Yes, the Vikings sacrificed children

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2014/12/02/child_sacrifice_and_other_viking_activities_108967.html#!

“In the wells they found bone remnants of five people — four of them were small children aged 4 to 7.”

and sold their ‘fellow whites’ to the Asians as slaves

https://historyofyesterday.com/medieval-slave-trade-410725bf9ffe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_during_the_Viking_Age

Many slaves were sold to the Arab Caliphate because of the high demand. Many European Christians and Pagans were sold to them by the Vikings.”

and they raped nuns, some of whom were children too (see below)

anyone looking up to such murderers, rapists, thieves and traitors is an idiot.
There was no noble Pagan, it was a cult of rape and child murder. This is why God ended their ‘culture’.
Same with Germany: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6668080/germany-stonehenge-human-sacrifices/

Then again they’re still denying the Red Army rapes so

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3818311/Forgotten-story-Polish-nuns-gang-raped-pregnant-advancing-Soviet-troops-cared-French-female-doctor-revealed-time-70-years.html

Don’t hold your breath.

The Bible says not to suffer child murderers to live. Don’t glorify them in media bullshit.

https://english.alarabiya.net/features/2018/03/11/PICTURES-The-largest-mass-rape-in-history

Between the months of January and August of 1945, Germany saw the largest incident of mass rape known in history, where an estimated two million German women were raped by the Soviet Red Army soldiers, as written by Walter Zapotoczny Jr. in his book, ‘Beyond Duty: The Reason Some Soldiers Commit Atrocities’.

Between the months of April and May, the German capital Berlin saw more than 100,000 rape cases according to hospital reports, while East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia saw more than 1.4 million rape cases.

Hospital reports also stated that abortion operations were being carried out daily across all German hospitals.

Natalya Gesse, who was a Soviet war correspondent at the time, said that the Soviets didn’t care about the ages of their victims. “The Russian soldiers were raping every German female from eight to eighty. It was an army of rapists,” she said.

This caused the deaths of no less than 200,000 girls and women due to the spread of diseases, especially that many eyewitnesses recounted victims being raped as much as 70 times in that period.

They can also die of heart attack from the stress or bleeding out from injuries. This happened to a teenage girl in the stadium during Katrina. This is why women consider rape worse than murder because it’s like murder with extra steps. If you survive, the prize is often infertility and lifelong trauma.

Red Army soldiers would mass rape German women as a kind of revenge against their enemy: The German army. They felt that it was their earned right to do so as the German army had ‘violated’ their motherland by invading it. In addition to not being in contact with women for long periods causing their animal instinct to be heightened.

No, they were Satanists. That’s why they also targeted virgin adults and children.

“Our fellows were so sex-starved,” a Soviet major told a British journalist at the time, “that they often raped old women of sixty, seventy or even eighty – much to these grandmothers’ surprise, if not downright delight.”

blue balls does not exist, you have hands
also, by definition nobody wants to be raped

and little boys have holes too, which is never mentioned
I find it hard to believe they raped no little boys

In his book, Zapotoczny said that even female Russian soldiers did not disapprove of the rapes, some finding it amusing.

Because they were Satanists.

In 1948, rape cases decreased vastly after Soviet troops were ordered back to their camps in Russia and left residential areas in Germany.

And nothing was ever done. When feminists speak of rape culture, sometimes they have a point. Those pinkos should be swinging. There is no excuse to act like an animal. Boys will be boys isn’t a real historical phrase, it was translated as children will be children. Sowing wild oats myths lead to this sexual emergency bullshit. Enabling rapists is a sign your country abandoned God long beforehand.

You can tell the Vikings were rapists because the PC MSM is calling them model immigrants now:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-vikings-it-wasn-t-all-raping-and-pillaging-1643969.html

It was recorded but people try to say it was a metaphor despite literally moving them because of raids.

http://atheistscholar.org/Christianity/SexinMedievalConvents.aspx

Quoted in full:

Introduction- The differing viewpoints of scholars about the motives for nuns entering convents and the nuns’ conduct in those nunneries during the Medieval Era-

One viewpoint concerning the early Middle Ages argues that consecrated women in convents prized virginity more than life-

Discussion of whether the tales of medieval nuns defacing themselves to avoid rape were literally true or hagiographic exemplars-

Women who remained virgins were given the Church’s highest regard- they were considered to be elevated to men’s status-

