Men are using the young boys
By Ruth Graham
The vast majority of those who seek out sex trafficking rings explicitly for the abuse of children are men.
Mothers will indeed be enablers of their child’s abuse. Something like up to 40% of all trafficked children are pimped by their parents or other relatives.
But the ones doing the raping of both boys and girls (and the physical abuse and torture to groom them into obedience) are overwhelmingly fathers and other male buyers.
In fact, the pattern is clear. The father starts sexually abusing his daughter or son at a very young age to normalize them to abuse, then starts pimping them out.
Many researchers have asked why most buyers are men and not women.
Michael Salter (2013) says it sadistic abuse, “a manifestation of ideologies of masculine sexual aggression operant within groups of abusive men, and means whereby violence against children and young adults was infused with pleasure and fantasies of absolute domination over others”
When men who buy sex are interviewed anonymously about it, they know they are buying sex from someone who would otherwise not give consent without money involved.
They know they are not attractive, and so they know the money is a coercion. A form of control. Some will admit in private that they relish the fact that they can haggle down the prices, because they know the prostitute is desperately poor. They admit that without poverty as a driver, they would not be able to buy the consent of young (relatively attractive) women. This demonstrates that men who buy sex know they are exercising an unfair power imbalance to get sexual gratification from someone who would not otherwise give it.
I personally believe men are not inherently like this, but we live in a civilization that normalizes it and teaches it.
I think men are inherently more likely to be risk takers (due to testosterone), but risk doesn’t have to translate into aggression and violence. Men are taught aggression, sadism, and dehumanization by a culture. I think a major issue why we are having so many mass shootings today is because men are being taught this at an unprecedented level, radicalized via the internet, poor education and violent dehumanizing acts of sex abuse either witnessed via porn or enacted upon them (victimized themselves).
These types of behaviors (getting a thrill by exercising a power imbalance over a person and forcing them to do what you want) often escalate in a process of normalization and then numbing (needing a greater fix).
Unfortunately, our culture has been permeated with lies that somehow the porn industry is a benevolent force that is releasing us from our repressions. It also acts in a vacuum and doesn’t involve real people with real lives who were really groomed, coerced and trafficked into it.
People also think there is a clear separation between porn and child sex abuse. There is not. Porn is the means for which coercive (antisocial) dominance is normalized, as well as sex trafficking as a whole (all porn recruitment involves grooming, pimping and sex trafficking.)
Porn is prostitution. It is not a “fantasy” when it involves real people being paid for sex acts. So it is a form of advertisement and cultural conditioning that not only teaches that all people can have their consent bought, it also continues to push the boundaries into more and more extreme content, such that you are then also taught that all people also have a price for which you can coerce them into extremely violent and degrading acts, in fact you can also coerce them via agents, managers, groups and owners and as long as you have a business license and a signature it’s “okay.”
Dr. Paul Wright of Indiana University told Esquire
Magazine: “As types of pornography that were less common in the past—for example violence, this or that fetish—become more and more common and easily accessible, consumers get bored by them and need the extremity and deviance upped a notch to once again become aroused and excited.”
https://www.maxim.com/maxim-man/why-is-incest-porn-so-popular-2018-3/
The most common female role in porn is “teen”, while “daughter” is 6th and “sister” is 10th.
https://jonmillward.com/blog/studies/deep-inside-a-study-of-10000-porn-stars/
Porn necessarily has to try to lower the age of consent therefore as part of it’s billion dollar profit making. They need to groom teenagers and normalize pedophilia and incest in order to keep the cash flowing. They have to organize, plan and create SOP (standard operating procedures) with pedophiles.
They have to hire lawyers and draft legislation to protect themselves and fellow abusers.
Could there be a form of ethical porn that we could regulate in a way that balanced people’s freedoms while also preventing victims and social harm? Yes. I believe so. But we can’t actually figure this out until we actually openly discuss the problem.
To quote philosopher Elizabeth Munich: “No one person, no few people, can commit genocide, keep a slave-based economy going, or a worldwide child pornography trade. It simply is not possible. And we already know that there are not enough monsters to do the work of extensive evil in some way that would cut way down on all that work, all that need for reliable personnel.”
