We perfectly understand that educated middle class children of educated intelligent middle class parents can possibly be perfectly educated with no physical violence whatsoever. Super Nanny videos are perfect examples.

We question, though, if spanking prohibition is a necessity and needs to be enshrined in law.

Full Spanking scene on youtube

The judge’s wife was emotionally abused herself and was severely manipulated into assisting the beating and should not be blamed for any content in this video. The judge’s wife has since left the marriage due to the abuse, which continues to this day

Of course, the father is the culprit and the mother should not be blamed.

Yes, we understand there are problems, but we are here to question politically correct dogma. Here a few arguments by Devil’s Advocate:

1. Look at really unruly criminal or borderline criminal children. Gang members, violent flash mob participants, Hardcore truants, heavy drug users etc. Maybe the world would be better off had these kids been disciplined when there was still a chance to get them away from their path that is both destructive to society and self-destructive.  In many rich countries there is, needlessly, an underclass of uneducated, unemployable hopeless adolescents that have no chance in life. They will forever be a burden to society, financially, as welfare basket cases, as criminals, and as parents to future generations of hopeless children.
2. Lower class, low intelligence parents of equally lower intelligence low self control children in bad social environment might be better off with forceful education methods.
3. Parents might enforce exaggerated and unworthy goals with violent spanking? That, of course, raises other questions of parental power and freedom in general. Spanking a child for not going to church, for having homosexual tendencies, for not training mother’s pet sport? I see the problem, but what about parents enforcing such behaviors with other punishments, psychological cruelty, time out, withholding of financial resources etc.
4. To avoid excessive physical punishment, neighborhood councils could mediate between children and parents, and order parents to stop in case of injustice. Note also that in all ancient texts, punishment of children (and women) was always limited in ways as to not cause lasting physical damage.
5. The same politically correct liberals, who totally oppose measured non-endangering spanking, treat violent child endangering bullies and gangs with velvet gloves. Maybe such bullies need Singapore or Muslim style spankings to learn respect for fellow children and adults.
6. Is imprisoning for days, weeks, years really more humane then 20 minutes of corporal punishment? More so if in these prisons the serious criminals tend to rape and sexually enslave the less thuggish transgressors! Not to mention the financial cost of locking up people for years, in the light of too much government spending.
7. Spanked children become violent adults? There is lots of research supporting this theory, but …..: The proponents of such theories usually don’t consider the possibility that children of violent parents inherited genetic propensity to violence.  Without proof they assume causality.

A response to to Hillary Adams video

Plenty of intelligent guest comments at the end of "Dad seen on tape beating daughter" mention that a father who tried all other methods and uses spanking as a last resort might be very justified. In many states, including Texas, spanking one’s children is not illegal.

Again, we are Devil’s Advocate assailing conventional dogma. We want to stimulate healthy discussion. We are not ready to put our weight behind full legalization of corporal punishment.

Human-Stupidity did it again: alienate everyone by questioning politically correct conventional wisdom.

TV clipping

We perfectly understand that educated middle class children of educated intelligent middle class parents can possibly be perfectly educated with no physical violence whatsoever. Super Nanny videos are perfect examples.

We question, though, if non-spanking needs to be mandatory and enshrined in law. Yes, we understand there are problems, but we are here to question politically correct dogma. Here a few arguments by Devil’s Advocate:

1. Look at really unruly criminal or borderline criminal children. Gang members, violent flash mob participants, Hardcore truants, heavy drug users etc. Maybe the world would be better off had these kids been disciplined when there was still a chance to get them away from their path that is both destructive to society and self-destructive.  In many rich countries there is, needlessly, an underclass of uneducated, unemployable hopeless adolescents that have no chance in life. They will forever be a burden to society, financially, as welfare basket cases, as criminals, and as parents to future hopeless children.
2. Lower class, low intelligence parents of equally lower intelligence low self control children in bad social environment might be better off with forceful education methods.
3. Parents might enforce exaggerated and unworthy goals with violent spanking? That, of course, raises other questions of parental power and freedom in general. Spanking a child for not going to church, for having homosexual tendencies, for not training mother’s pet sport? I see the problem, but what about parents enforcing such behaviors with other punishments, psychological cruelty, time out, withholding of financial resources etc.
4. To avoid excessive physical punishment, neighborhood councils could mediate between children and parents, and order parents to stop in case of injustice. Note also that in all ancient texts, punishment of children (and women) was always limited in ways as to not cause lasting physical damage.
5. The same politically correct liberals, who totally oppose measured non-endangering spanking, treat violent child endangering bullies and gangs with velvet gloves. Maybe such bullies need Singapore or Muslim style spankings to learn respect for fellow children and adults.
6. Is imprisoning for days, weeks, years really more humane then 20 minutes of corporal punishment? More so if in these prisons the serious criminals tend to rape and sexually enslave the less thuggish transgressors! Not to mention the financial cost of locking up people for years, in the light of too much government spending.
7. Spanked children become violent adults? There is lots of research supporting this theory, but …..: The proponents of such theories usually don’t consider the possibility that children of violent parents inherited genetic propensity to violence.  Without proof they assume causality.

