The legal serfs

“The answer to that dilemma is simple. The system can be used for our overall benefit. The bad guys have taken control of it and they are quite deliberately using it for their benefit at our expense. They are using it to fine us excessively and needlessly to feed their greed, to tax and persecute us; keeping us on a tread mill of servitude and making our lives a misery in the process. We have a right to take the benefits and reject the liabilities when the balance has been distorted to our detriment – which clearly it is.”

“We, the British people have right to govern ourselves, we have a natural instinct to want to preserve our sovereignty and our independence… but we have been lulled into thinking that we need the permission of a powerful elite to secure it… we do not.”

Which laws kept marriages intact?

It is easy to say the modern legal system is unfair, unjust and the various issues with it are causing the social breakdown we know too well. Here are some of the laws which kept the sexes in line, and marriage thereafter. Their loss has caused recognisable problems.

To avoid players or lying cads promising marriage to good women

To prevent gossip by competition, especially where truthful

To prevent bitter rivals (possibly male) or spinsters dissolving a union once made

To promote emotional intimacy and the ‘dependency paradox’ vital for a permanent relationship

The spouse should become the centre but not the whole Universe. Family business and home matters don’t leak to outsiders who twist the knife while things are down (natural ups and downs) and never let a good time go without passive-aggression.

Includes land law in

For an obligation of honesty going into marriage – “freely offered” – they know what they’re getting into

Prenuptial agreements should be legally binding I really don’t see the point otherwise. It misrepresents the litigant as not a gold-digger and then they can turn around and say “it doesn’t count, I didn’t mean it”?

This is widely applicable from many parties and SJWs do this for monstering, bring it back with criminal libel

Most vital of all, this ensures sexual fidelity in BOTH parties as agreed in their vows, reduces cuckoldry to nil and guarantees financial support between parties (not paid out to mistresses or bastard children).

The tort of criminal conversation seeks damages for the act of sexual intercourse outside marriage, between the spouse and a third party. Each act of adultery can give rise to a separate claim for criminal conversation.

This values the commitment. Dollar value. Bring it back.

It’s a matter of time until the feminists bring back

for men who lie to get sex (like, all 99.999% of them).

Protection from adultery is the crucial means of safeguarding marriage for future generations. Without this, what is the point? Nobody forces you to make a commitment in this century, the choice should have legal weight on both sides. The K-types care about marriage and must protect their mating strategy from predatory r-types, either as their spouse or the cheating third party. Marriage must be inoculated from the ravishes of the sexual marketplace.


In defence of ‘revenge porn’

Logic on the subject.

To ban revenge porn means restricting someone’s ability to do as they wish with their intellectual property.

Minors? We have laws for that. Whatever happened to consenting adults? Are these feminists saying ALL women have NO permanent agency? – then how can they be treated as adults? [they would lack what’s called Gillick competence btw, the State would own them!]

Note it only in practice works on women – what about dick pics? What if, instead of sharing them, this included showing said pictures to your girlfriends because OMG isn’t it hilarious?

Reckless disregard for personal responsibility, naivety, malice and phone cameras have brought us to a tipping point where people no longer feel able to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Where is the objective line between art and porn? [clue: it doesn’t exist]

The problem is very obvious, a policy of sending people to prison for causing emotional distress will entail building a lot of prisons.

That isn’t a condition, unless you mean the human condition. SJWs cause a great deal of distress themselves.

In effect these laws are regulating the consequences of stupid decisions made by adults, making it the job of the courts to scrub clean unwise choices.

You take a picture, you send a picture, your fault. [men and women] Exception: theft, which we already have laws for. This would be impossible to enforce, given the file-sharing nature of the internet and smartphones.

At the heart of the movement to outlaw revenge porn lies a rather odd premise: that consent can be withdrawn retrospectively. If that sounds familiar, it should be. There’s an increasing number of young men who have had their lives destroyed by university discipline panels, because a woman felt different about her decision to have sex in retrospect.

… The idea that the state should step in because your feelings have been hurt is objectionable and counterproductive. …A generation of people who grew up with the mantra of living in the moment are suddenly realising that their actions have consequences. But government intervention is not the solution to stupidity and recklessness.