“lMany researchers have asked why most buyers are men and not women.”
OMG how stupid. Its mostly men because, on the whole, men have exponentially higher sex drives than women. It’s that simple. Are you really unaware of something this universally known????
Universally known does not equal truth. 2019 was the first year the complete map of the clitoris has ever been published in a medical textbook. I’m still shocked about this fact of how backwards our society still is.
Women’s sexual drive has been systematically ignored and erased and even punished as abnormal for centuries.
You are perpetuating myths and using those myths as excuses for the purchasing of a human beings consent:
https://www.insider.com/guides/health/sex-relationships/sex-drive-myths
There are additional reasons why people use this myth of “low libido” on women. It is used to:
1) Blame a woman for her own trauma – i.e. she doesn’t want sex because she is a “normal woman” instead of the fat she was abused and is therefore traumatized. The rampant abuse of women by partners and men in general also reproductive abuse (sexual abuse in general not just rape, including forced birth) makes women fearful, numb and disinterested in sex. Instead of collectively looking on changing our society to prevent that, make women feel safer and empower us in dating, we instead blame women for being turned off, and normalize their numbness in sex.
2) Hold up the “madonna-whore” double standard as part of the policing of women’s bodies and needs. A good woman is a sexless mother figure, and a bad woman is a slut etc.
3) Keep the standard of behavior for men collectively low and excuse cheating/ emotional abandonment. It’s not the man’s fault the woman is disinterested in her own husband! No it has nothing to do with his laziness, refusal to be emotionally intimate, refusal to help with the children etc etc. It’s a woman’s natural state as a woman to have no libido!
I was told in 2013 once by my own coach that women athletes shouldn’t have sex before competitions because it will “steal energy from our performance.” I was also told by this nationally recognized coach that women shouldn’t do extreme sports because the impact will “damage our uterus.” There are so many stup*d myths about women still out there, there’s entire forums dedicated to documenting them. Check out http://www.reddit.com/r/badwomansanatomy.
I will try to find it, but I also remember reading an article that found out that young women (teenagers, young adults) think about sex and men in their life sexually just as much as men do. (Multiple times a day.) It’s only recently that scientists even bother to ask women these questions (via surveys). Shocking and tragic tbh.
I can paste about 1000 links to contemporary scientific studies that show men do tend to have a higher sex drive than women, probably because of their higher testosterone levels.
By the way, saying that men have a higher sex drive does not mean that I’m saying women have a low sex drive or aren’t interested in sex. Hell no. You project a lot. I never said women have low libidos. And I don’t believe that and never have.
I have also read articles that said men think about sex many times per hour compared to a women thinking about it with significant less frequency. So whatever.
Bit backpedaling of a comment don’t you think? If you’re not saying women’s libido is lower than mens then why are you still saying it? You are saying it, women have a low libido compared to men, therefore prostitution is rational? Justified? Normal? Expected?
I also like how you totally dismissed the facts I gave you, that women’s sex drive has been seriously understudied and systematically erased and we are just now even mapping a clitoris. So what if you have 1000 proofs of system wide erasure and pathologization of the female sex? We already know what that is and how little that data means under such misogyny.
And again you’re still arguing this is a justification for purchasing the consent of women for sex they wouldn’t otherwise consent to. Do you realize how gross that is? It’s even “Rape-y” as some people say these days.
An explanation is not a justification. You really don’t understand that?
I never said women have low libidos. So why the hell do I need to respond to your commentary about the obvious issue of women’s sexuality being misunderstood/ discounted/denied in the past? Yes, it has been horribly misunderstood. That is widely known. Even just yesterday I read an article on CNN that they discovered female snakes have a clitoris and they made a lot of references in the article to how female sexuality in humans was also long misunderstood. It is a very mainstream and well-known concept. It’s so obvious and widely known I didn’t even think I needed to respond to it.
And it doesn’t change the fact I never said women have low libidos.
She is pushing an agenda. It is not clear what that agenda is.
Women have higher sex drives. They’ve just been suppressed.
As a no longer suppressed woman, I’d agree with that.
I asked the question about the boys on another of your pieces.