A response to to Hillary Adams video

Plenty of intelligent guest comments at the end of "Dad seen on tape beating daughter" mention that a father who tried all other methods and uses spanking as a last resort might be very justified. In many states, including Texas, spanking one’s children is not illegal.

Again, we are Devil’s Advocate assailing conventional dogma. We want to stimulate healthy discussion. We are not ready to put our weight behind full legalization of corporal punishment.

Human-Stupidity did it again: alienate everyone by questioning politically correct conventional wisdom.

Applying these rules to uncontrollable criminally minded looters and hooligans has terrible effects: good citizen’s physical integrity, lives, health, financial integrity get destroyed by such criminals. 

A furniture shop in Croydon which had been in the same family for five generations was completely destroyed after being torched. Owner Trevor Rees, 56, said the business was started in 1867 by his great-great- grandfather, Edwin Reeves, and employed 15 people. Sky News

Killing a few rioters might save lives of innocent people. At least it can prevent HUGE property damage and suffering for millions of citizens who stay locked at home in fear instead of proceeding with their normal productive lives. Order and safety for ordinary citizens should be above the rights of violent dangerous felons.

Commander Christine Jones said events were "simply inexcusable".

"Ordinary people have had their lives turned upside down by this mindless thuggery," she said.

"The Met will ensure that those responsible will face the consequences of their actions and be arrested." Sky News

Humanely arresting a marauding crowd of arsonists is not practical. It will not protect safety and property of good citizens, it will not stop and prevent imminent danger.

Put a camera on the sights of the guns of police. Make sure that everyone shot was engaged in an act of dangerous violence, with arms, crow bars, Molotov Cocktails, and was not in self defense against criminals. If non-lethal violence can be used. But don’t be shy to use deadly force. One can even arrest an entire crowd: have you seen 5 policemen controlling a huge crowd of riotous prisoners, lying on the ground? The prisoners know, one false move and they get shot.

Using lethal force, there will be inevitable collateral damage. Certainly less damage then done by week-long riots.This damage should be accepted and excused, provided it can be shown to be accidental and due to true honest mistakes. Honest serious policemen, and citizens defending their life and property should be excused in case of honest battlefield mistakes.

Yes, we want to provoke to think different. Yes we see that there are problems in our attitude. We see that there are serious problem in the unquestioning humanitarianism that protects criminals and creates havoc.

These are not race riots: Though they began, on Saturday afternoon, with a small protest in Tottenham, north London, over the shooting of a dark-skinned man by police under suspicious circumstances, they quickly became a much wider and less purposeful explosion of youth criminality.  [...]

The small crowds of very young men and women, of every skin colour, typically dressed in almost identical hooded sweatshirts, were on the main streets of the mainly poor neighbourhoods along the city’s northeastern, southern and western boundaries, engaged in running skirmishes with police, looting hundreds of shops, setting dozens of buildings and houses ablaze.
London police overwhelmed in explosion of violence by futureless youth

Yes, try to solve social problems before they become unsolvable. Really confronting taboo topics such as race and iq, immigration, dysgenics, are the first step. People that are born with low IQ (a taboo topic), to low IQ parents, with dysfunctional families (that are more frequent among low IQ people) and in bad social environment (a ghetto of likewise displaced people.

But, don’t forget to save those in imminent danger, those who are threatened with physical violence. If the use of deadly force can save upstanding citizens, then it is be negligence not to use it.

