Feministing erases female sexual predators

Feministing.com is the brainchild of noted modern feminist mouthpiece Jessica Valenti and since it was conceived in 2004 it has been an important feminist outlet on the Internet, particularly for young feminists. It exemplifies everything about modern feminism: from rape culture through to abortion they have it covered. And just recently they have graced the world with what is a perfect example of reporting on an issue with either willful and malicious ignorance, or first class indoctrination.

Either way, no-one will know unless they read the fine print.

Screenshot: Study shows an alarming rate of young inmates are sexually assaulted


“The US department of Justice released a survey that suggests that about 20% of juvenile inmates experience sexual assault while doing time in juvenile detention centers and group homes.”

It’s entirely unsurprising as to why this study of more than 8500 youths would attract feminist attention. Beyond being an important report about troubled youths and their experiences in the justice system this is a potential goldmine for victimization with a feminist stamp of approval. At least after the data’s been selectively mined that is.

“I think it is also worth reminding folks that the criminal “justice” system in the US disproportionately targets and affects people of color, undocumented, and queer people.”

Author Sesali Bowen left men and boys out of that sentence. Over 85% of US juveniles in residential placement are male, and that statistic only increases to 93% when taking into account all US prisoners. Somehow though, this is not considered disproportionate enough for Sesali to care. The widespread systematic discrimination against men in the justice system is not relevant to feminist approved victimization.

She goes on to tell us that “these crimes are usually committed by adult staff” and that “reveals how most sexual assaults (across age and gender lines) occur at the hands of those that we already know.” She tells us that these young “people” are being victimized by “adults,” and even goes so far as to say “sexual assault might represent a strong deterrent from ever reemerging within that system.” A rather flippant remark for a feminist to make given a gendered prison rape epidemic they don’t care to focus on.

But failing to mention that the majority of juvenile inmates in this report are male is small fish compared to what she is carefully hiding from readers. It turns out that most of those molesting hands are lacquered in nail polish and most of those sexually victimized young “people” are male. Here is the link to the report and relevant quotes from it:


“An estimated 92.4% of all youth who reported staff sexual misconduct said they were victimized by female facility staff.”

“Among the estimated 1,390 youth who reported victimization by staff, 89.1% were males reporting sexual activity with female staff and 3.0% were males reporting sexual activity with both male and female staff. In comparison, males comprised 91% of adjudicated youth in the survey and female staff accounted for 44% of staff in the sampled facilities.”

Majority female perpetrators and majority male victims? This is an absolute affront to the feminist approved victim narrative. These statistics are not hidden in an obscure corner of this report, one is featured in the highlights. I encourage you to look for yourself. Feministing’s article goes beyond the normal ignorance of the rape of men in the US prison system, it is a deliberate obfuscation of statistics that show women use their positions of power to abuse at risk young men and boys. There is no way you can take an honest look this study and miss this. Sesali herself tells us she gave the survey “further inspection” to check for disproportionate victims.

None of the young feminists who read Sesali’s article are ever going to know her erasure of abused boys and female abusers. “Staff” will become men. Young “people” will become young “women.” Everything will slot neatly into an unchallenged victim narrative and Jessica Valenti’s victim machine will churn out another group of people who care more for the narrative than the reality.

Why does this erasure happen?

As they’ve made it quite clear misandry doesn’t exist in their theory. Through their prism of gender blindness, misandry becomes misanthropy, and “men” are relegated to “people.” No matter how heinous the atrocity, no matter how disproportionate the ratio, men are expected to bear the burden of this gender invisibility for the inclusion of women. Men are simply not allowed to suffer as men.

Of course its in their own interest for the greatest peddlers of misandry to deny its existence!

This is of course a deeply traditional gender dynamic. Feminists will often discuss the effect of viewing men as the default, for example this feministing.com interview with decidedly anti-male sociologist Michael Kimmel. But these feminists will only stand up and cry for change when there is direct benefit to be gained for women. In the many remaining cases, they are entirely happy to use traditional gender constructs to forward their heavily customized “damsels in distress” narrative. This is the great duality of feminism that renders it a movement solely for the benefit of women, and ineffectual for tackling issues facing men.