Becoming a nun was also an honorable way to avoid marriage and dangerous childbirth- for some it was a way to obtain an education-

Nuns with strong characters could become prioresses and attain power-

Convents were supposed to be havens of safety for women but the times were violent-

The nobility made attacks on convents but the worst attacks were made by Vikings, Magyars and Saracens-

Strong laws were passed, making the rape of a nun more serious than the rape of other women- discussion concerning the laws- [we call that a hate crime]

Numbers of convents moved inside city walls for safety– a discussion of the raids made on convents during the early Medieval era and the making of more English martyrs-

Convents often burned by invaders in the 9th and 10th Centuries with the nuns inside burned alive

Several accounts of nuns cutting off their noses and sometimes their upper lip during the early Middle Ages to keep invaders from raping them- the nuns were able to die with their virginity intact-

It is not known if the chronicles which reported these stories are true- a discussion of the cases in those chronicles-

An extended discussion of more devices used by women to avoid marriage and keep their virginity-

Nunneries in the later Medieval Era and the question of nuns’ sexual transgressions and breaking their vows of celibacy-

The reliable accounts of women leaving their convents, living with lovers and being brought back- some nuns fled several times- a focus on English nunneries-

The sources that provide records of nuns’ sexual transgressions and breaking vows of virginity and celibacy- literature of the time, general statements from Church councils and the most reliable source- Bishops’ Registers-

There was an active minority of nuns who did not keep their vows-

The Catholic Church was sex-negative- celibacy was difficult for people who had a religious vocation- many nuns did not- the clerics and chaplains eager to have sexual relations with nuns- most cases of sexual transgressions point to clerics-

Many nuns who kept their vows of celibacy were afflicted with psychological disturbances-

Many nuns had freedom to come and go from their convents- they were exposed to the temptations of the outer world- visitors came and went freely- the outside world did not prize virginity as much as the Church-

Many nuns were accepted into convents because their wealthy families donated a large sum of money when the women entered the nunnery- many English convents were in need of money-

A discussion of nuns who left their convent and vows- specific cases of transgressing nuns and the attempts of the Church to bring them back and give them ‘penances’-

An extended discussion of the Church and State coalescing in forcing nuns to return to their convents-

Convents in the 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries- emphasis on Italian and French monasteries-

Clerics continued to be nuns’ lovers, but now a group of fashionable young men, called ‘monachini’, courted nuns-

Many nuns in convents ignored other nuns’ affairs or helped them to try to avoid a public scandal-

Children born to straying nuns- death rate of all children was high but illegitimate children who lived were not considered with dishonor in that era- priests and some nuns willed money to their illegitimate children-

During the Renaissance, family wealth patrilineal, passed from father to son- daughters took the wealth out of families because they needed dowries which moved money to their husbands’ families-

Parents who tried to retain wealth in their families often sent young daughters to convents to become nuns-

An extended discussion about the fact that such wealthy young women were unwilling to become nuns and had no vocation- no motivation to remain virgins or keep vows of celibacy-

Statistics which prove most of the city convents of Europe housed mainly young women and a few widows from wealthy and noble families- the amount of the donations given by the families- an extended discussion-

An extended discussion of the use of luxurious living in Renaissance convents and lack of rules for the nuns- public outrage at the sexual freedom of the convents– specific accusations against certain convents in the 1400’s and 1500’s- statistics concerning particulars of court cases brought involving sexual transgressions-

An extended discussion of the inhumane system that imprisoned unwilling young women in convents- how some nuns received an excellent education and were able to voice their discontents in their writings- specific authors discussed-

Critiques of the system by male authors and some prelates-

The convents in Northern Europe began to be closed as the Protestant Reformation gained hegemony-

The Catholic Church also tried to conduct some reforms- fathers were urged to leave wealth to daughters as well as sons-

Conclusion- How the Church still represses its nuns in the present day and its attempts to do away with birth control and abortion-

TEXT

References to the books and articles cited in this talk may be found at the end of the written lecture in the Bibliography at AtheistScholar.org.

The history of celibacy and the Christian religion, most specifically the Catholic faith, is well known.  Christianity is a sex negative religion.  But when historians write about sex, celibacy and the convents of the Medieval Era, several different viewpoints emerge, viewpoints which seem to be conflicting in many aspects.  The history of women in convents during the Middle Ages appears to consist of different perspectives about nuns’ reasons for entering religious retreats and their conduct after they had taken vows of celibacy.  I do not believe some of the scholars who write from different frames of reference about women and the convents are wrong.  There is not one answer, but rather varied historical perspectives.  Therefore I have decided to discuss the most salient approaches and then try to reconcile the contradictions by arriving at a middle point.