At the age of around 7, wanting to increase the remit of my prayers to include more than family, my Mom suggested I pray for ‘The Boys Of Kincora’ I thought this was another brigade of the IRA like “The Boys Of Mullabawn’ from the song.. I was an adult before I learnt the truth of this story involving the trafficking of orphaned boys for sex to men of the British ruling class, it has come to light fairly recently, that the Earl Mountbatten, murdered by the IRA, was routinely sent boys to his castle in Ireland from this home.
I believe this abuse arises from a catastrophic imbalance of power, war does this to a nation, it turns its people into so much fodder, as Putin said of his own country’s prime commodity ” People are the new Oil” the very idea that families let alone individuals have the power to assign value to one another, to provide for and protect each other, free from exploitation from those who rule with military might or money, is for many, a dream.
Prostitution is often a way of bartering for survival, in situations like this.
The porn industry merely capitalises on human desire. Like the film or music industry. While this can be appaling, as when the music industry directly encourages black on black violence by only supporting artists who promote this shit, as opposed to the majority of black musicians who simply don’t – can these industries really be seen as causative?
I think, rather they are emergent and always have been, they arise after the fact, and the fact is that some people men – and women, who may not sexually abuse at the same rates, but are certainly frequent [non-sexual] abusers of children – behave this way. – I have no answers to why that is, or rather there are so many answers that don’t seem to affect change, only generate more questions. For that, I feel grateful to the law.
Thank you for this comment. You speak well on what I am trying to convey and add some interesting additional points to it. I think you understand why I can’t not connected it all to larger forms of exploitation and abuse. I think you are entirely right that prostitution thrives on the capitalization of immense disempowerment, scarcity and trauma. As I have said, fascism and this exploitative, violent (dehumanized) sex are inseparable, they feed on eachother. It was said that Mussolini himself kept women trapped in basements for the express purpose of rape, and raped something like 5 or 6 women a day.
You may be right however that there are certain types of people “born this way” – i.e. born to want to hurt others for their own pleasure. I am not sure. I am not a neurobiologist or psychology expert. However I do know that people can also be taught to be fascist, and taught to enjoy sadism (in a societally wide manner but also individually through dehumanization, drugs, porn, and other means of coercion/brainwashing.)
Thank you for your comment.
Thank you, Ruth, for your hard work here, to bring down Chetananda, and to understand the circumstances that might have created such a monster in the first place. Always interested to read your thoughts.
The continued rants of a very troubled individual. Ruth, I hope you get help.
“They know they are not attractive, and so they know the money is a coercion.”
I’m willing to bet that a big percentage of men who patronize prostitutes are perfectly attractive but are married and want casual no-strings sex. They don’t want to be seen in public trying to pick up women at bars or get into any entanglements…so a discreet meeting with a prostitute is just what they need. No time to google it now, but I’d bet that the majority of johns are married. It has very little to do with not being attractive, IMO It has more to do with pragmatism. Plenty of men want casual sex without it disrupting others parts of their life.
Define perfectly attractive objectively please. Are you sure you are willing to bet?
And pragmatism? What a way to frame the purchase of a person’s sexual consent, as a means to cheat on one’s partner. How many of those women would willingly have sex with a bigamist, that’s a further question that deserves answers as well.
Yes, I am actually willing to bet this is an argument many cheaters will make. I believe they will call themselves pragmatic, when in fact they are just lazy, cowardly, abusive and antisocial. And they will blame their wives for “dead bedrooms” too.
Oh I nearly missed, hi again “WTF.”
So you insist that other people define selected concepts objectively? Wow.
Only when they make bets on their claims.
What I mean by “perfectly attractive” is that I think if you took a sampling of 100 johns and had the general public rate them on physical attractiveness, and then you took a sampling of 100 men who never bought sex and also rated their attractiveness, there would be no difference in overall attractiveness ratings between the two groups.
If you do a Google search for “ soliciting prostitution sting” “human trafficking sting” or some such, you’ll see lots of mugshots of johns. Many are attractive, most are average, some are unattractive.
My point is I don’t think not being attractive has much to do with why men buy sex.