Whether or not feminists like Sesali Bowen are cognizant of their deeply anti-male behavior is not relevant. What matters is that they are held accountable for attempting to erase the victimization of men and boys, and the women who have abused them.

About Nicolai Rublev

Sucked into the gender maelstrom from the Internets' growing resistance to feminst critique, it's important to me that gender discussions are subject to more than emotional games and group bias. The boys, girls and everyone in between of tomorrow deserve more.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • re-construct

    If one did a study about the women who work in the corrections departments, prisons, and homes for bad boys, and the percentages of these women who work there to have easy access to sex with the bad boys, many Americans would be shocked!!!
    Thats why US gender-feminists won’t allow any such study to take place.

    • theoutside

      A good point. AVFM must develop a research wing.

  • AJ Moving On

    Sesali’s article is the genesis of more feminist woozle’s. Coming soon to a rape culture hysteria near you…

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    Isn’t it time we start calling these people what they are: rapist apologists and spawners of the only actual rape culture in modern society, the rape culture that dismisses female predators and laughs at the widespread rape and sexual assault on men and boys BY WOMEN as well as other men men?

  • http://reyekomra.wordpress.com reyeko

    I think it’s also important to point out that the fact that boys are the majority of victims is not only because they’re the majority of prisoners. 8.2% of males and 2.8% of females were sexually victimized which means boys were more likely to be victimized even if there was a 50/50 split. Also over 90% of abuses were committed by women who account for only 44% of the staff. Both these facts completely shatter the entire feminist world view when it comes to sexual perpetration and victimization.

  • Theseus

    Ha! Isn’t that amazing? These dumb asses try to have it both ways by saying men are the problem and women are the helpless victims, while they act like they care for minorities and young people getting the shaft. Hello, the vast majority of these minorities and young people are male! Talk out of both sides of your mouth much feminasti’s?

    This kind of stuff is a form of not so subtle racism; that’s just one reason why I laugh when fembots try to cal MRA’S racist. Kettle to pot, come in pot.

  • Stewart

    There should be some kinda of mental profiling for these people, they clearly have no grip on reality. Truly bizarre that feminists are the ones on record screeching ‘your scum, rape apologist’. A big hello to reality is called for. Although the obvious reply is denial.

  • Allan

    “sexual assault might represent a strong deterrent from ever reemerging within that system.”

    Did I get this right? She’s really suggesting there’s a potential benefit to sexual assault here? For boys? While recognizing they are not “well taken care of”.


    • feeriker

      Yep, that’s exactly what she said. Not surprising, alas. As a feminist, she’s duty-bound to echo the sentiments of TPTB, and that’s exactly their sentiment, that men and boys who are incarcerated DESERVE to be raped.

  • malcolm

    It’s becoming clearer and clearer that women can stop child abuse. We need to teach women not to have sex with little boys.

  • ali

    What a good article by our new writer. Cuts through the BS like knife through a stool sample. My applause, Nicolai.

  • http://vilo13.blogspot.com/ Lucian Vâlsan

    „and “men” are relegated to “people.”” – Well, that in itself is an improvement both for femo-fisting.com and for the feminazists in general.
    One should not forget that usually „men” are relegated to „bodies”.

    Great article!
    Oh, one more thing: It would be great if one looks for the print-screen instead of the article itself. Femo-fisting is now behind AVfM! And it should remain that way!

  • http://gravatar.com/jjrockmale El Bastardo

    It has always been deeply troubling how women have always seemed to run the show in public institutions, simultaneously decrying how oppressed they are. MY own family often thinks I am crazy.

    I honestly think that the reason why I struggle to find any groups for men that are NOT run by dept. of corrections (read feminist approved groups) is because they so completely dominate the narrative as to show their fear of what would happen if men get involved and see what the real deal is.