Unsuccessful males, an uncontrollable force

This is a chronic problem in Britain, which has a “lost generation” of young high-school dropouts far larger than most other Western countries.

One European Union study this year found that 17 per cent of Britain’s youth are classified as “NEETs” – for Not in Employment, Education or Training, in other words high-school dropouts with no prospects of employment – the fourth-highest percentage in the European Union. There are 600,000 people under 25 in Britain who have never had a day of work.

In the EEA, low ranking unsuccessful males do not procreate. This is an evolutionary disaster. Evolutionary psychology has shown that adolescent males are pre-wired to take high risks to gain social status in order to get access to women. Daredevil behavior, risky driving, fights, murder, criminality have their greatest prevalence in adolescence.  It

Such behavior actually makes men attractive to women: bad boys were successful in the ancient EEA where female choice and attraction were formed. Nerdy studious shy males may be successful today, but were not the leaders in the EEA.

Such men used to go on crusades, on ships to discover America, engage in violent revolutions, or whatever venue could bring success in life. If they have a 50% chance of dying, and a 10% chance of becoming really successful, by the mathematics of reproductive success, it is worth the risk to those that otherwise don’t have much of a chance.

As devil’s advocate, we suggest to seriously analyze taboo solutions like ready availability of prostitution, and polyandry (which is historically practiced where one man does not have enough resources for a family. These men are serious trouble, they have nothing to lose and great determination. 

A black professor can ask such questions. I wonder what would happen if a white professor asks such politically incorrect questions, Highly recommended, though long 53 minute speech.

NOTE for those interested in feminism and men’s rights:
similar arguments apply to feminist claims re. sex discrimination against females.

Walter E. Williams, (born 1936 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) is an American economist, commentator, and academic. He is the John M Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, as well as a syndicated columnist and author known for his libertarian views.

• What is Discrimination? 
• Discrimination and Liberty
• Deconstructing myths of the multi cult. blog 

Human-Stupidity Analysis

Walter E. Williams just states observable FACTS. Refusing also affirmative action: nobody should get undue advantages. Earn by your own merits.

He aptly avoids any mention of incendiary opinions like

• are blacks less intelligent?
• are blacks better athlets in certain fields?

Though he observes differences between groups, he does not bother to analyze if they could be genetic. He seems to believe that race differences can be remedied, but avoids discussing these subjects.

I would like to see a female speaker with such an open mind speaking about feminism, female disadvantage, …. 

Related articles

Linda T. had refused to come to Germany to testify. So two judges, two prosecutors, and the lawyers travelled to Switzerland. They presented their questions to a Swiss prosecutor who questioned the woman in the presence of the German legal team."

Source: News Magazine "Der Spiegel" about Kachelmann

Human-Stupidity is the lone English speaking publication reporting about the Jörg Kachelmann rape case, the court case of the year in Germany. Jörg Kachelmann was a famous TV anchor or the main German TV channel. A woman he had a 15 year love affair with accused him of rape. Exactly on the day when they broke up, after she found out he had another women lover (Details here:

• Meteorologist TV weather anchors prone to false rape charges? Heidi Jones and Joerg Kachelmann (don’t miss the youtube clip of Kachelmann with cat Lupine, that made him famous world wide)
• Unproven Rape charges: Famous German Weather Anchorman Joerg Kachelmann released after 4 months instant jail

Related Human-Stupidity topics: Men’s Rights & Feminism teenage sexuality child porn witch hunt.

"Rape on breakup day"
or

"Hell has no fury like a woman scorned" revenge false rape accusation?

A famous, very good looking single man, seen daily by millions of German women on TV,  after a 15 year long affair with a woman (whose sexual attractiveness wanes faster then a man’s) will rape her exactly when they decide to break up the relationship. Or the woman was hurt and wanted to get even. Which one is more likely?

With no corroborating proof whatsoever, according to the legal principle "Men accused by women or children are guilty until proven innocent" he was arrested for 4 months, obviously lost his job as a TV weather man, and must have spent hundreds of thousands of legal cost.