I still think it is pragmatism in most cases. The man wants sex and doesn’t want to put in much effort to get it or risk embarrassment or rejection asking a girlfriend or wife to try something freaky etc.
White males are also overwhelmingly the ones that perform mass murder or turn into serial killers. Or shoot up schools. By your logic, schools should be banned. Your religious upbringing making you feel guilty every time you get horny isn’t our problem.
You are not making sense either.
If you could demonstrate that schools are the cause of escalating mass shooting, sure, where kids are taught and prepared for a “purge” and showed gory videos of dead bodies every day. Except we all know that’s not true erasend. Try harder to defend prostitution, maybe?
How do you know?
Still working to convince yourself.
The cause of mass shootings, Ruth, as most reasonable people would acknowledge, is the easy availability of semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 to civilians. In many states no age restrictions or background checks are required.
Most people are terrible at reading statistics and are extremely ignorant about guns. We used to have fully automatic guns widely available to the public, without even background checks. Why weren’t there more mass shootings in the past? Do you know what a relative risk ratio is? What about correlations vs causations?
All handguns, and every rifle that isn’t bolt action is a semi-automatic as well.
And no, last I checked background checks are federally required for every gun purchase unless you’re already registered as an FFL or deputized by law enforcement/military (an FFL is federal firearms licensee – aka someone who is registered to not just buy, but sell firearms legally).
No. The cause of mass shootings is a person’s twisted heart. I feel no need to use my semi-automatic weapons on someone.
There are studies out there that say women in porn are happier and more liberated because they are allowed to act out their fantasies.
And I am sure they are credible.
So…they’re out there in the infinite universe? Like the other side of a black hole? The dark side of the moon? K.
Where Rutger is running their brothel full of trafficked women!
The same place yours are.
I resent the idea that porn is coercive. I film porn and the women make good money. More than the men. Everybody has a good time. Stop making this a federal crime
Coercive? Probably not. Porn is not prostitution either.
Porn devalues a human being by turning a person into an object of gratification.
I am happy that a pimp and sex trafficker resents what I have typed.
👏🏼🤣
Yeah that was not bait for you to say something dumb.
You don’t need bait for that! 😊
I’m female. I like non violent porn and love to watch it before or after a sexual encounter. Keeps the dopamine levels high 😁😁
so what ?
I read Gender Studies and Postmodernist-inspired pieces like this and wonder, what planet are these people from? Seriously. Because the planet I’m on does not teach that sadistic abuse is behavior to be emulated. Earth culture is not “permeated” with the idea that the porn industry is “benevolent”. Porn producers are sleazy in the extreme. On Planet Earth we do not teach men to exercise “a power imbalance over a person [presumably women] and force them to do what you want”
On Planet Earth, we’re taught to treat people as we ourselves would like to be treated. This “men are taught to lord it over women” stuff- what a load of baloney.
As for Dr. Paul Wright of Indiana University, with his theory that violent porn and incest porn are something new, perhaps he should read Marquis deSade’s “Justine”, or “The Story of O” (written, incidentally, by a woman) with its whippings and bondage. This stuff was not an invention of the Internet Age.
And he calls himself an academic. An expert. Maybe he should open a book.
And no, porn does not cause mass shootings. What an absurd idea!
But again, this stuff isn’t about the actual world. It’s Theory informing Grievance Studies.
It’s unhinged from reality.
In reality, porn has always been around. It’s on Ancient Greek black figure pottery. Pan with a hard on, chasing maidens. Athletes with hard ons chasing other athletes with hard ons.
Some porn is funny and clever. Most of it is icky and gross. It’s always been around and hasn’t yet led to the demise of civilization, despite the alarms of the anti-porn crusaders, who regard it as a cancer when it’s more like an embarrassing rash.
Yet you have here people defending it. Right now you have a man with millions of followers, including many children on tik tok (who are being targeted by this character), who run warehouses full of cam girls in Romania and explicitly talks about how you need to dominate women. You haven’t googled Andrew Tate yet have you?
Next, you have introduced one person from hundreds of years ago, in a time when most people weren’t even literate. He was also incarcerated in an insane asylum for 32 years for his behavior/theories. Good job you really proved your point there!
