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?
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…