Thank God Kachelmann was finally freed on bail. Several inconsistencies and contradictions have been found in the rape accuser’s testimony. Still, the case has been dragging on for months. Now the accusation wasted a trip to Switzerland in the hope of finding another woman who would accuse Kachelmann of sexual misconduct.  In vain. Only expenses.

And the english speaking press still ignores the "German court case of the year". Please start reporting!

The lone good article about this case (All the right facts, with all the wrong feminist conclusions):

Guest post: Major rape case in Germany (feministphilosophers.wordpress.com)

Reading through the comments lefts by readers on the websites of all big newspapers, I was simply shocked. It felt as though nearly 95% of people were certain that the ex-girlfriend falsely accused him to get revenge, probably because he wanted to leave her. But that’s not all. Comments ranged from “This is just how women are, they’d do anything to get back at a man” (garnished with the occasional “and I’m saying this as a woman” — as if women can’t be sexist) to “They were in a relationship, you can’t rape someone who you’re in a relationship with” or alternatively “He doesn’t need to rape a woman, he can have any woman he likes, it’s just implausible” and further “Laws against rape in a relationship should be abolished, it’s made too easy for a woman to destroy a man”. And I’m not only talking about the tabloid-like attention-grabbing “Bild-Zeitung”, you’ll find comments like these in the “Zeit”, a newspaper aimed mainly at well-educated people. (BILD now hides the comments, but you can still read such things on ZEIT, here (in German) or here. )

A member of my close famility insisted that the woman must have lied, since a fifty year old man would never be in the mood for sex after a fight with his partner (they did have a fight about him cheating). It made me wonder whether he’d insist on his theory even if a similar thing had happened to someone of his family. Maybe he would go with his dangerous reasoning and have serious doubts about this person telling the truth – worrisome.

After some time it became public that Kachelmann didn’t only have this one girlfriend – no, he had at least four and none of them knew about the others.

All the right facts, with all the wrong feminist conclusions.

compare: Stop Prison Rape! Legalize Corporal Punishment (Whipping) 

The following article shows a light at the end of the tunnel. US authorities are starting to take the prison rape epidemic more seriously.

Raped and extorted by a prison gang, Scott Howard was called a "drama queen" by corrections officials 

This is a lengthy 8 page report. Read it all, don’t get stuck on the first page only

I served time in the Colorado Department of Corrections, and it was there that I was repeatedly raped, assaulted and extorted by members of a large, notorious gang." [...]

"I spent well over a year trying to get protection by writing to officials," he said. "My efforts to report were mostly fruitless — and often put me at greater risk. Because I am openly gay, officials blamed me for the attacks. They said as a homosexual I should expect to be targeted by one gang or another."

Howard didn’t tell the whole squalid story. He didn’t mention the evidence of staff involvement with the gang that made his efforts to seek protection even dicier. He didn’t go into how, once he finally started "naming names," as prison investigators demanded, they accused him of crying rape to cover up his own criminal activities. He barely referred to his last day as a Colorado prisoner, when, he says, he was put in a cell with one of the gang leaders and sexually assaulted again. Despite being a bare summary, the statement was still graphic — and powerful. At times his voice choked up, but Howard kept reading.

Human-Stupidity Analysis

Prison rape is comparable to being locked for years in Mr. Fritzl’s rape dungeon. Years under the power of rapists with nowhere to escape. Prison rape is aggravated because

• the victim is under the threat of violence and repeated rape for hours, days, weeks, months, and years. No escape possible
• At all times, while sleeping, while in the shower. The threat is always there
• gangs gang up on him. No chance to resist.
• The perpetrators continuously have power over the victim. It is not a "one shot crime". It is constant and repeated.
• Many many prison rape victims are never seen as rape victims. They probably don’t even see themselves as rape victims. Many just give in and become long term sex slaves in order to avoid gang rapes and gang beatings.
  • females that suffer the slightest, barely noticeable, coercion, are rape victims
  • I have never heard of "voluntary" sex slaves in prison being called "rape victims". By feminist rape standards, a prisoner is unable to consent to sex, because he has no safe option to say "no". Unless he is willing to fight to death, is a member of a gang, etc, his "no" just puts him into more danger
• the victim is under the power and protection of the state. The government is locking him together with felons, the government is responsible for his safety
• There is a popular misconception: "he is a criminal, he deserves to get ass-raped". Problems
  • this is cruel and unusual punishment through the back door.
  • If you think people deserve corporal punishment, be honest and adopt the Sharia or something similar.Stop Prison Rape! Legalize Corporal Punishment (Whipping) 
  • In the case of legalized flogging, the corporal punishment follows due process and does not transmit Aids.
  • Usually the serious criminal gangs prey upon the first time light criminal (drug users, people who did not pay their parking tickets). So the wrong ones get punished

