Emma wont like this :
Though human pair-bonding generally is considered to be male proprietorial control and provisioning, the evidence does not support either of these assumptions. Not only is provisioning relatively lacking and of little impact, but in any case is antecedent to the evolution of human pair-bonding; and the male (in pair-bonding species generically) does not prevent the female partner from engaging in chosen extra-pair sex. In thus contradicting the standard biological model of male mate-guarding as preventing partner defection, its function instead appears to be to displace social/sexual access to the female by lower (but not by higher) mate-value males; thereby indirectly facilitating the female partner’s extra-pair sex with males of her choice or acceptance (males of higher mate-value than the pair-bond partner). Furthermore, by producing successive offspring with the same male, the pair-bond in effect allows the female to project forwards in time her early peak in fertility (her own mate-value). [Reproducing instead through promiscuous sex would entail progressively lower fitness of offspring as the female’s mate-value declines with age; and correspondingly the mate-value of each subsequent father.] Pair-bonding is, therefore, a service provided by the male to the female. The male’s interests are served in that the offer of the service enables a degree of trade-off against deficiency in the male’s own mate-value, to secure for regular sex a more fertile female than would be acquired otherwise. With pair-bonding primarily of benefit to the female, the requirement to mate-guard as hitherto understood, to prevent partner defection, is not performed by the male but by the female. This explains the findings of predominantly female ‘control’ within intimate-partnerships, and indirect measures showing women value and invest in the pair-bond more than do men.
And as opportunities for easier and anonymous sexual access become ever more available to men (examples : internet porn and prostitution), the benefits of pair bonding become even less for men, whilst increasing for women. Hence the Sexual Trade Union and ever more draconian anti-male sexuality leglislation.
Stuart Hall has been accused of trying to stop his child abuse victims from getting compensation by transferring his £1.2million home into his wife’s name.
In February, less than a fortnight after dismissing the sex allegations against him as “pernicious and cruel”, the veteran BBC broadcaster transferred the family home in Wilmslow, Cheshire, to his wife, Hazel.
He changed his plea and admitted indecently assaulting 13 girls as young as nine.
Hall’s lawyer said he was “contrite” and wanted to apologise to his victims, adding that his “disgrace is complete”.
Alan Collins, the solicitor representing some of Hall’s victims, said the 83-year-old former It’s A Knockout presenter’s decision to transfer the property showed “contempt” to the women he sexually abused.
Hall’s victims are planning to sue him. Mr Collins said: “It’s quite a common problem in cases like this, they put an asset in another person’s name or even overseas.
“You would have to make an application to the court to have that transaction set aside. It is a cynical move, it shows contempt for the victims. Yesterday his barrister was saying he is very sorry, but words are cheap.”
Hall’s victims included a 16 year old girl who had her breasts fondled as she was driven home by him (the age of consent was and still is 16 in the UK) and a 13 year old girl he ‘kissed on the lips’.
The Daily Mail, a site with a predominantly female middle-aged readership and that now has links with AVoiceforMen, yesterday featured an article on Hall’s ‘teen victims’*, who were 16 and 17 at the time they were ‘molested’ by Hall. Again, the age of consent was 16 in the Uk half-a-century ago, and it is still 16 today.
Despite this, the Daily Mail stresses that Hall is a self-confessed paedophile for admitting to his crimes. It is likely that he was told by the police and by his lawyers that so many accusers were coming out of the woodwork to
sue him millions make accusations that he was certain to be found guilty on the basis of ‘corroborative testimony’ (i.e. that a number of different women were accusing him of being a ‘paedo’) and that the best he could hope for would be to plead guilty to all charges, claim contriteness, and thereby hope to avoid dying in jail waiting in his cell for the next rape or beating.
Until recently, whenever a pensioner was arrested for alleged Nazi war crimes, a discussion would arise in the media as to whether it was fair to prosecute old men for crimes committed so long ago. Could they get a fair trial? Why are we judging them today for actions that took place in a different world? Are they even the same individuals today as they were back then? These people were accused of killing thousands of men, women, and children. Yet in today’s liberal progressive world, men in their 80′s, who have raised millions for children’s charities, and led on the whole blameless lives and brought pleasure to thousands, can be crucified without mercy or pity for being accused of fondling young girls back in the era of ‘free love’. Girls, who now as bitter aging hags, are demanding the bill to be finally paid…with interest included.