The first argument, that women prized their virginity to the point of committing self-mutilation when it was threatened, is the most contested one.  Most of the narratives about the heroic defense of virginity by monastic women have come down to us from the early Middle Ages. The most pressing question for the contemporary historian is whether the tales are historically true. There are scholars who argue that the stories narrating the defense of virginity were not literally true. Those experts believe the stories are fictive exemplars meant to inspire women with the desire to guard their virginity at all costs.  [scholars, huh?]

Other researchers argue that the tales had a hagiographic intent- to elevate the saintly women and demonstrate their heroic character. Hagiographies may be defined as idealizing biographies of saints’ lives. Still other writers state that some of the narratives might be literally true. [they were]

Women had different motives for entering convents in the early Middle Ages and later. If you recall from previous lectures at AtheistScholar.org, women who remained virgins were considered superior to those who embraced marriage and child-bearing. Virgins were believed to have elevated themselves to spiritual equality with men.  The Church Father, Jerome (347-420 CE), told virginal women that they had become men. Men were considered superior to women and Jerome believed he was paying virgins a compliment. [nowadays online they’d pretend to pity such women and dare call this ‘traditional’ but not everyone wants to ride a diseased dick due to social pressure, actually]

Convents offered other benefits to women than the ability to retain virginity and to reap a future of heavenly rewards.  The Medieval Era was the first time women had an honorable alternative to marriage, which was often forced on them.  Taking nun’s vows was a respectable way to avoid the very real pain and danger of childbirth.  Depending on the convent, some nuns were able to avail themselves of the resources to attain an excellent education. Most women of that era remained in painful ignorance, unable to read or write. Nuns with strong characters were able to achieve some degree of independence, power and autonomy. Later in the lecture, I shall be discussing the social and economic advantages a noble and/or wealthy family achieved when it placed a young daughter in a convent.  Such families sent their frequently unwilling young women into convents by paying “donations” to have them accepted.

Nunneries were supposedly a haven for consecrated virgins, places to protect women from “spiritual wolves.”  The reality that can be gleaned from chronicles, laws, councils, charters and from saints’ lives is that the convents and the nuns who lived in them were very often vulnerable to violence, rape and plunder during the early Middle Ages. Royalty and nobility alike frequently attacked nunneries and monasteries, plundering them of valuables, killing monks and nuns, raping and abducting nuns and burning their buildings down. Strict laws against the violence were passed, but even when the nobility was deterred from attacking convents and monasteries, there remained many outside threats.  Vikings, Magyars and Saracen invaders made repeated and devastating incursions on religious establishments.

The canon laws of various areas often provided greater penalties for those who dishonored, abducted, violated or killed women who were “consecrated to god.”  The Lombard laws from 713 to 735 CE carried a heavier fine for violence or abduction of a consecrated virgin. The penalty was twice the amount fined for abducting another man’s betrothed lover. The laws of Alfred, 871-99 CE, also levied twice the amount of the fine for seizing a “nun by her clothes or by her breast” than for committing the same crime against a laywoman.  Since the nuns were the “betrothed or brides of Christ,” the offense was believed to be much more severe. [oh look, a real patriarchal approach to rape law]

Another index to the precarious position of female communities was the number of convents that were moved from the outskirts of urban areas to within the city walls. Sometimes the convents were even built inside castles, or were heavily fortified. Such convents sometimes served as refuges for other nuns fleeing their besieged communities. [I’m sure the Vikings just stole things though and never touched them, sure! That sounds logical! /sarc becuase you’d spend all that money relocating people in no real danger!]

But nuns’ convents continued to suffer repeated attacks during the early Middle Ages. The women’s response was similar to the monks who suffered invasion of their monasteries.  They fled when they could, taking their relics with them.  If they were in haste and had to leave quickly, they hid or buried their relics. If they were unable to escape in time, they attempted, sometimes successfully, to hide themselves.