Clearly double standards for female and male rape victims

• a female only needs to allege rape once and is believed. This would be a good rule to introduce in jails. In the case of jail, a rape allegation should at least suffice to get the alleged victim into a secure cell of his choice.  
• Even if she got herself drunk out of her own will, the guilt is 100% the male’s
• The slightest perceived power potential makes totally consensual male on female sex "rape". If he is the boss, if she is slightly incapacitated, if she is an adolescent minor, any slightest power differential makes consensual sex rape. What about being a young cute artistic non-fighting white boy in a prison dominated by black and hispanic gangs of tough boys. That automatically should make any consensual sex act "rape"
• As a possible solution: Human-Stupidity would suggest that in such cases a counselling session followed by a notarized declaration would be necessary to declare that sex is voluntary. Human-Stupidity has been proposing such a declaration to avoid potential victimization and thus rape charges in many of the teacher-student, boss-secretary, or adult-adolescent consensual sex relationship. This is just to show potential alternatives to the way things are handled now. It certainly deserves further analysis.
• following quote show the desperate situation of a person threatened by a big gang. It is quite obvious, that others can fold easily and just become obedient sex slaves, with no complaints. Very strange. Feminists complain about the lack in rape reporting among females. The lack of rape reporting among male prison inmates has not even become an issue yet.

In mid-February 2005, Howard made up an excuse to see his case manager, Jerry Morris. Terrified of being labeled a snitch and what Ghost might do to him, he didn’t say anything to Morris about the assaults. [...]

Howard’s journey through Colorado’s prisons points to another problem the commission report scarcely mentions: the utter indifference of many staffers. Howard met with several case managers and supervisors at Sterling and filed grievances over his placement there. The officials have divergent stories about what happened in those meetings and how explicit Howard was about his plight. But their tendency to downplay his complaints and insist that he "name names" helps to explain why the system’s number of reported assaults is so low.[...]

"He was also informed if he did have problems he would be asked to go on tape as to who was threatening him…He stated he would never do this and would pay them off first. He then left my office." [...]

In a written response denying the grievance, Clarkson acknowledged that Backer had been mistaken about requiring a taped statement. But Howard would have to identify who was bothering him before any action could be taken.

"We do have to have names," Clarkson wrote. "We cannot keep you away from all 211 members. We do not place inmates in administrative segregation to protect them from other inmates, so that is not an option, either."

But naming names, Howard insisted, would only expose him to more trouble. [...]

Howard understood. "My family had never done anything to anybody," he says. "To know they could reach out and touch my parents — that was a big move on their part."[...]

"Even after naming all the names, they just sent me back to my cell," Howard says now. "I told a captain these people were going to kill me if I didn’t come up with $300,000 by March. Her response was, ‘Let’s see what happens in March.’"

Reluctantly, it seems, administrators made note of Howard’s "custody issues," listing a couple dozen inmates he should not be housed with, and shipped him off to the Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility. He stayed there for several months, filing a blizzard of grievances and complaining about sightings of gang members who might retaliate against him. One grievance challenged DOC’s unwritten rule of making cell assignments by race; Howard figured he would be better off with a Hispanic or African-American cellie than a white one who might be in touch with the 211 Crew.

But word of his snitching at Sterling eventually drifted into Arkansas Valley, and Howard was transferred again. This time he was sent to one of the most violent prisons in the state.

"I was sent to Limon, God knows why," he says. "It was already all over the compound that 211 was going to kill me."