    At some point, I will break through, I hope.

  • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com Isaac T. Quill

    When it comes to Feminists covering up the whole issue of Female Sexual Abusers, Female Sex Offender and Female Rapists, I have found not better or more complete explanation for the behaviours that that give in In Michelle Elliot’s (1994) Book “Female Sexual Abuse of Children”:

    “While there are reasons why feminists limit discussions on the subject of women abusers, these reasons are valid only to feminism.”

    There you have it in a nut shell! Circular Logic and Feminists vanishing up their own kazoos, cos to address it just Buggers Up the whole of the patriarchy mythology.

    Only men are violent (Oppressors) – only men are sex offenders (Oppressors Privilege) – all women as a class as oppressed by The Patriarchy …. so just how do you explain the female as oppressor and sex offender. You can’t even use the Monkey See Monkey Do idea of Mimicry as that just means all women have not agency.

    It also applies to all feminist concepts and denials:

    “While there are reasons why feminists limit discussions on the subject of (Fill In The Blank), these reasons are valid only to feminism and feminists.”

  • http://gravatar.com/madsusies Jon Doe

    Silly arguments, Steubenville High School rape case just show how someone don’t care. 99% Facebook minors rape/sex exposed is just removed and newer used as proof. Think, how quick can see 5000 peeps your dau naked bang by 4 boys ? a 10 sec…USA is wierd country

  • http://funkymunkyluvn.wordpress.com/ Jason Gregory

    This was an excellent article that deconstructs parts of the feminist narrative. I especially liked how you pointed out how misandry becomes misanthropy…because there is no such thing as misandry. There is no room for it within the typical feminist narrative. The suffering of males by way of institutional and familial gynocentrism, and by extension–misandry, simply won’t fit within their bullshit narrative. As such, they have to filter out information that may be contrary.

    Great catch and great research.

  • http://gravatar.com/hippieredneck Hippie Redneck

    At the end, she says that rape may serve as a crime deterrent for those imprisoned youths. Why am I still shocked by how low feminists go these days?

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

    Thank you Nicolai Rublev.

    Right to the point and you do us all well with the uncovering of yet another lie.

    O look forwards to more from you.

  • John Waynewood

    These people must be heartless, or their ideology blinds them to what they are doing. How dare they misrepresent suffering and heartship, how dare they treat children with such malice due to their sex. These feminists are capable of such disgusting behaviour: I can only wonder how much further they will go as their ideology is challanged futher and futher,

  • sadman365

    This is going into my “clip list” so I can print it out later. Like I always say, I have no doubt most women INCLUDING MOTHERS are involved in relations of sexual nature with their children -especially males- and other children as well. Mothers, babysitters, aunts, sisters, and of course these female RAPIST monsters that work in departments such as prisons, correctional facilities…. ALL are enjoying sexual thrills -including full sex- with young boys while knowing society never suspects them and even in the worst case scenario -once they’re caught- society will turn a blind eye on them and NEVER hold them responsible, which again only gives those female RAPISTS and FEMALE PREDATORS and molesters a free hand to continue committing their crimes against males.

    Any of you guys print out these articles to give to other people around them (friends, family….)? If this info is kept on our desktops what good is it?

  • GQuan

    ^ “Most women”? A lot more than people think, and more of them than their male counterparts for sure, but if you’re convinced that “most women” are sex offenders then something’s very wrong.

  • re-construct

    A buddy of mine was banging his female probation officer, and he thought it was cool. (I did not).
    I really believe that if society knew the true percentages of women who work with bad boys, and in prisons and corrections JUST TO GET EASY SEX FROM BAD BOYS….the Average American would be shocked.

  • markis1

    in the early to mid 1970s when i was a small boy i was molested by a teenage girl.so i know that “rape culture” is a feminist hypocrisy.