Jane Tibets Schulenburg has researched the data from Knowles and Haddock’s “Medieval Religious Houses: England and Wales.” She has discovered that “…at least forty-one monasteries for women were destroyed by the Viking invaders.” By the time of the Norman Conquest in 1066 CE, there were only nine houses for women that were still in existence in Britain.  Some of those convents had been built in unfortunate locations. One was situated at the same spot which was a favorite landing place for Danes and apparently suffered repeated attacks from the invaders. [keep simping tho]

Schulenberg explains that nuns who were killed when their convents were invaded provided the church with a new generation of martyrs.  There is a list of consecrated women who were put to death by invaders in the 9th and 10th Centuries.  Sources state that Barking Abbey, situated in the east of England, was destroyed by the Danes in 870 CE.  Apparently all the nuns living in that convent were burned alive along with their building. There were other convents destroyed by Danes as well during those years. The clichéd picture of nuns safely praying, working and singing in quiet cloisters is belied by the historical facts. Convents were frequently in grave danger during the early Middle Ages, particularly in England and Wales, but also in France and other nations. [burning the evidence]

There are three well known cases on record of nuns acting to protect their virginity when their cloisters were invaded and one about a virgin who did not wish to be married. The curious and extraordinary tales were related by the chroniclers of the era.  The first three cases all relate to the self-disfiguration of nuns suffering armed incursions on their convents. Such invaders were not only given to violence, but of rape as well. Nuns during that era believed that the worst fate that could befall them was to lose their status as intact virgins. Their solution to what they deemed was their very real peril was to choose to die, which most likely would have been their fate in any case. However, according to the chronicles and hagiographic literature of the times, the consecrated women went to their death with their virginity intact.  They achieved this by self-mutilation.

Before I discuss the nuns’ response to the threat of losing their “heroic virginity,” I would like to comment on the literature of the time. Most of the accounts of such remarkable self harm were written less for historical accuracy than for the purpose of educating and encouraging others.  The tales were meant to inspire readers with the example of saintly women who suffered extraordinary trials. It is important to keep in mind that even though there are some kernels of historic truth embedded in the stories, they are also rich in exaggeration and fantasy. Le Goff has noted that the tales are especially valuable “for providing information about the collective consciousness, the mental structures of society.” We can learn about the beliefs of those medieval societies by examining the tales that were current at the time. We can also discover the peoples’ customs, concerns and values because those structures were mirrored in their narratives. [sounds like the excuses for the Satanic Panic – it still happened]

The question that continues to give rise to disagreement in the present day is whether the alleged lengths the consecrated women took to preserve their virginity are true or simply fantasy.  There must be a small kernel of reality within the tales and chronicles, but scholars remain divided about the credibility question. We cannot know for sure if any of the stories about the nuns who self-mutilated when invaded are historically accurate. [they were targeted, moved, and still burned alive tho – and you’re questioning that reaction??? appeal to incredulity from men centuries later is NOT AN ARGUMENT]

The first reported case of heroic self-mutilation was in 783 CE at the monastery of St. Cyr.  St. Cyr was situated near Marseilles, France.  The abbess of the nunnery was the virgin, Eusebia.  When so-called infidels were on the verge of breaking into the cloister, she addressed her fellow consecrated virgins, who like her, cared much more to preserve their virginity than their lives.  She planned, she said, to cut off her nose and encouraged her nuns to do the same. She told them that this self-mutilation would enrage the barbarians and quell their sexual passions.  The stories claim that all the nuns cut off their noses and that the barbarians massacred all forty of them, who continued to pray to Christ until they died. It may be seen from this tale, as well as the others that follow, how important virginity was considered in the early Medieval Christian world.  The story of the steadfast nuns was told to all young virgins entering the order. [but go ahead and gaslight us about it, bro, thanks]

The arguably best known case of self-disfigurement to preserve virginity was that of St. Ebba and her nuns at the monastery of Coldingham.  Ebba, the prioress at that cloister, came from royal blood, and was the daughter of the King of Northumbria. The abbey was situated in an isolated area of Scottish Coast which faced the North Sea. The Danish invaders were particularly active around that period, circa 870 CE. 

The Danes had the reputation of cutting the throats of anyone, young or old, whom they encountered. The chronicle states that they “shamefully entreated holy matrons and virgins.”