He was at Buena Vista only a few days when a 211 member from Sterling who’d been directly involved in the threats against Howard was moved into the same unit. That night he was subjected to a torrent of screams and taunts from neighboring cells. "They were calling me a snitch and a whore and a fag," he says. "They were making arrangements to sell me to the black dudes on the tier. The officer station is right there. They could hear it, but they didn’t react at all."
Raped and extorted by a prison gang, Scott Howard was called a "drama queen" by corrections officials 

This bill takes us back to a time when just saying ‘no’ wasn’t enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women’s Law Center.
(The House GOP’s Plan to Redefine Rape)

And when being too young for sex were not called "rape" either, kissing a minor was not called rape either. In the old times, when language still had its own precise terminology, like "indecent act with a minor". And when the age of consent was lower, so 17 year olds enjoying sex were not "rape victims". As ‘Whoppie Goldberg called it "it was not real rape-rape".

Human-Stupidity Analysis

We are language semantics freaks: we don’t like that one word defines 2 different things. Not every killing is murder, and not every problematic sex act is rape.

Readers might disagree, if a irresponsible teen who got herself pregnant should get free abortion. Or if it is better to get an, even undeserved, abortion then the prospect of an immature poor mother traumatizing a baby. Or one might wonder why the immature teen girl that got pregnant from an immature teen boy the same age was not statutorily raped and thus does not deserve a free abortion.   But if she had a relationship with a more sensible, responsible, mature man, then she was statutorily raped and deserves a free abortion.

• Definition of “Rape”: When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape” & the Perversion of Language
• manipulative language (Human-Stupidity)

The House GOP’s Plan to Redefine Rape

Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law. [...]

Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.[...]

"This bill takes us back to a time when just saying ‘no’ wasn’t enough to qualify as rape," says Steph Sterling, a lawyer and senior adviser to the National Women’s Law Center.[..]

Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes. "There are a lot of aspects of rape that are not included," Levenson says.

House Republicans aim to redefine rape to limit abortion coverage

Currently, the federal government denies taxpayer monies to be used to pay for abortions, except in cases when pregnancies result from rape or incest or when the pregnancy endangers the woman’s life.

However, if the 173 mainly Republican co-sponsors of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" have their way, that would all change. Instead of keeping the 30-year-old definition of rape in federal law, the bill would modify it to "forcible rape," thereby severely limiting the health care choices of millions of American women and their families.

In other words, rape would not be rape unless violence were involved; however, the term "forcible rape" was left undefined, leading some to speculate its meaning since it is also not defined in the federal criminal code or in some state laws.

Surveys suggest that less than 15 percent of the online encyclopedia’s hundreds of thousands of contributors are female. [...]

Sue Gardner, the executive director of the foundation, has set a goal to raise the share of female contributors to 25 percent by 2015, but she is running up against the traditions of the computer world and an obsessive fact-loving realm that is dominated by men and, some say, uncomfortable for women.

Her effort is not diversity for diversity’s sake, she says. “This is about wanting to ensure that the encyclopedia is as good as it could be,”  

Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List

Is Wikipedia creating a glass ceiling, actively blocking women from participating? Well, or maybe women are different. Or maybe men really are the gender that creates knowledge, wealth, public services, etc?

I would imagine that if less than 15% of the contributors are women, then much less than 15% of the work is done by women.

Considering that almost nobody gets paid for Wikipedia, the most obvious thing that can be said about its existence from a gender point of view is that the human race owes a debt of gratitude to the male sex.

[... men see the point] n working for free to expand access to information for people they don’t know. But blaming any problem, even one as exiguous as women not contributing much unpaid labor to Wikipedia, on women is a no-no, so the fault must lie with “misogynists.”

Guys Create Wikipedia For Free: That’s A Problem

Q – What does the UN mean by "youth," and
how does this definition differ from that given to children?

The United Nations, for statistical purposes, defines ‘youth’, as those persons between the ages of 15 and 24 years,[...]  By that definition, therefore, children are those persons under the age of 14.

It is, however, worth noting that Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines ‘children’ as persons up to the age of 18. This was intentional, as it was hoped that the Convention would provide protection and rights to as large an age-group as possible and because there was no similar United Nations Convention on the Rights of Youth. (www.UN.org)

The United Nations web site confesses, expressis verbis, that the language confusion was created so that childhood laws could be transferred to adolescents, without undergoing scrutiny and without needing to be voted for. The United Nations, on their own website, admit that this age definition was made for manipulative purposes, and in contradiction of  their own age definitions elsewhere.