  • crydiego

    In the 1950’s when I was about nine a friend and I were sexually asulted by a girl in her teens. We got away because she couldn’t control two of us but not before making me strip down to my underwear by hitting me. She used the stalk of a sunflower.
    I know that “Rape Culture” is feminist hypocrisy!

  • Redfield

    Incarceration rates in the U.S. has created the largest prison population in the history of the world! If you do the gender split men represent well over 1% of the entire male population (about 1.6%) are in jail, please wiki it …
    If this wasn’t disturbing enough this article has unearthed sexual abuse of boys in the system that has horrified me to the core! These female pedophiles need to have a different “intimate” incounter with your criminal justice system! Tell me what I can do to help stop this, who can I write to in your country?? Remember these women will also have contact with young men outside their predatory roles as carers in the system … Urgency is required here!!

  • Redfield

    Do these young men deserve the title of refugees in your juvenille justice system??

  • boston86

    I have never doubted that the rate of sexual abuse by women is far higher than most imagine. Women have so many opportunities to commit abuse with minimal risk of being detected. When they babysit kids-bathe them, dress them, in institutions like detention centres and orphanages no one raises an eyebrow-it’s just nurturing women doing what they do best. They are protected by the mythical notion that women would never be involved in so devious a crime as pedophilia. This myth is their protection.

    I still remember female teachers saying I’ve seen one before!” as an excuse for entering the boys changeroom. Perhaps males should have used the same defence when entering female changerooms-surely the girls would just shrug and agree?

    Thank you so much, Nicolai. Keep up the tremendous work.

  • natschultz

    Sorry, if this posts twice; it did not say it was received the first time. Also, it is really long, but Kimmel deserves to ROT IN HELL!!!

    OMG!!! I nearly just had a heart-attack!!! Michael Kimmel nearly made me COMMIT SUICIDE in college.

    First of all, I happen to be FEMALE (ie: I am not “cursed” by being born with a penis). I actually chose my University because it was the only school that actually had a specialty in Human Sexuality (I transferred from an art school during which I took a health class (required) and an awesome MALE, EQUALIST, NON-BIASED professor inspired me to pursue the “up and coming” field of “Human Sexuality.”) I was a liberal pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-government Libertarian at the time.

    So, I enrolled in Michael Kimmel’s class “Sociology of Gender.” The very first day I was quite excited, so I sat up front, and the first thing he asked the class (about 150 students) was “Who here would want their child to be gay?” Only one other student (a lesbian) and I (straight, but pro-gay), raised our hands. Then he went into the whole sociology of why society is “anti-gay.” Of course, the common reasons came up, but guess who was REALLY BEHIND the “anti-gay movement?”


    I am NOT joking. He seriously said (this is in 1998, and totally disproven by that time) that EVERY SINGLE MALE had one goal: To NEVER allow any woman to break through the “glass ceiling.” Apparently, (most) gay men are “feminists” and they must be stopped by “straight men” because they undermine the Patriarchal Privilege of straight men.

    Well, ALL of my BEST friends (but one, who happened to be a lesbian) happened to be STRAIGHT MALES, and absolutely none of the crap that Kimmel was preaching was true. So, I raised my hand and called him out on it. I told him flat out “That is not true. NONE of my male friends are sexist at all. They have absolutely nothing against women in the workplace.” Do you know what Kimmel said? He said (paraphrasing; it was 15 years ago) “That’s not true. They just want you to THINK they believe in equality. But in reality all of your so-called friends are really your enemy. Yeah, they will tell you that you can get a job and work your way up the corporate ladder, but in reality they will stop you dead in your tracks if you even attempt to climb above any of their male peers.” So, then, pissed off (and quite flabbergasted), I said “Oh yeah? Well then, how do you explain my so-called “backwards” uber-conservative Catholic family members only sending their DAUGHTERS to college and grad school, and leaving the males to get jobs in trades?” He pretty much told me to shut up and that he was going to give me an assignment that would “prove” his theory on male sexism.