Regarding drawn images of lust and sex…nobody has said anything different about that. I have no problem with art, nor drawn images of sex, and it’s always existed. That is not the porn of today that involves real people.
I’ll say it again, you’re an armchair expert with delusions of intellect. Remember when you said you know better about what happened to Liz Bazzani than the people who knew her personally and who lived in the cult themselves? Remember the way you insulted the people who hugged her, made dinner with her, laughed with her, lived with her? You called us tv-dinner conspiracists in a stunning level of projection. I’d think it was an intentional joke on your part, but I know it’s not. It’s stunningly pathetic.
Well said Aristotle, salient points debunking this neurotic claptrap
Don’t women do the majority of watched porn? Don’t the majority of women have the choice to do it or not?
Seems easy to me. Women should have some self respect not to choose to do porn.
The only statistics I have seen involve money. That is, men spend far more than women.
And yes, have some self respect. And if you are around a bunch of perverts, go make new friends.
Men spend far more than women because the product caters to them. This means that if there was no product, there would be nothing to buy. And the only way there would be no product to purchase is if women who are the majority of porn actors that are paid for and watched stopped doing it (yes, I know gay porn exists but the audience span is much less). Therefore, the point sill stands — women control its destiny. The author seems to want to blame men, but it takes two to tango. If the women who voluntarily participated gained some self respect and stopped doing it, then there would be much less of it.
How can you gain self respect if the culture indoctrinates you from birth not to have any? And the industry also teaches boys to have no self-respect, and teaches boys and men to collectively dehumanize women. And no, the entire industry would not exist if instead of asking women to sell their bodies to keep a roof over their head or feed their children (which the vast majority of prostituted women only do this because of poverty), we just instead, fed them and paid their rent i.e. prevented them from falling through the cracks in the first place.
We need to also feed and pay the men’s rent so they aren’t forced to become pimps.
Take the men away and you lose the argument that men are the drivers of ruin and put a monkey wrench into the gender divide. One has to blame the other. Witness the rich ugly duckling sitting in prison now after having wasted/squandered a fortune over Keith Raniere.
Blaming someone else is always in vogue even when your ruining your own life or squandering your own fortune. Barbara Hutton and Doris Duke come to mind.
Message to Nicki Clyne!
Do Not Return to Canada!
Euthanasia Has Become Leading Cause Of Death In Canada, Canada Becomes Culling Humans
I just googled Hanasia, thought it was a new virus. Turns out the caption was blown large. Phew, it’s euthanasia not some new Hanasia crap.
hahahahhaha
Didn’t even make the top ten causes of death in Canada https://www.finder.com/ca/what-are-the-top-10-causes-of-death-in-canada#the-10-leading-causes-of-death-in-canada
Made up bullshit that can be fact-checked in three seconds is not very convincing.
Seriously Shadow, you reckon Nicki wants to top herself?
Let’s visit Joe Biden.
Opiates and Dementia are not a Good Mix
https://youtube.com/shorts/2xfo2KgUpwc?feature=share
Shadow what explains you? Your posts are totally irrelevant to the subject matter. You are so starved for attention.
Correction: Esquire Magazine should be Maxim Magazine. The link to the quote is below in the article. Thanks.
I think most reasonable people would probably agree that Nicki Clyne and Ruth Graham stand firmly to the right on politcal discourse. For example, neither of them would be big fans of wokism or cancel culture, both fervent defenders of the 1st and 2nd amendments, but both may well countenance an entire suspension of the Constitution to keep the liberal left out of power.
Both were members of cults for long periods, but whereas one stayed completely loyal, the other completely rebelled. Same brains, opposite reaction – collapse of the quantum wave function: in another universe Nicki is campaigning for the introduction of the death penalty for predatory pedophiles like Raniere; Ruth has transgendered to a man (they, them) and is running an illegal brothel full of trafficked women.
