Unfortunately, incessant lobbying by US feminazis and anti-sexual
Christian fundamentalists, in the US and on location in Third World
countries, has lead to a clear anti-male bias in the laws of many poor nations.
It is by now common practice in the courts of law of many developing
nations that murdering a 19-year old man in a fit of anger is punished
more leniently than, after being aroused, touching the genitals of a
17-year old girl, even if this happens with her consent (or even upon her
invitation).
Expect 4 to 6 years for the manslaughter of the 19-year old male (and
very little public interest), and expect 8 to 15 years for the indecent
act involving the 17-year old girl (and front-page coverage in local
tabloids for child sexual abuse).
Feminazis and anti-sexual Christian fundamentalists (including
media-savvy Catholic priests) have achieved this distortion in the span of
about 10 years through a sophisticated campaign.
In well-organized international conferences, which received huge media
attention (nothing sells as swiftly as sex), they focused on child
prostitution. Typically, they presented a small number of forced
prostitution cases involving teenagers, or the selling of 10-year old or 11-year
old children to brothel owners, which were widely publicized. These
cases were then presented as typical for certain countries.
The feminazis and anti-sexual Christian fundamentalists propagated
wildly inflated, totally unproven figures as to how common child
prostitution allegedly was in various countries: 600.000 in Thailand, 800.000 in
the Philippines, millions in India.
Do some simple math. Thailand has some 60 million inhabitants, of which
about 30 million are female. Of these, about 12 million are below 18.
Let's assume 6 million between the age of 8 and 16. The 600.000 figure
would mean that 10 percent of all Thai children of this age group would
have been locked up in brothels, or sold by their parents into
prostitution.
Yes, Thailand does have a considerable massage parlor infrastructure.
But there definitely never was a problem on the scale announced at those
conferences addressing child prostitution. The figures were blatant
propaganda.
I am sure a good number of politicians in the countries that were
blamed also did the above little math. But would they stand up and tell
feminazis and anti-sexual Christian fundamentalists that they totally
exaggerated the problem?
In democratic societies, politicians know better than that. Their
instinct clearly tells them never to speak out publicly that a moral problem
isn't as bad as presented. Instead, politicians always fare better
further exaggerating a problem and presenting themselves as the moral
crusaders capable of drying up that swamp.
So, instead of defending their countries against the defamation and
lies that were circulated by Western feminazis and anti-sexual Christian
fundamentalists, they did exactly what was suggested at these
conferences: pass new child protection legislation with Draconian punishments.
Harsh punishment for those who keep 10-year old girls in brothels.
Nothing wrong with that.
But then, feminazis and anti-sexual Christian fundamentalists made it
clear to the politicians that by UN definition, a child is a person
below the age of 18. By UN definition, there is no difference between a
girl of 7 and a girl of 17.
Furthermore, lobbying by feminazis and anti-sexual Christian
fundamentalists has resulted in a decisive redefinition of terms: "intercourse"
or "rape" no longer means the insertion of the penis into the vagina,
but the insertion of the penis, a finger, or any object into the vagina
or beyond the labia, the anus, or the mouth (in case the penis is what
is inserted) of a person.
I don't expect anybody to publicly back my opinion, but while I believe
it is not decent if an uncle inserts a fever thermometer into the anus
of a 10-year old girl (option a), I do believe that it is not as grave
an offence as forcing vaginal intercourse with the same girl (option
b).
I want to introduce a third scenario: a 12 year old boy who is seen
stealing apples is struck by a fruit-stand owner with an iron rod over the
neck, and thereafter paralyzed from the neck down (option c). People
may consider this a sad case, but a Southeast Asian court will most
likely pass a sentence of no more than 2 years, probably on probation. But
in some countries, indecent touching and rape with murder already carry
the same sentence: lifelong imprisonment.
I have a teenage son and a teenage daughter. That for a man, touching
my daughter indecently will mean the same punishment as murdering her,
puts my daughter in additional danger. Any rapist should be aware that
letting a victim live after abusing her will mean a leaner sentence than
strangulating her.
I and, I assume, she herself would prefer, after she has been raped, if
the rapist lets her live, rather than strangulating her. I would expect
the law of the land to reflect this.
Actually, if the choice is between rotten options, being raped (option
a) is probably preferable to being struck by an iron rod and
subsequently being paralyzed from the neck down (option c), regardless of the
gender of the victim.
As mentioned above, I also have a teenage son. He is healthy,
physically and mentally. I am proud of his achievements in school, and I grant
him his interest in girls. He wants to buy a motorcycle, so that he can
take his girlfriend around.
As he is 18, it is quite natural that his girlfriend is 16 or 17... a
child by valid UN definition, which has been adopted by most developing
countries (and legally not different from a 7-year old one). As a
father, I am proud not only that he is healthy and an achiever in school,
but also that he is a good-looking young fellow (being of partially
European, partially Asian descent). And yes, I am proud that he is popular
with the girls.
I just hope he won't be trapped by a 17-year old bitch who claims
statutory rape, just because he touched her between the legs. And all of
this because his interest shifted away from that girl, and towards
another. Yes, girls, and women, can be very vengeful if the law gives them the
opportunity.