"Seduction of an adolescent" or "unlawful sex with a 17-year-old" does not sound dramatic enough. It is easier to get harsh laws against "child rapists". Equally, it is easier to convict for "child pornography" then for possession of tasteful "nude photos of a 17 year old".  Just manipulate the language to manipulate the masses! And government, press, judges, jury.

"Eschew obfuscation"  (avoid being unclear)!

Legal argument and laws about "child pornography" and "child abuse" severely violate this basic rule from from college writing classes English 101. Science and law also try to get clear and concise definitions.

To foster the political goal of curbing adolescent sexuality and erotic depictions, the United Nations leads the world into obfuscation.

Due to United Nations influence,
our language lost the capacity to differentiate between totally different situations

,,,people assume that a person labeled with possession of CP [child p ornography] automatically is looking at pictures of 4 yr olds having sex with adults etc…when the law actually is worded to where you could have a clothed picture of a 16yr old female and have it be considered CP…  prisontalk.com

The following are all the same now.

2 year olds, 7 year olds, 11 year old children	=	15 y or 17 year old adolescent youth.
	=

All above are "Children"

As a result of United Nations language manipulation, the following are the same:

Both above are "child rape". "Non-consensual" sex.
And the depictions of both are the same. Child Pornography.

We think this is demagogic. unscientific. Purposeful misleading.  Disgusting.

You did not understand that this is the same? click on "more" below and we will show you why, step by step

Furthermore we will also use medical science and developmental psychology to scientifically define "child" and the phases of childhood.  In a subsequent post, later, we will critique the Copine and Sap scales for failing to differentiate between infants and adolescents, between consent and non-consent.

The following are all the same now. Child rape. Non-consensual sex.

As you know, the 15 year old cannot consent to sex. So the consent is invalid. So you might as well have dragged her into the woods. It is the same. Linguistically. Legally. In press reports. In jury instructions.

And the same for your cell mates in jail that will brutally rape child rapist (and violent felon cell mates probably will not understand the fine distinction that you were the tender lover of an adolescent)

It is so unbelievable:
our language cannot differentiate any more between

• merely fondling of consenting, non-nude 17 year olds
• actual consensual sex with a 17 year old in a long term relationship
• forceful non-consenting violent injury causing rape of kidnapped 4 year olds

Nowadays, all these very different acts are the same.  Child rape.

These very very different acts are described by the same term

1. "child rape" for the act and
2. "child porn" for the depiction.

What is a child? Defining childhood!

There is not one "childhood" from 0-18 years of age.

It is totally incorrect from a developmental or legal standpoint to mix up and confuse 3 month olds, 3 year olds, 8 year olds, 14 year olds and 17 year olds.  They are very different in terms of

• intellectual maturity
• capacity to understand physical, social, biological facts
• capacity to consent
• sexual maturity
• individual maturity

 
(all graphs from Wikipedia)

So for the purpose of sexual consent, of capacity to engage in sexual activities (playing doctor, …), for psychological consequences of such actions, there must be at least a differentiation in  2-4 age groups before adulthood.

1. Childhood from 0-13
2. Youth or adolescence from 14 years on

Look, how funny. Did we not have this differentiation until the United Nations started manipulating our langugage in order to ram through laws without needing to vote for them

To be a bit more scientific, one would have to add

1. the limit between childhood and adolescence/youth is fluid, individual and unclear. Maybe between 10 and 15 years of age. Depends on the culture, the individual maturity of the child
2. Childhood has very distinct phases, as shown in the graphics.

Correct developmental stages are
Infancy, Childhood, Adolescence, Adulthood 

Or even finer grained: Infancy, (Toddlerhood), Childhood,(Pre-adolescence,) Adolescence, Adulthood

The child pornography debates suffers from language abuse.

In a subsequent post we will critique the Copine and Sap scales for failing to differentiate between infants and adolescents, between consent and non-consent:  Levels of severity of child porn. Copine and Sap Scales reviewed

Rape of our language for the purpose of demagoguery and to incite the masses

We have shown that the precision, power, conciseness of our language has been seriously compromised by a concerted manipulatie action geared towards "protecting" adolescents with laws geared towards small prepubescent children.