So when it comes to the differences between the sexes, Ruth is Nicki’s complete alter-ego. For one of them, the sub-atomic particles relating to understanding the differences between the sexes are made up entirely of anti-matter: in both cases it’s blatant sexism, but at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Nicki – women are nearly always at fault, men hardly ever are
Ruth – men are nearly always at fault, women hardly ever are
Nicki – women are hardly ever victims, men are rarely abusers
Ruth – women are often victims, men are often abusers
Nicki – men are intrinsically strong and noble, women weak and self-entitled
Ruth – men are intrinsically weak and immoral, women are strong and selfless
Nicki – when women claim rape, it’s almost certain the man is innocent
Ruth – when women claim rape, it’s almost certain the man is guilty (if the woman is a prostitute, the man is still guilty of rape, even if the woman doesn’t claim anything!)
Maybe the reason they both show such antipathy towards transphobic wokism (Oh, the power of the pronoun!) is that it fucks so much with their radical positions on gender.
Not sure if all FR readers are familiar with the Swami side of the Frank Report, but I came across this little gem by chance:
“5 Ashram Members Attack Ruth on Being Jesse’s Victim” Sept 10, 2022
The arguments 5 critics make against little Miss Priss are as follows:
Ruth did not disclose that Jesse Sweeney was once her boyfriend (OK…)
Ruth owns a rifle (yeah, a semi-automatic like those ones incels use to shoot up school kids – classy)
Ruth is not transgender friendly (Quelle surprise…another thing in common with Sanchez Manning!)
Ruth is polyamorous (that’s fine cos she didn’t pay for it, forget about fidelity)
Critic 2 asks: “Is she stable enough to have any gun, let alone a SEMI- AUTOMATIC GUN???”
Ruth: “I drove legally with my rifle. I carried it legally. The parts you must register with the government are 100% legally registered and US made.”
Begs the question what about parts you don’t legally need to register, and where the hell they came from – Iran? North Korea? The Russian Federation? Imagine the sales pitch – “zis vun eazy kill many men in brothel”. Later, in response to a comment from Aristotle, it transpires it was an AR, though Ruth claims “Its a safer gun, most people don’t know this.” Yes, Ruth, really safe – except for the kids, cops, black folks and other innocents on the receiving end of it.
Critic 3 outlines a story about Ruth sleeping around with a married man (better a slag than a John). Ruth seems to have once been a friend of Critic 3, though isn’t 100% sure it’s her. She politely retorts: “When you were an escort, how much were you paid to sleep with married men, not caring if their wives knew?” Oh, but Ruthy, because she was a prostitute, would you not agree that your poor friend was therefore a rape victim, and that evil man who paid her for sex was just a despicable rapist?? Can’t have your cake and eat it, babe…
She goes on to ask Critic 3: “Didn’t you confess to me that you sent naked pictures to a 14 year old boy a few years ago?” Wow, Ruth, you really should be 100% sure of that person’s identity, quite a confidence to break! You must have been rightly shocked at the time of that confession! Still, it was pornography sent to a child, so maybe you thought that wasn’t as bad as pornography viewed by people in Utah. Whatever, guess that friendship’s over now then?
Critic 5 asserts a previous article by Ruth was “riddled with inaccurate intel” (sound familiar?) and that Jesse (Ruth’s first boyfriend) dumped her.
To critic 5 she replies: “I was 19. Jesse was significantly older. But which one of us was the drug addict caught sleeping with prostitutes?” Her strong aversion to people taking drugs and sleeping with prostitutes likely emanates from this primordial betrayal – the first cut is often the deepest so they say.
I just hope Ruth and Nicki never meet up. When matter and anti-matter collide, 100% of their mass is converted to pure energy in a nano-second, enough destructive power to vaporize the entire planet, though maybe not quite enough for Ruth or Nicki to cop themselves on.
“Ruth has transgendered to a man (they, them) and is running an illegal brothel full of trafficked women.”
What are you talking about? Are you okay?
Another firehose of falsehoods statement from Rock again…
The false dilemma here (that one is either a Nicki or a Ruth) is also some kind of next level infantile thinking, and I’m sorry but, you need help honey.
The effort you made into this is frankly disturbing.
You are clearly attempting to give your straw man’s legitimacy via this false binary imposition. ( I see it like you made little straw dolls of us, it really is that childish.)
