Prostitute As Present
Prostitute As Present
A man who tried to hire a prostitute to take his 14-year-old son's
virginity as a present was spared jail today.
It seems very strange to me that girls as young as 12 are given
sex-education lessons in school and, for those who get pregnant and bear offspring,
parenting classes - and money - but
fathers who try to give more 'practical lessons' to their underage sons are
breaking the law!
Yes; there is a difference, but not much, in my view; because, in both
cases, youngsters are being encouraged to have sex; which, as I am sure we
all know, is not the greatest of ideas given the mess that they so often
get themselves into as a result of entering the sexual arena.
But the 42-year-old father was arrested because the teenager had
chosen an undercover police officer, Nottingham Crown Court heard.
In my view, such 'undercover' operations wherein police officers try to
entrap people reflect just how corrupt are those who nowadays work in the
Such loathsome tactics might bring about some worthwhile results, but it does so at the cost of making dishonesty
and deception the norm for those of us who are supposed to be
incorruptible - which is why, not so long ago, UK police officers were
usually not allowed to entrap people by offering them some criminal
there is surely something deeply distasteful about women (police officers)
offering themselves for sex
Furthermore, and putting this particular case aside, there is surely
something deeply distasteful about women (police officers) offering
themselves for sex solely in order to punish the men who fall for their
They remind me of those grubby malicious bimbos who seduce celebrities -
such as footballers - and who take them to their bedrooms simply so that they can sell
their stories to the tabloids - and who have no feelings whatsoever for
the men whom they are duping, deceiving and harming.
In my view, there is something particularly low about those people who
snuggle their way into someone's affections simply so that they can then
hurt them in some way - and thereby profit themselves.
Of course, when it comes to very serious crimes and really nasty
criminals, then I am sure that it can be quite justifiable for police
officers to go 'underground' and mingle with them in order to gain their
confidence so that they can gather evidence against them.
But when it comes to relatively trivial offences - such as prostitution -
such dishonesty, deceit and subterfuge by state officials is not
acceptable to me. And I think that it also helps to breed a culture of
deception and dishonesty
amongst state officials which does us no good at all.
Furthermore, of course, when women police officers walk the streets in
order to entrap men, there will be very many men who pass them by, but who
will be encouraged into thinking about 'sex with a prostitute' - men who
might not otherwise have done so. And then, or later, they might seek one
And please do not be fooled by the stereotypes of men who go to
prostitutes as typically portrayed on the screen.
Most men who go to prostitutes are
ordinary decent men
Most men who go to prostitutes are
ordinary decent men - with more than half of them seeking affection as
much as anything else.
How do I know?
Ask the prostitutes. Go to their blogs.
True; sometimes prostitutes are beaten up or killed; but nowhere near as
often as the feminists and the abuse hysterics would like you to believe.
But, of course, there is a significant number of violent psychopathic men in the population,
and so prostitutes being sometimes attacked comes as no surprise.
But the same is also the case when it comes to domestic violence and rape
We all know that such things happen but, firstly, not as often as we are
commonly led to believe and, secondly, it is surely not acceptable for men
to be prosecuted and punished when they have harmed nobody, and when they
were also not seeking to harm anybody - which is,
far, the most common situation when they seek prostitutes.
Oh Angry Harry. You little raver, you. How many times have you visited a
prostitute in your most noble of lifetimes, eh? A hundred times. A
Tell us. Tell us. Tell us.
Oh. Ha. Ha. Ha. My nosy ones.
Nunce - is the correct answer.
No prostitute has ever had the pleasure of caressing my most succulent
self - apart from the missus, of course.
And that devious harlot has cost me a million times more than would have even
the finest of professionals; thus proving that I must be one of the
stupidest men in the country.
It's like paying thousands of pounds every year for a small sack of potatoes. ...
She sure is heavy.
... ... ... ... I have been well and truly duped!
Young men; take my advice.
Don't listen to your mothers.
Spend your money on video games, alcohol and loose women.
If that doesn't bring you happiness, then nothing will!
(Don't believe a word of that last bit.)
Which reminds me.
