Everyone agrees that condoms protect against unwanted pregnancy, and against transmission of disease.
A condom is not proof against these, but it is protection.
Now, since protection is better than no protection, it is better to wear a condom that to not wear a condom.
With me so far?
Well how about being told that the teacher in the class wears a condom while teaching, the surgeon wears a condom while operating, the school bus driver wears a condom while driving.
Don’t like that idea?
Why not? It is simply about an added layer of protection.
So, you don’t like it because the teacher, surgeon and bus driver should not be having sexual thoughts, fine, but it is completely ridiculous to suggest that the teacher, surgeon and bus driver will be unaware of the sexual nature of those under their care.
Let’s replace “condom” with “CRB check” (Criminal Records Bureau) which we have here in the UK for just about anyone and everyone, including bloody taxi drivers and old ladies doing the altar flower arrangements.
It’s all about “protection“, right? So more protection is better than less or none, right? But it is completely ridiculous to suggest that just because the teacher, surgeon and bus driver have passed a CRB check, they are suddenly unaware of the sexual nature of those under their care.
Just as a condom is not proof against infection or pregnancy, a CRB check is not proof against inappropriate sexual contact.
However, while a condom is indisputably a significant level of protection against infection or pregnancy, a CRB check is not indisputably a significant level of protection against inappropriate sexual contact, in fact if we look at the numbers it hasn’t made a blind bit of difference.
So why is a CRB check “appropriate” and the wearing of a condom “inappropriate” in all the above examples?
From the US perspective this is like saying why is TSA “appropriate” but only allowing Christians on board planes “inappropriate“? If the stated goal is to stop (Muslim) terrorists boarding planes?
Like the condom vs CRB check, neither one is going to stop the bad person, or indeed the weak person, from abusing their position of trust as a teacher, surgeon or bus driver, and indulging in inappropriate sexual contact with those in their care.
Neither the TSA nor a ban on all non Christians boarding planes is going to stop the bad person from boarding a plane….
Here is a newsflash, MOST people are decent, for most people it is true to say that the reason they do not indulge in inappropriate sexual contact with those in their care, or hijack planes, or rob banks, or burgle houses, has nothing whatsoever to do with legally imposed sanctions such as a trial and imprisonment, but is entirely based upon their own internal moral compass, if you abolished all the above laws and the legal sanctions applied, these people would still not indulge in these sociopathic acts.
The sociopaths, for their part, who form the staple recidivist community that habitually does these things, is not deterred one iota by detection and imprisonment, to them it is just the cost of doing business.
To be sure, there are a few who fall in between these groups, we can call this group the “assholes”, most of whom will be late teens / early twenties and with no real malice, just not grown up yet.
Where we get really fucked is what follows next.
Those who make policy, whether they be complete nutters who work for the Rand Corporation and who become the subject of crap films like The Beautiful Mind, or whether they be court appointed psychologists in secret family court cases, are all fucking sociopaths too….
So you see the problem here, because these policy makers and policy enacters and enforcers are themselves fucking sociopaths, they simply cannot understand the possibility that there are people, such as myself, who have no interest in fucking their own flesh and blood children up the ass from age six months onwards, not because we are afraid of the consequences of detection, prosecution and punishment, but because our moral compass finds the very idea fucking abhorrent and WRONG.
To them, the only thing that stops me fucking my own kids up the ass is people like them, and in the interest (from their world view) of protecting my own kids from me, I must be separated from them on pain of imprisonment.
I have alluded elsewhere to this being tantamount to “thought crime” a la Minority Report etc, it is, but the crime being thought, the “pre-crime” does not exist in the mind of the man accused.
IT EXISTS SOLELY IN THE MIND OF THE ACCUSER.
In this case I do not merely mean my psycho skank ho ex, I mean the skank ho child safety psychiatrist, skank ho child safety psychologist, skank ho child safety agency workers, skank ho lawyers working for the ex, etc etc etc
It is of course completely fucking futile trying to persuade these psycho cunts they are wrong, and that they are the ones with the mental illness.