Four times you said “Ruth – [insert reductive bullshit that I never even said]”
You will never be able to actually quote me on any of the things you claim are my positions. Because you know, and I know, that they are false.
You are one angry MGTOW/MRA with a seriously overactive imagination. I wish I had your actual name and a picture of you so I could see what I’m dealing with, and laugh at it more than I already am. Just saying.
Well, the motives for this im not exactly sure what they’re are about, tbh, but I think it does have to do with some deep seated hatred of women. Especially women who are vocal with their opinions.
So let’s continue…
You say:
“Begs the question what about parts you don’t legally need to register.”
Why? Why does that beg the question? This is so ignorant.
This is like saying we must ask why I haven’t registered the hubcap of my vehicle, or the oil, or the tire rather than the vehicle frame itself (with the vin#, you know, the part that is registered with my name at the DMV?). Are you okay in the head? The lower of a gun is the only part that actually fires. Without it, there is no gun. Just like I can’t drive a car with just a tire or just a windshield wiper.
You are 100% legally allowed to buy scopes, uppers, sights etc from all over the world. And yes, you can also buy guns from overseas however, you must also bring them through the same registration process as you do here in the states, and online orders will not ship at all without you registering the delivery address with an ATF registered firearms dealer (who runs the background check).
So no, ya jabroni, I didn’t get any parts from North Korea or Iran (are you stupid?!), those places have embargos on them, making that illegal. Why even? Like why? Can you give me any reason why I would go through that much effort? And can you show me a place anywhere where I can do that? Like I don’t even know where to start where I would not immediately have the CIA/ATF/FBI at my door.
I think I may have gotten ammo manufactured in Israel (through a gun store) once. It’s all long been used up. They make great ammo. Is this a problem for you? Legally imported, legally purchased.
All the rest of my parts were US made (although I’m not entirely sure all aspects of the manufacturing occurred in the states, I might have a magazine that was made in china – haven’t checked. It’s made of plastic, lot’s of plastic is manufactured in china…is this a problem for you too?)
” Yes, Ruth, really safe – except for the kids, cops, black folks and other innocents on the receiving end of it.”
“It” what? The gun fires itself? Is it like a wild beast I have to keep locked in the basement or else it will get out and start floating around, killing people on it’s own in the dead of night? Please do warn me if that’s the case. Who knows, my guns might have murdered people behind my back and I need to report that to the police immediately!
(eyeroll.)
Can you tell me what type of gun is involved in the homicides of black people and homicides in general again? Which guns actually kill cops in the vast majority? Which ones end up with dead kids the most? Not the AR, honey. Please, just stop embarrassing yourself. Notice, again, you have nothing but hyperbole. It’s tragic how people don’t understand basic critical thinking and yet, they have such a determined, hateful hard on for people who have reached actually logical conclusions which challenge their own, (who perhaps happen to have female anatomy? Like I said, it’s clear you have issue not just with me but with other outspoken women who have different (not opposite, but different enough) views, like Nicki.)
The statement “the first cut is the deepest” is also a patented attempt to bring up the “spurned woman” trope and we should all see it for what it is – attempt to cast aspersions (attack the character) and distract from the reality of the situation. You have issues with women, and it’s clear. The very fact you had to call me a misandrist for speaking about the realities of BDSM, porn and prostitution means your masculinity is indeed, incredibly insecure and tightly tied up with those aspects of hurting and dominating women.
We must ask then also why you must defend a person who’s behavior was categorically immoral (on it’s face) while attacking a persons character (mine) in a cartoonishly fantastical manner. You have to defend something that is clearly not only illegal in the state of Oregon (prostitution is illegal!), but worldwide a source of tragedy and pain for millions of people (you would be lying like Trump to say the opposite. Just like war, prostitution beings pain to the vast majority of people who are prostituted. Sure, you can say some people enjoyed war, and some people enjoyed being escorts, but that is statistical noise. A non-argument. )
Why also would you be believing anonymous critics, rather than a person who has come forward with their name? It has nothing to do with truth. It is personal for you and seems to do with your issues with women.
No, Jesse didn’t “dump” me. I dumped him (you know, I stopped having sex with him, this is usually called “not being a girlfriend anymore” by most people’s assertions.) Again, I think this has to do more with personal issues you have with me (and with women), not with logic.