    So, the assignment was for all students to apply for 3 gender-specific jobs (males apply to “female” jobs like nursing and secretarial, females for “male” jobs). So, really pissed-off, I recruited a male friend who just happened to graduate with a degree in Sociology to do the assignment with me. At first we were both granted interviews at all the jobs we called about. Then, well, a stunning thing happened to me: I called up inquiring about a job as a gas-station attendant. A WOMAN answered the phone and I told her that I wanted to apply for the job. Do you know what the WOMAN said to me? She said “Uhh, I think we are looking for a man.” Shocked, I said nothing. Then suddenly she said “Oh, I’m sorry, absolutely you can come in for an interview. I just never expected a female to want to work at a gas station, it’s dirty. Do you know how to work with cars?” No, not really, thanks. I was SHOCKED AND FURIOUS. A f***ing WOMAN was killing my chance to prove Kimmel wrong!
    Anyway, my first inclination was thinking how I could sue her, but, being a Libertarian, and the fact that it was a small rural gas-station, that would do a lot more harm to everyone involved. Plus, ultimately, what I did was entrapment. The truth is, NO! If not for Kimmel, I NEVER would have even called about the job – I hate cars and gas stations! But, I KNOW that chicks can work on cars (see Some Kind of Wonderful). So, at best I failed in proving Kimmel wrong, but he wasn’t proven correct either, since NONE of the MEN I spoke to even HESITATED about interviewing me, and yet, one WOMAN DID hesitate and sound awkward when my male friend called about a nursing-type job.

    OK, sorry for the long-windedness. Needless to say, within a few weeks I was sitting in the back row of the class, totally bummed to be there. And that is when the entire world just crumbled around me.
    For background, this was my life: I was a Goth club-kid – my entire life was spent in school and clubbing 3-4 nights a week and dancing until I almost passed out, and otherwise hanging out with my MALE friends watching Monty Python or (annoyingly) being used as a guinea pig so two of my friends could practice their WWE wrestling moves (they LITERALLY treated my just like “one of the guys”). All my friends had girlfriends (boring at best, but usually highly annoying). Needless to say, I didn’t have time for a “sex-life,” nor did I want one considering I’d just gotten rid of a really annoying “liberal,” “pro-feminist” boyfriend.

    So, there I am, sitting in the back row, telling myself “Just do whatever you have to do to pass this stupid BS class.” And then Kimmel goes into why most women are psychologically messed up: they are sexually repressed. Apparently, women are psychologically messed up because STRAIGHT WHITE MEN ultimately want us to go back to a Victorian / Puritanical society in which “good” women are married, barefoot and pregnant (to carry on their PATRIARCHY), and “bad” women are USED BY MEN FOR THEIR SEXUAL PLEASURE. So, according to Kimmel, the ONLY WAY WOMEN CAN BE FREE IS TO TAKE BACK OUR SEXUALITY! That all women MUST embrace sexual pleasure as THEIR OWN, to take it away from the domain of men, to remove procreation from the equation by using birth control and abortion. And that point was highlighted: MEN HAVE ZERO RIGHTS TO THEIR UNBORN CHILDREN. Men have NO SAY if a woman becomes pregnant and wants to have an abortion, but a “good” man will pay for it.

    According to Kimmel, the ONLY WAY WOMEN WILL BE TRULY EQUAL TO MEN IS IF WE USE THEM FOR PURELY SEXUAL PLEASURE. And women should NEVER have a child until they have achieved some great academic / economic success, and then the only point of men existing is as sperm donors.

    But, there is a problem: We women are “sexually repressed.” We should all be out f***cking every male we are attracted to, but we don’t because society has “brainwashed” us into believing that is wrong by calling such women sluts and whores. So, the only way women can be free is to first go out and MASTURBATE. NON-STOP. To masturbate alone and with other females until we embrace our orgasms and CONTROL OUR BODIES.