Confusing adolescent lovers with child rapists 

Men are now terrorized by threats of extreme jail sentences,  to the point of suicide, by laws that make it a heinous crime to have even remote sexual interest in post-pubescent sexually mature and developed adolescents. Any lover of adolescents or their pictures is, demagogically labeled child rapist or child pornographer.

Confusing

Confusing sexual interest in adolescents with sexual interest in infants

Perversely, by the same confusion, the average men now get suspected as potential rapists of toddlers. The fairly true fact that many men get attracted by 15 year old Brooke Shields, demagogically got extended to sexual interest in 11 year old Brooke Shields and 2 year old toddlers.  Eek! A Male! Pedophile hysteria hurts and kills children

15 year old Brooke Shields	10 year old Brooke Shields	2 year old infant
15y: Many men are attracted to 15 year old Brooke Shields	10y: Very few men would be sexually interested 10 year old pre-pubescent Brooke Shields. A few decades ago this picture was harmless artistic photography. Nowadays, it got removed from Tate Modern Museum by Police  Human-Stupidity felt compelled to add the censorship bar to avoid charges of child pornography.	2y: And only a minute number of pathologically sick men is sexually interested in 2 year olds, and even fewer would act on that interest But, somehow, demagogic language confusion has instilled into the conscience of law makers, journalists and the general population, the perverse idea that a significant number of men is interesting in raping toddlers or getting sexually excited by toddler photos. In another photo officers writes “The next photo is of the girls in the bathtub, the middle daughter appears to by lying on her back …her younger sister is on top of her also on her back…the youngest girls vagina is exposed to the camera.” This harmless commercial ad from the 1950ies nowaday could, by the perverted modern child porn witch hunt mentality, qualify as Child Porn of the highest possible Copine level 10: Pictures where an animal is involved in some form of sexual behaviour with a child

Demagoguery, incitement of the masses:
The United Nations war on adolescent youth sexuality 

The same purposeful political manipulation of meaning as for "child" seems to have happened to "porn", "rape", "consent".

All obfuscation on purpose, all to prepare witch hunts against men: probably 95% of the persecution victims are men with maybe 5% women as collataral damage of the war on male sexuality.

"Abuse obfuscation"  (manipulate by being unclear)!

Legal argument and laws about "child pornography" and "child abuse" severely violate this basic rule from from college writing classes.  "Eschew obfuscation" or "avoid being unclear"!  The exact opposite has happened. Language has been abused and raped into absolute utter confusion, in order to manipulatively pass absurd laws. 

The meanings of the words

1. "child",
2. "pornography",
3. "rape", and
4. "consent"

have been manipulatively re-defined in overly broad ways, as to confuse and manipulate not just the average person, but the entire legal, journalistic system.

Nowadays we have utterly confusing terminology

• A child can be 2, 8, 12, 17 years old, (or 22 if s/he looks like 17, according to Australian and European law)
• Pornography nowadays can be anything from
  • fully dressed adolescent girls dancing seductively,
  • tasteful nude beach photos,
  • solo masturbation
  • naturalistic necking with their boyfriends,
  • hard core sex

In a subsequent post we will critique the Copine and Sap scales for failing to differentiate between infants and adolescents, between consent and non-consent:  Levels of severity of child porn. Copine and Sap Scales reviewed

© ABC News Television

The alleged lovers, who were engaged to be married to other people, were arrested by the Taliban on the request of their families after they tried to elope. The video shows a woman wearing a blue burkah buried up to her waist as a baying crowd hurl rocks at her head and body. She is then shot three times by a Taliban fighter. Her alleged lover is then blindfolded and his hands tied behind his back before he also is battered by a barrage of rocks. See the Video here: Taliban stoning to death Video (Telegraph, UK)

Possession and distribution of stoning to death videos: perfectly legal.
Video of same 17 year old girl nude or making love: Child Porn conviction: 5 years jail!

You can watch without concern. This is only people getting murdered for having a love affair. Perfectly legal. Of course, the video of the couple making love, involving a 17 year old, that would get you in jail. You would be a pervert. Understand?

Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)

So the child porn witch hunt helps to increase real child abuse of real children, according the serious academic peer reviewed research.

More of the same stoning cruelty news

• Stoned to death with her lover: Horrific video of execution of girl, 19, killed by Afghan Taliban for running away from arranged marriage (Daily Mail)

Related articles