The aforementioned sack of potatoes and I were watching a programme about
Protestantism this evening.
It was delivered by Tristram Hunt.
I should have known better - given that the programme emanated from the
politically-corrected bowels of the BBC.
And, as one might have expected, it was absolutely packed full of
Even the missus agreed to abandon watching it, so vomit-inducing was Tristram Hunt's
obvious desire to kiss the feminist bottom.
I can summarise the programme thusly.
Women have always been victims.
what a useless bunch of human beings must women have been since the dawn
of history, eh?
Well, if this is truly the case, then what a useless bunch of human beings
must women have been since the dawn of history, eh?
They must have contributed nothing to the world except the production of
Prior to the unanimous vote to turn off this politically-corrected hokum,
there was some reference by the sack of potatoes to the fact that when
women entered Catholic churches in the old days, they used to have to wear
"And quite right too," I reposted. "Attending mass was supposed to be a
time for prayer, not a fashion parade wherein every Sunday women vied with
each other to have the most silken and flowing of hair. And they'd be wearing
stockings and mini-skirts in church before you knew it, if you gave them half the
"I think," said the sack, "that they wore hats because the priests did not
want the men to become aroused and distracted from their prayers."
"Well, that might be part of the truth," I conceded magnanimously - mostly
because there was an extra piece of cheesecake calling at me from the
table. "But then, this is what we men are. Our emotions and our feelings
can be aroused so easily.
You see; we are caring.
We are wanting.
We are compassionate.
We can so easily be inspired even to die for our country, to risk our necks in
order to protect others, or simply to achieve great things, to climb to
the highest of heights in all that we do.
We are driven.
And women without hats can therefore arouse both our heckles and our
And this is the real reason why the women had to wear hats, whereas the
men did not."
And having been thoroughly devastated by my most magnificent arguments,
the sack of potatoes skulked off into the distance to make some tea -
while I purloined the last piece of the cheesecake.
Oh, I am sooooooo bad!
Anyway. Did you know that all this psychological stuff about women being
more in touch with their feelings than men - and more caring, and more
intuitive, and more passionate etc etc etc - is nothing but twaddle?
Well, now you do!
And this is why the women had to wear hats, but not the men.
You see; to maintain a reasonably decent civilised society in the olden
days, it was best that the men were not tempted to sow their seeds beyond
their spouses' inboxes, and it was best if their spouses kept their spam
filters up to date lest they become impregnated by various worms.
the men were not going to labour all day to pay for the upkeep of someone
After all, the men were not going to labour all day to pay for the upkeep
of someone else's offspring - particularly while their duplicitous
womenfolk cavorted secretly with strangers and downloaded their
attachments while they, themselves, were out at work.
No way Hose!
"If they want to have sex with other men and bear their offspring, then
I'm off!" is what they said.
And who could blame them for thinking this?
And so keeping people faithful to each other through marriage was one damn
good way of keeping society from breaking down completely - because this would
have resulted in the women and children needing to survive on their own
- on their own in a very dangerous and difficult world.
They would have had a terrible time.
So the deal was this.
The women stayed at home to look after the children and the neighbourhood,
and the men trooped off to some truly, mind-blowingly awful jobs - jobs
that were also often very dangerous, very disgusting and/or very soul-destroying - just to keep
the food coming in.
And that, according to the feminists and their poodle boys working at the
BBC and, of course, according to their carefully-chosen politically-corrected herstorians
such as Tristram Hunt, was an example of "women's oppression".
Staying at home with the children = Oppression
Toiling away in the most appalling jobs 24/7 = Liberation
Think about it, Girls.
What would life have really been like
for women with children in those days without the 'deal' that marriage
There were no welfare benefits, no police officers, no social services,
and not much hope of being able to make a living without being worked to
Think about it.
they are lying to you
As such, when feminists - and their politically-corrected poodle boys such
as Tristram Hunt - keep suggesting that marriage was a patriarchal
mechanism designed to allow men to oppress women, they are lying to you.
It is blatantly clear that marriage bettered the lives of millions of
women and children in those days.
And it bettered the lives of millions of men, too.