    THE ONLY WAY WOMEN CAN EMBRACE THEIR SEXUALITY AND EXPERIENCE A TRUE, LEGITIMATE ORGASM IS TO REMOVE IT FROM A CONNECTION TO MEN ALTOGETHER. Only then should women go out and use men for their own PURELY SEXUAL PLEASURE, and dump any male who has the gall to want more than just sex, because straight men are incapable of ever truly respecting a women as a whole person.

    So, at first the class was actually laughing, thinking this was all a joke. Alas, Kimmel was NOT JOKING. He actually told the female students to go home and masturbate.

    Here’s the thing: I was pretty much Asexual – I had zero interest in having sex or a relationship. And, up until that point I had never contemplated WHY I had no interest in it. And NO, it had NOTHING to do with religion – I was an avowed Atheist back then since my FORCED (literally) Confirmation into the modernist, hypocritical Roman Catholic Church. I was “liberal” in the sense that I pretty much embraced anything that pissed the Church off, but Libertarian in that I was totally against any laws pertaining to people’s private lives (back then such laws did not FORCE people to embrace abortion and gay “marriage”). But, I was NOT Anti-Sex. I just had no interest in it.

    So, walking back to my dorm, I started to ponder WHY I had no interest in sex, and even though all of the other anti-male crap he preached was pure BS, I did wonder if he was right about female sexuality. And I made the dumbest decision ever and tried his “homework” experiment. To say it was an absolute FAILURE would be an understatement. Not only was I not turned on, never reached the epitomes Big O, but in fact, it was the most demeaning, humiliating experience of my life.

    At first I was FURIOUS that I actually stooped to Kimmel’s pathetic level. But then I actually started to think about all the other nonsense he spewed, and for the first time in my life I actually thought about what abortion actually is: That it is actually the deliberate killing of an actual, living baby. Before that, I had never actually thought about it at all, and only saw it as some random, abstract act that only Religious Right nuts from the South used to control women (based on a local case in which some extremists tried to stop a local husband whose pregnant wife was in a coma from having a doctor-recommended abortion). I had never thought about the REALITY of abortion; only the LEGAL, privacy aspects of it. So, overnight I went from being a personally “liberal” Libertarian to a personally “conservative” Libertarian. Thanks, Michael Kimmel, for leading me to the “Light!”

    By the next day I was overwhelmingly depressed, so I called up my (male) best friend and told him how much I HATED SCHOOL, that it was nothing but a bunch of brainwashing propaganda BUNK. My parents would not let me drop out, so I wanted to kill myself. Alas, while talking to him, I realized that if (according to my parents) the point of school was to get a job, then I might as well switch my major to economics and actually learn something useful.

    Needless to say, I never stepped foot in that class again, so I failed it. I had to take it again, but I had some boring, to-the-book traditional female Sociologist from Poland who rambled on about Max Weber, Thomas Merton and Emile Durkheim. Don’t ask me what their theories were. By that point I had mastered the skill of remembering what I need to pass the class and then it’s out the other ear. Oddly, that female professor was one of only TWO female professors I had taken in ALL my years at college who were not raging lunatic feminists who just changed the topic of the course to fit their ideological agenda. They were both foreign (the other one was Korean and knew German history better than the people who lived through it.) Female American professors are all nuts, from my experience (like the lone female Economics professor who spent the entire time talking to the only other two females in the class about fashion and could not answer a single question about actual economics; or worse, the anti-Catholic woman who taught “Women in Pre-modern Europe” but replaced over half the course with pro-Muslim readings by women in 20th Century Middle East countries. Did you know that Mohammad’s harems were the most liberating “feminist” institutions and that the girls who were taken by force from their parents in Europe were extremely lucky to have that privilege? Of course, the luckiest of all was Aisha, who was taken at age 7, but only de-flowered by Mohammad’s “love” at age 9. Yes, and according to her, “The Vikings are vicious Barbarians” whom she would NEVER read about. Hilarious, considering that Viking women had the most actual rights, freedom and power than women in any other society at the time.