St. Ebba gathered her nuns together, the story goes, and explained that the barbarians were very near.  She told them about the savage deeds the invaders were known to perpetrate. As in the previous tales, the chronicles emphasize that St. Ebba was acting to preserve all the consecrated women’s chastity.  One hagiographer stated unequivocally that the women’s act was an example to be practiced by all succeeding virgins forever. Ebba took up a razor and cut off her nose, after which all her nuns did the same.  When the invaders came the next morning, they were horrified by the sight of the mutilated, blood-stained women and left quickly.  Before their retreat, however, they burned the entire abbey, with the nuns inside. The chronicler ended with the statement that Ebba and her holy virgins had attained “the glory of martyrdom.”

The third case of self-mutilation was the narrative of the medieval Spanish monastery of St. Florentine, which housed about three hundred nuns.  Fearful of losing the virginity they had cherished for so many years, the celibate women lacerated their faces before Saracen invaders could rape them.  When the “Moors” saw those bloody faces, they became horrified and angry, ending by killing all the women with their swords. The chronicler of that incident stated that “to the halo and crown of virginity was added that of martyrdom.” [I imagine the guys blaming rape victims for wearing a skirt would be horrified if all women cut off our noses and took to wearing trousers. We already do the latter. They have no blame to shift when it’s a child or man though. Funny that.]

The last tale is not about a nunnery, but of a simple woman, the Blessed Oda, who died in 1158. Oda had dedicated herself to virginity and Christ, but her parents had no regard for her wishes. They made wedding arrangements for her.  At the wedding ceremony, Oda stated she would not have the groom, or any man, as a husband, as she had already chosen her heavenly spouse, Christ. Leaving the upended ceremony, she returned to her home and prayed to Christ in her mother’s bedroom. The chronicler stated that Oda was very afraid of her father and what he would do to her. She took up a sword she saw hanging from the head of the bed, and hacked off her nose.

The chronicler declared that Oda preferred to mar her beauty rather than live a worthless, secular life. He went on to praise other young virgins who had acted decisively when their chastity was threatened. He claimed that those young maidens killed themselves with swords, jumped from precipices, or drowned themselves. Oda lived, and became a nun and prioress of an abbey. [she doesn’t want your dick, dude]

There was a history of facial mutilation even prior to the Middle Ages. The Germanic law codes specified cutting off the noses and lips of certain law breakers. The punishment was most often applied to women who had violated regulations concerning sexual behavior. Schulenberg argues that the penalty was sex-specific and served as a deterrent to women, as well as a punishment.  The disfigurement of a woman’s beauty guaranteed she would no longer engage in adultery, promiscuity, or prostitution. During the early Middle Ages, disfiguring facial injuries were common, either through injuries or punishments.  The practice would have been known to young women who were determined to preserve their threatened virginity. [but some creeps are incredulous a woman somewhere doesn’t want them like in porn, reddit has deleted threads about this]

The most common and obvious threat to a young virgin’s chastity was her parents’ desire to marry her to a man. The chronicles of the time are replete with miraculous tales of young women being saved from marriage and loss of virginity by the intervention of some type of disfigurement, such as loss of an eye, total blindness, leprosy, tumors and so on.  When the virgins had been freed from the threat of marriage, some of them became cured of their sicknesses or disabilities. [psychosomatic?]

Some young virgins, without becoming consecrated nuns, wore nuns’ veils to hide their beauty. Around 774 CE, it was said that two young Lombard sisters found an amusing and dramatic solution to their threatened rape by Avar invaders. They placed raw chickens inside the band between their breasts. The girls’ flesh and heat rendered the chickens’ bodies putrid and they gave off a horrible smell. The Avars cursed but spared the sisters, deciding that Lombard women smelled very bad.

Were any of the tales told about women preserving their virginity true? It is difficult to be sure. Schulenberg believes that there is some truth to a few of them.  But what is certain is that the religious and cultural priority of that age was virginity.  The women who had consecrated themselves to Christ were in deadly fear not of death, but of losing their virginity. Their motives for undertaking such drastic measures as self-mutilation must be understood.

In most cases, the nuns would have had time to think ahead before having to face their invaders. They would have been forced to come to a decision about their options to avoid rape, which were limited.

 Suicide was not a choice, as a number of theologians did not believe that people were allowed to commit suicide in order to preserve their chastity. But self-disfigurement, cutting off one’s nose and sometimes the upper lip as well, was not only allowed, but praised. The women of that age had already been conditioned by being told over and over that virginity was not always possible to preserve without martyrdom. Women who mutilated their faces would also ensure their reputations by committing such drastic acts.  It was certain that no one could suggest or claim that they had been willing victims to their rape. [willing…. victims….. what. Did they try to ‘what was she wearing’ literal nuns?!]