Which is again why impending financial and economic ruin of the state will be our saviour and salvation.
Psychopaths and sociopaths are not productive. They become too expensive as soon as the state becomes broke.
Wimminz - celebrating skank ho's everywhere 
Very nice, i thought i was the only one who realized that people who REALLY WANT to be terrorists WILL FIND A FUCKING WAY in spite of dumb regulations that only bother the HONEST people.
But hey, at least this way the government can pretend they’re doing something useful and use the whole thing for political credit.
Good job, terrorists, great success.
Comment by dumbgoon — July 25, 2011 @ 3:24 pm
thanks
Comment by wimminz — July 25, 2011 @ 3:26 pm
A good example of this is that I have seen reputable stats, mainly from the United States, that show that police officers are far more likely to commit rapes and sexual offenses than the general population (while the rate of offending for other types of crime is more similar for police officers and the general population). When you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Rape is symbolic of what police do. As a crime, rape is about violating someone else’s privacy or integrity, about imposing oneself on another. That is largely what police do in the rest of their work. They harass people, invade people’s privacy, violate their rights, inject themselves into situations where they are not needed (basically sticking their dicks in where they are not wanted). They extract bribes from drug dealers, pimps and prostitutes (i.e. they take what they want by force). It stands to reason that the kind of personality profile who is attracted to that type of job is the type of person who would have fewer moral misgivings about forcing themselves on an unwilling woman. And the mantra of cops dealing out gratuitous violence is invariably “stop resisting”, precisely what a rapist would say!
And yet it is the police who are often so willing to destroy the lives of innocent men falsely accused of rape, child sexual abuse, DV etc. Why? Part of it is simply that they project their own failings onto others, and judge others by their own standards. Because a lot of cops are shitbags and glorified criminals, they naturally assume that every other man they come across is also a shitbag who operates according to the same moral compass that they do. They tend to be paranoid and assume that a larger section of the public are likely offenders who need to be controlled. They look at any situation and consider what they would do in that situation, and then project that onto others based on their own baser instincts. No doubt many cops see their role, particularly the kind of ‘white knighting’ and protecting women, as almost a kind of moral redemption. If they make enough human sacrifices of their fellow men, perhaps their sins will be absolved. As they say, hypocrisy is the deference vice pays to virtue.
Police also tend to see themselves as the alpha males on the patch, the women as their harem, while the rest of the civilian male population are basically competition for the available pussy to be fought and eliminated. This is the mindset of a primitive, neanderthal male. It is not unknown for police to turn up to a domestic dispute or some such, beat the crap out of the man, and then hit on the woman.
Comment by Nick S — July 26, 2011 @ 2:36 pm
All true, sadly…
Comment by wimminz — July 26, 2011 @ 6:58 pm
«because these policy makers and policy enacters and enforcers are themselves fucking sociopaths»
Perhaps, but they get the votes. It is not a conspiracy by the elites, it is that corrupt voters are always ready to elect those who promise laws that give an extra minuscule bit of extra safety. The logic of most voters is “better safe than sorry, at any cost (as long as someone else pays that cost)”.
«there are people, such as myself, who have no interest in fucking their own flesh and blood children up the ass from age six months onwards»
Sure, but statistics and stories say that most abuse (not just children sexual abuse) is done by close relatives and other people close and in a position of authority over the abused (often mothers in the case of children) more than the largely mythical strangers who are molesters.
However, the big deal is proof-by-allegation, which is the standard used in cases like this, again because better-safe-than-sorry, at somebody else’s expense. Because the people involved don’t want to risk their career by running a risk with a newsworthy angle.
Comment by Blissex — August 9, 2011 @ 11:02 am
“However, the big deal is proof-by-allegation,”
Just so…
Comment by wimminz — August 9, 2011 @ 11:53 am