    But I digress. Nevertheless, Michael Kimmel is not only insane, but as far as I am concerned, PURE EVIL. It is people like him and theories like his who have absolutely destroyed this country by passing FASCIST legislation that takes away ALL Male and Parental Rights, so any parent who CHOOSES to bring a child into this world becomes nothing more than a Serf of the State – bound by economic shackles to feed and clothe children who are brainwashed (against the parent’s will) to become whore (female) and whore-servant (male) Slaves to the State.

    I won’t say that all women are evil, but from personal experience, excepting a few bona-fide assholes on both sides, most guys are actually really nice and caring, but most women care only about what THEY get out of a “relationship” (usually “benefits” other than sex), so the best ones use men and string them along until they find better pastures elsewhere, and the rest make it obvious to everyone but the one “in love” with her that she is banging every other guy at the bar, until finally, I guess she gets bored of her game, and puts an end to it by blatantly banging his best friend.

    My only advice to men is, regarding any women under the age of 35 (at best), unless you find some really conservative chick who has never been exposed to public school education (or TV or the internet, for that matter): RUN like Hell! Barring that, meet someone far from where you live, refuse any pictures, make sure you use a condom, and NEVER TELL HER YOUR REAL NAME. Rinse, Repeat.

    As for me, Kimmel turned me truly ANTI-SEX for YEARS. By the time I got over it, I was smart enough to start giving any potential male partner a pre-screening test. Obviously, I cannot reveal the correct answers to any of the questions except for one: My final question is always “Pro-life or Pro-Choice?” There is no correct answer, as long as it is honest. But, that is where my upfront HONESTY comes in: I tell any guy that “Honestly, while I may personally be pro-life, it is still my body, and on the off-chance that I get knocked-up and we are not already married, there is no chance in Hell I will marry you because those “marriages” are destined to failure and misery for all parties. In that case, what I decide to do is completely up to me, since it is my body. And, if I do decide to have the kid and do not want you involved, you are out of the picture, but I’ll never tell you.” Then he always says (if he gets that far) “OK.” But I really drill that fact into his head until he actually UNDERSTANDS what he could potentially be getting into.

    As far as I am concerned, any sexual relations outside of marriage are between two consenting adults and if no contract (written or verbal) to produce children together has previously been agreed upon, then any “surprises” are the responsibility of the woman within whose body said child resides. If she chooses to keep it and raise it HER WAY, then it is her responsibility to take on ALL burdens of raising that child, ESPECIALLY FINANCIALLY. To sue the “father” for “child support” without guaranteeing him at least a 50% say in how the child is raised is nothing more than THEFT of SPERM by DECEIT.

    As far as marriage is concerned, although I do not recognize any State-Sanctioned “marriage” (“marriage” is not in the Constitution – it falls under “The Church” as in SEPARATE FROM THE STATE), it is still a legally-binding contract between two consenting adults, and unless there is a specific clause or separate agreement regarding pregnancy and children, the simple fact that the State recognizes the “husband” as the legal “father” AKA: LEGAL GUARDIAN of any children BORN during the marriage, necessitates that he is also the LEGAL GUARDIAN of any UNBORN CHILD and therefore the husband / father has a LEGAL RIGHT to PROTECT HIS UNBORN CHILD FROM BEING MURDERED AGAINST HIS WILL.

    The fact that the Supreme Court completely invalidated Contract Law by stripping away the Rights of ALL HUSBANDS on the basis of protecting a woman from a hypothetical domestic abuse situation proves that we are living in a bona-fide TYRANNY.

    Today, any man stupid enough to enter into a State-Sanctioned “marriage” for any reason, especially “love,” will get his Just Desserts when his “wife” turns into a baby-murdering whore at the drop of a dime.