The nuns who decided to mutilate their faces must have decided that they had little choice but to do so, as it was certain that the  barbarians would act in one of two ways. They would be set upon raping and killing the nuns when they entered the convent, which was their accustomed behavior.  But if they saw bloody women with their noses and sometimes upper lips removed, they would not wish to rape them, but simply become enraged and kill them immediately. If the nuns died intact, they would remain spouses of Christ, with a special place reserved for them in heaven.  They had been taught that if they lost their virginity, they would not be suitable for Christ’s bridal chamber, perhaps not even be suitable for admission into heaven. [does that apply to child rape victims too? which passage was that?]

St. Jerome (347-420 CE) had warned chaste women: “…Unless you use violence, you will not take the kingdom of heaven.” He was speaking about violence to the self in order to preserve virginity.  Quite typically of the era, he did not mention or seem to care what would happen in the afterlife to devout and blameless wives and husbands.   [traditionally, marriage doesn’t buy you a ticket to Heaven, quite the opposite, but America is marriage-mad and acts like it cleanses you somehow]

Marriage was denigrated in favor of virginity and considered to be a lower state; it was chastity and virginity that were the prized attributes of the early Christian church. Virginity was considered a “higher life,” but one that could not be attained and continued without struggle.

The question remains an open one about the stories concerning women’s self-disfigurement in the early Middle Ages.  Were they fact, fiction, or as one scholar believes, hagiographic models? It is impossible to be sure. But virginity and the need to preserve it had a strong hold on the collective religious consciousness of the era. Schulenberg concludes: “Despite the cost, these brides of Christ were not to be denied the meaning of their existence, nor their just rewards for perseverance in virginal perfection.  After all of their years of practice, they were not about to miss the biblical joys of singing with the 144,000 virgins the song they alone could sing.” (This passage from Revelation is controversial. Some theologians insist that the 144,000 virgins would be Jewish men.) [because the etymology of virgin is male in that passage – slutty men all burn in Hell – baptism purifies the soul, it doesn’t change your medical status]

Now I would like to turn to a controversial topic that concerns nuns during the later Medieval Era. The fact of the immorality of many nuns who resided in convents is sometimes denied or evaded, but there is definite evidence from several sources for the accusation. This portion of the lecture will focus on English nunneries, because to expand the text to include Italy and France is beyond our time limits.  As the medieval era advanced into the early Renaissance, the refined sensuality of the Italian, Spanish and French cultures became more widespread and crept into the nunneries of those countries. Young men, called monachini, actually frequented areas near convents or visited them openly, becoming the lovers of some of the willing nuns.

The convents of England were never quite so refined, but there is definite proof that there were violations of the vow of celibacy taken by all nuns.  The tales of the earlier Medieval era, of nuns cutting off their noses to avoid rape, might well have been hagiographic fabrications meant to encourage young women to cherish their virginity at all costs. The truth concerning the moral state of the nunneries, whether English, our focus, or Italian or French, is well documented. The sources are (1) the literary works of the time, (2) the general statements from Church councils, and (3) most importantly, the Bishops’ Registers. The Bishops’ Registers contain the accounts of visitations they or their representatives made to the various convents and the injunctions issued that followed those visits.

In addition, the registers contain the special mandates ordering inquiry into a scandal, searches for apostates and accounts of penances placed on sinners. According to Eileen Power, if a register is particularly complete, one may form a fairly accurate estimate of the moral condition of all the nunneries in a diocese at a particular time. York and Lincoln have long and almost unbroken series of registers, so the financial condition, moral state and other particulars of those areas’ convents may be traced over many years. There are also the Papal Registers. When the Pope sent out a petition in favor of a particular nun or heard rumors about the deteriorating state of a nunnery, the facts were recorded. However, papal letters on such topics are rare.

It is impossible to garner a complete history of the convents of the later Middle Ages. We have only a small portion of the recorded cases of sexual transgression. Some transgressions were never exposed. Some were hushed up and others have been buried in unpublished or lost Registers. 

At the same time, it is important not to fall into exaggeration about the extent of sexual transgressions in the nunneries of that era. The transgressors stand out, but undoubtedly, most nuns kept to their vows of chastity.