*As with Savile, who allegedly abused girls and boys aged from babies to women in their thirties, the media, and especially the Daily Mail chooses to focus on the ‘teen victims’. This is a notable development in the history of paedohysteria, as it used to be the practice for the media to obsess on little girls being murdered by random psychopaths in order to stoke up mob rage and then conflate it with teenage sex in order to push for more ‘anti-paedo’ draconian legislation that protected women in a free sexual market from nubile teenage competition. During the Savile hysteria a little Welsh girl – April Jones – went missing presumed murdered, and yet this was totally overshadowed by stories of Savile the paedophile ‘molesting’ 15 year old groupies in BBC dressing rooms. Similarly, the trial of the man accused of murdering April Jones began this week, the same week as Hall’s trial – almost completely drowned out in the headlines proclaiming Hall as a dirty paedophile for making passes at 16 and 17 year old girls when he was in his 30′s and 40′s. What this shows is that the Sexual Trade Union has now firmly accomplished a key goal in inflating ‘paedophilia’ to include, or even mean primarily, normal heterosexual attraction to teenage girls -even 16 and 17 year old girls – and the pretence of caring about real paeophilia is no longer necessary. Underhand means of exploiting the tragic killings of little girls is no longer needed in order to firmly establish this inflated definition of paedophile in the public’s mind.
The Sexual Trade Union, the NSPCC, the feminist media, and the millions of ordinary women who franchise their power, have no interest in stopping real paedophilia or real little girls from being murdered and raped by real paedophile psychopaths. This is because all they are interested in is raising their own sexual market value through the brutal lynching of men in their 80′s if necessary, for decades old alleged indiscretions with teenage girls. (I must apologise here to woman worshippers for speaking the truth).
Mark Bridger, the man accused of raping and murdering 5 year old April Jones, also propositioned two different adult women the same day he allegedly killed little April. Presumably he is not a paedophile. Not like Stuart Hall.
Let me introduce you the Sanky Panky:From WikipediaA sanky-panky, or sanky, is a male sex worker, found in the Caribbean in the Dominican Republic. A sanky-panky solicits on beaches and has clients of both sexes or only women. When with men, the sanky-panky assumes an active (a.k.a. top) role, but when with women, assumes the role of an ideal lover.While strictly speaking they are not prostitutes, since they do not directly negotiate money for sex, they are more likely to create a pseudo-relationship which can be continued when the guest returns home.To explain a bit more, the Sanky are mostly black Dominicans guys (90% of the population is black) whom have the same tactic as a PUA in many ways, getting gift in exchange for sex,The Sanky speak at least 3 languages, Dominican Republic gets tourists mostly from Canada, France, Italia, UK, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and USA meaning that if the Sanky want to have a better market he needs to learn every one of the languages spoken on these countries.Many are underage, many even have an official local Dominican girlfriend who tolerate that they give sex to random foreign women.
Having screwed up totally TWICE ALREADY (most recently falsely accusing Lord McAlpine) in persisting with bogus kids’ homes ‘paedophile’ rings when there is either no truth whatsoever or just a kernel of it, the BBC has yet again today run with this ‘story’. The only basis there has ever been to the whole saga is just the one member of staff: no other staff members, and nobody on the ‘outside’; famous or otherwise. All the rest is non-proven, non-provable and very likely complete fabrication.
This (below) is an exposé of the BBC on the saga up to 1999, from the website of the late Richard Webster — the brilliant author of Why Freud Was Wrong and of exposés of bogus ‘false memory’, ‘satanic’ and child sex abuse scandals: an article he wrote for The New Statesman which appeared on 19 February 1999.
Just fucking typical.
After twenty years of persistant failure, our hero George Godley finally finds himself talking to three beautiful young Romanian girls on a sunny topless beach and they agree to take his card and to meet up with him later for a meal.
For a brief moment, it was just like the old days again.
And then, all of a sudden, a nasty sourfaced cock block bitch from hell appears out of nowhere to give him the ‘sex tourist pervert’ lecture.
At least that bitch is on YouTube now. Thankfully, we didn’t get to see her tits (unfortunately, we do see her apeman mangina boyfriend’s tits).
Male prisoners in England and Wales must work harder for privileges such as TVs in cells, the government has said.
From November, under changes to the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme, inmates must “actively earn privileges” – “a simple absence of bad behaviour will not be enough”.
Satellite and cable TV channels, currently available in some private prisons, will be banned altogether.
Other changes to the scheme will include:
A longer working day for prisoners
A ban on films with an 18 certificate
Extra gym time being dependent “on active engagement with rehabilitation”
Restricted privileges, including access to private cash, for prisoners in the first two weeks of their sentence. They must also wear uniform at entry level
Prisoners then put on either basic or standard “IEP level” depending on how they “co-operate with the regime or engage in rehabilitation”
Those on basic level no longer allowed TVs in cells
Aubrey de Grey talks about the remarkable progress being made to not only stop aging, but to actually reverse it, with the first clinical testing of drugs likely only a few years away. When aging can and is reversed, we can expect the Sexual Trade Union, and feminism, to disappear like a puff of smoke.