nothing but out-dated mindless ideology. The only evidence she has is that asking men in Sweden if they have recently had sex with a prostitute – which recently has been made illegal in Sweden – reveals … surprise, surprise … that men are more likely to answer ‘no’ than previously. You don’t say! Even rice-pudding-for-brains MacTaggart should be able to spot the glaring confound in the data here!
The overwhelming evidence against is not even the principal reason why her proposal was insane. Prostitution is the exploitation not of women but of men: women extract money from men by exploiting the universal male desire for variety of sexual partner. In no other scenario where money is exchanged for a service is the payer regarded as the one exploited!
Furthermore, to criminalise one party to sex freely engaged in on both sides – never mind to criminalise the exploited rather than the exploiting party – simply on the grounds of their sex, would be the most obvious and unbelievable infringement of any sort of notion of equality. It is flagrant sex discrimination. Total sex discrimination about … having sex … now that would really be something for libertarians to sink their teeth into. It would be a cause celebre of a sort not seen since the 1960s.
The extreme-feminist position is that all sex is exploitative of women – indeed, that all male-female interaction of any kind is oppressive to the female — and that somehow this is particularly the case when the woman is actually paid! This is how the idiotic entirely false presumption is arrived at that no woman can freely choose to engage in prostitution.
The likes of MacTaggart try to back this up through a radical misrepresentation of the typical prostitute. The notion that prostitution is a woman pimped on the street is grotesque: a minuscule proportion of prostitution is of this form. Not only are even most street prostitutes not pimped, but the whole street ‘scene’ has long been superseded by its indoor counterpart. The abundance of such provision is evidenced by the prices in ‘parlours’ (brothels) rivalling those on the street. Given that a ‘parlour’ is under police scrutiny to not employ drug-users and under-age girls – the sort of girls who would pose a threat to personal safety or legal sanction to men, and who are not infrequently found on the street – then it is less than pointless for men to bother with the ‘street’ scene at all; even before considering the risk of criminal sanction as a ‘kerb-crawler’.
In any case, MacTaggart’s focus on the street undermines her case in a profound additional way: the principal victim of violence in this scenario is the client [I actually made this point to her when I confronted her on BBC Newsnight several years ago in the wake of the Ipswich murders. – I had previously lived in a ‘red light’ area for two decades, and with the advent of drug use becoming the hallmark of the street prostitute (because uncontrolled drug use precludes being able to work in a brothel or to have the organisation to become an independent), then this violence was quire visible.] Violence is a much rarer feature of indoor prostitution, for the obvious reason that in a brothel there are other people around, and escorts and their clients are traceable through their phones.
The police, self-evidently, are completely opposed to adding to their burden the impossible task of pursuing one party to consensual sex to arrest and process them for court action; especially now that they haven’t got the resources to tackle even the high priority crime of domestic burglary. It would render them literally a laughing stock.
It is a pity, actually that the risible amendment was not passed, because it would have been immensely to the entertainment of the nation to see the legal actions to overturn it.
Actually, the attempt to retreat to a position of a backstop amendment simply to promise to consider the evidence for future legislation backfired: it too was thrown out. Most MPs well know that there is no balance of evidence worthy of consideration: MacTaggart’s position is unsupported by anything other than a data proof determination to proceed, to go down in history as a prize fatuous femascist freak.
Yet she is sure to try it again.
Bring it on, I say.