Let’s state again: Jesse Sweeney was caught with a prostitute and doing meth in front of the Movement Center. This occurred long after I was gone from there (it wasn’t even relayed to me until recently, as a confirmation of him being a POS) and even waaaay waaay longer after I was no longer his girlfriend.
Yet, he continued(continues?) to be platformed by the Shoemaker cult, as a model yoga teacher trainer and personal trainer. Instead of removing him from his position as he should have been. So, this is part of the puzzle of that place knowingly platforming criminals as family safe persons, and safe for women and children, in a “spiritual community.”
The only reason you have to attack it as a personal thing with me is it’s part of your irrational self. It’s part of your actual misogyny. If I was a man saying these things about a woman, I bet you would consider me a hero, somebody finally standing up for “hurt men everywhere” and a “system that let’s women get away with it.”
Show us your name and face, “Rock”. <3
LMFAO!!!
I have to agree with rock though it is hypocritical the way that you called out Jessica Becker for being an escort whereas you now say all prostitutes are victims who are raped even when they appear on the surface to consent.
I never called out becker for being an escort. That is a false claim she made about me, part of her nonsense.
But let’s not forget that the majority of child abusers are women.
Here is the U.S. statistic:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/418470/number-of-perpetrators-in-child-abuse-cases-in-the-us-by-sex/
Excellent point. Especially female teachers
The US is the world? I would like to see how that data was obtained
>96 percent of people who sexually abuse children are male
https://www.ywca.org/wp-content/uploads/WWV-CSA-Fact-Sheet-Final.pdf
>Of the 66,765 substantiated child sexual abuse cases, 13,492, or 20.9%, had females as the primary perpetrator. In 19.9% of the confirmed cases, male perpetrators offended male victims, compared to 80.5% of the cases where male perpetrators offended female victims.
https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/77037#:~:text=Of%20the%2066%2C765%20substantiated%20child,male%20perpetrators%20offended%20female%20victims.
>Data from the 2000 National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) show that while males make up about nine out of every 10 adult sexual assault perpetrators, totaling about 26,878 incidents within the reporting period, females account for about one out of 10 perpetrators, totaling about 1,162 incidents.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16354646/
so you only care about sexual abuse? Strange.
This is about something else, probably personal.
Hey dipshit, nothing strange.
She’s choosing to focus on one form/part of abuse.
Get’a life troll!
Right, and I chose to widen the scope to show women are abusers too.
Nice straw man. Low effort and a wide, damning accusation with just one sentence. The topic is sex abuse. Are you asking for me to speak about everything at all times all the time or else I don’t care? Lol.
The person above is misrepresenting the data, conflating child sex abuse with all manners abuse. So me correcting that misleading data means I don’t care? LOL
BTW,
It makes sense, since most women are caretakers (custodial) of children to this day (still), that more mothers would be accused or reported to CPS for alleged neglect/abuse. They’re present to give care in the first place.
Shocking it’s not a larger majority though. Given that women are still the primary caregivers of all children and dependents (elderly people too) by a huge majority.
https://www.caregiving.com/posts/women-and-caregiving-2021
So it actually shows that men are still more likely to be abusers as a percentage of their smaller cohort of primary caregivers. Do you understand what I’m saying? Or is it too complicated?
“Do you understand what I’m saying? Or is it too complicated?”
Condescending people are an unfortunate combination of pompous and insecure. You fit the bill perfectly, Ruth. And that’s not a good thing.
I doubt facts matter to you at all, unless they are convenient.
Here’s how the data was obtained:
“Based on State submissions to National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) of alleged child abuse and neglect. NCANDS collects case level data on children who received child protective services response in the form of an investigative or alternative response. […] Child abuse is defined as any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk or serious harm.”
“alleged” is not proven
Some time ago….
I’d say, “any man who claims he never looked at playboy cranked is a liar.” Now I say, “any man who claims not to have jerked to internet porn is a liar or a eunuch.
In prison men pay, prison artists, to draw naked women.
Nothing is changing anytime soon.
If you say so.