One must understand the plight of the transgressing women and regard them with sympathy. Religious hypocrisy is known to be so common that it is easy for the secular mind of the present day to dismiss the nuns’ behavior with some cynicism.  But those women were faced with difficult challenges and temptations.  The first challenge for them was the fact that celibacy is not a natural condition for the vast majority of humans. When the early Church adopted its stance of sex-negativity and insistence on clerical celibacy, it gave rise to many human tragedies.  Celibacy is an unnatural state which is best undertaken by unusual people with unusual goals.  Scholars who have researched the monastic orders have come to the conclusion that the medieval monks and nuns who comprised their numbers were for the most part, average people.  The same was true for the clerics of the Church. [disagree, being an animal is unnatural, self-control makes us human beings you filthy degenerates tarnishing the whole species to excuse your own weakness]

Quite frequently, clerics did not live a life of celibacy during that era. For several centuries, priests continued to keep mistresses and concubines in the face of Church disapproval and frequently against its rules.  In addition, there were many clerks and chaplains who were unattached. Those men were sometimes connected to a church, a chantry or to a wealthy person’s chapel and formed what has been described as an “ecclesiastical proletariat.” All the men had taken a vow of chastity.  But scholars who have looked into the criminal records of the Middle Ages have found how often such men were accused in cases of rape and other crimes. 

There was also widespread suspicion that monks in monasteries continued to consort with women. Some nuns were easy prey for the seducers. The unchanging routine, the hardships of monasticism, and the financial difficulties of the nunneries were frustrating for some consecrated women. 

Many women who kept their vows of celibacy suffered psychological difficulty.  The mystical visions which gave them such intense joy and intense suffering were likely to have been sexual in nature. Even the imagery of those visions was sexually based- the brides of Christ drank from his breast, were pierced with shafts of lightening and so on.  The nuns were bereft of the natural human outlet of sexual intercourse and most of them had no interests or employments that produced enjoyment for them. In the last section of the lecture, we shall be glancing at the many young and unwilling women who were forced to enter convents and take celibate vows. Their youth would have occasioned a natural tendency to have sexual desires.  If women with true vocations had been the only ones to take vows to retain their virginity, there would have been far less cases of sexual transgression in convents.

There was more opportunity for nuns who wanted to stray from their vows during the Middle Ages. An important contribution to nuns’ breaking their vows was the extent of the temptations they were exposed to. Nuns during that era were not really confined to their convents, which exercised little restraint on the movements of their members. Consecrated women paid visits to their relatives and friends, went to feasts and other celebrations, heard the love songs of the wandering minstrels, and the popular songs, often sexual ditties, sung in the public streets.

The nuns might have been harrowed day and night with the praises of celibacy in their convents, but despite the Church’s verbal attacks on sex, virginity was not often praised by many laywomen or the general public. Lip service was paid to it, but ordinary people eschewed celibacy. While walking on the city streets, nuns were exposed to the rowdy behavior of the working classes, where sex, both gross and good humored, was quite often on show. They witnessed the more subtle but more tempting charms of the chivalry practiced by the upper classes.   The nuns were also able to observe at close hand the life of women on the outside.  Many convents had guest rooms that were full of visitors where the monastic women saw the visiting ladies’ lovely dresses, jewels, and pet dogs.  They were aware that some of those fine ladies had lovers.  Some of the nuns, especially the young ones, surely would have wanted to copy those ladies in all ways.

There was still danger to the virginal nuns’ chastity from forays of the Scots in the north, and from the general lawlessness and violence of the time.  The grinding poverty of many nunneries, particularly in England and Northern Europe, along with the concomitant necessity of earning money, made for worldly thinking and behavior. The registers and other documents reveal the precarious financial condition of some of those convents. The convents often tried to improve their finances by accepting young women indiscriminately.  The girls’ families were expected to provide a large donation when they placed their daughters in the nunneries.

To sum up, there were three important factors that tempted nuns to put aside their vows of celibacy. (1) The first factor was the glaring fact that celibacy was unnatural to most people and attempting to follow that ideal was extremely difficult. (2) Young women and some older ones, for example, widows, were often accepted, and even recruited, into convents, because of the large donations made by their families. A number of those women were not suited to the celibate life, either because of their nature or their lack of vocation. (3) Many of the convents of the time were not well enough withdrawn from the temptations and social disorder of the outside world.