    And, for the record, women and men will NEVER be “equal” until prostitution is decriminalized so that consenting adults can enter into legally-binding contracts, exchanging specified services for a specified fee. And I mean EQUAL prostitution. Honestly, I think there are many men out there who will make a killing selling their bodies to desperate women once their fellow male comrades have removed themselves from the current market of use-and-abuse-and dump-him. We need an Open and HONEST marketplace. Enough of this dinner, roses and jewelry crap.

    Oh yeah, NEVER buy a chick ANYTHING of value that she can pawn! Seriously! Do you guys really think the Femi-Whores are that stupid? They don’t NEED the courts to get around the anti-prostitution laws. That’s why “feminists” are against decriminalizing prostitution and claim it is demeaning and “sexist”! Under current law femi-whores benefit in three ways: First, it is societal / class: as long as a women is not paid in CASH she is not considered a “whore” but rather “empowered” by society, and therefore many guys will opt to bang her just to avoid the stigma of going to a hooker. Second, all she has to do is stick around long enough and get the guy the fall “in love” with her and he will buy her gold and silver jewelry which she can pawn, or electronics that she therefore does not need to spend her own money on (ie: “gifts” are “clean,” cash (upfront) is “dirty”). Third, if prostitution IS decriminalized, it would have to be decriminalized for BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, so, men would no longer “need” to “woo” the Femi-Whores to get some, therefore the femi-whores themselves will have to either RESPECT men if they want more than just sex, or pay to get some from a male prostitute. Either way, a true Femi-Whore loses financially if prostitution is legalized and she refuses to sell her body for cash instead of jewels because she is ultimately nothing more than a self-absorbed B*tch who no self-respecting guy with a FREE CHOICE would give “gifts” to bang when there will be plenty of other b*tches willing to pay HIM for the privilege.

    Of course, if it IS decriminalized, then the role of the State will be to mandate weekly testing for STDS and other communicable diseases, and other REASONABLE rules like location (Rhode Island has legal prostitution so long as it is indoors (no street-walkers) and I think that is a great, simple system) and where advertising cannot occur (billboards, for example), and use of condoms. A permit fee to cover the cost of testing and a weekly supply of condoms should be the ONLY burden to entry.
    Birth control will be the responsibility of the females to cover, the prostitutes writing it off as a business expense (yes, of course the services will be taxed like any other service). As for the females purchasing the services of men, birth control (other than condoms) is still the responsibility of the woman, and she can also insist on putting her own condom on top of his (to avoid any male prostitute trying to “spread his seed”), but male prostitutes will be legally protected from any attempts by female customers trying to extort him for “child-support” on the off-chance she gets knocked-up. Same goes for men engaging the services of a female prostitute; male customers will be legally protected from any attempts by female prostitutes deliberately getting knocked-up and trying to sue for “child-support.”

    And, now that I think about it, the institution of “marriage” will remain in its disastrous state until prostitution has been decriminalized for at least ten years. Maybe, just maybe, after that length of time men and women will be able to respect and trust one another again. Definitely no chance in hell until then, for sure.

  • re-construct

    NatShultz….Michael Kimmel is only “Empowered” because of the perverse manufactured statistics Alliances with American law enforcement.
    I personally believe the manufactured statistics Alliances that Empower American gender-feminists are not only a stain on American law enforcement that won’t wash off easily…but in fact un-constitutional.

  • yinyangbalance

    Can you make a report that focuses in on the female sexual predators and the male victims….. We all know how Feministing.com reacts to these things, can we then not focus on Feministing.com but instead focus on the trend of Feminism to ignore this at the end of the article?

    I dont like Feministing.com, but I also dont like the cross hairs on them in this article since we are talking about a bigger issue that is much more important which is the system targeting men and boys, legally and sexually in every way!

    Can we please talk about that more in depth?

  • LR

    Female sex predators who target males sexually are considered whores and are seen as deserving of executions because they are not supposed to lust after nor court males. Raping a man is really scary. I mean, the thought of it because men can easily fight back and rape in retaliation because of their physical size and strength. Women ought to be careful not to make sexual advances and passes at men or they will be assaulted back.