I would like to relate some of the stories about nuns’ abandoning their vows. Such cases created difficulties for the forsworn nuns, their convents, the clerical authorities, and sometimes the city government. For example, the 1290 Register of Bishop Sutton of Lincoln contains a notice of excommunication passed against those who had made off with a certain Agnes of Sheen, a nun from Godstow.  The Bishop’s notice explained that Agnes and another nun were peacefully driving home to Godstow in a carriage that belonged to their order. But in the middle of the King’s Highway at Wycombe, certain “sons of perdition” attacked the carriage and seized the unwilling Agnes, carrying her off. However, in 1291, the Bishop made a different announcement.  He charged Agnes of Sheen and Joan of Carru, both nuns of Godstow, with casting off their habits, fleeing from their house and leading a worldly and dissolute life. They were scandalizing the neighborhood where they resided. The Bishop not only excommunicated both nuns, but all those who had helped them!

Eileen Power is quite sure that nuns who broke their vows were always willing partners of the men they made off with.

She explains that few men would be courageous enough to rape a Bride of Christ.  The first section of the lecture described the Viking and Saracen invaders’ rape of nuns, but it is important to remember that they were foreigners. British citizens would be reluctant to face the wrath of their own Church by raping an unwilling nun.  The nuns and their lovers might fool a Bishop for a time, but after more investigation, they were usually exposed. In the end, the Bishops discovered that the so-called abducted nuns were usually part of the plot.  Alleged abductions of nuns were in reality elopements of nuns.

Not all the nuns who transgressed committed such drastic acts as elopements. Some of the more discreet women would meet their lovers secretly in the convent or even outside the convent during the visits they were allowed to make.  The nuns who actually threw off their habits and went to live in the outside world with their lovers had to be very brave. If one was simply caught with a lover, the penalty was a penance.  But to breach their vows and leave their convents was considered apostasy, and the penalty for apostasy was excommunication.  That meant the nuns’ souls, what they believed were immortal souls, were at risk in the next life.

Most nuns returned to their convents after some time. They were individuals caught in the net of church and state solidarity, as the Church did its best to bring the apostates home. The bishops would eventually learn what village or town the nun was hiding in and would call her helpers to appear before him. He would decree than any person who was helping the nun should desist within three days or receive a penance. The usual procedure was for the bishop to then order the straying nun to return to her convent within a week. But many wayward nuns would often return voluntarily, out of sheer terror at their own rebellion.

Once in a while, the nun and her helpers were adamant. Then the Church would simply turn to the state. The nun would be arrested.  She would either be brought or would go voluntarily before the bishop and have to plead for his absolution.  The bishop would usually grant it, and then write to the woman’s convent, ordering the authorities there to receive her as their sister, but to exact the penances laid on her. Penances might be fines, eating only bread and water for a set time, being shunned, being beaten and so on.

The prodigal nun would return to her convent, kneeling outside and begging to be admitted. This was the age of political and religious theatre, when kings who had angered popes would kneel for days outside the Vatican before receiving absolution. Not only were such spectacles a tribute and proof of the power of the Church, they were also excellent examples of what happened to disobedient rebels.

If a nun had repented breaking all her vows and voluntarily returned to her former life, the matter was generally resolved. If, however, she had been hunted down by both the religious and secular arms and forced to return to a life she had rejected, desperation was often the result.  Some nuns left their convents, were forced back, and escaped again, often fleeing several times. [what did they see?]

There was the extreme case of a consecrated woman by the name of Agnes from St. Michael’s Convent in Stamford, who left and began leading a secular life. For about ten years she was hounded and brought back to her convent, from which she continued to escape. The last record of the case occurs in about 1318 CE, when the bishop there ordered the prioress of Agnes’ convent to have her brought back and kept in custody and solitude. [trafficking]

He threatened the prioress with excommunication if she did not do her duty.  It is fairly obvious the prioress was sick to death of the Agnes affair and did not want her back.  One hopes that Agnes was able to remain living the secular life she longed for, but the story ends at that point abruptly and is never taken up again in the registers.

The records reveal that a prioress sometimes did not want a straying nun back and had to be forced to accept the reprobate because of the bishop’s threats.  It is important to keep in mind that some of the rebellious women were so determined to leave that they not only escaped to the secular life several times, but with a new lover each time. Nuns who were so alienated cannot have been a good example. They had often lived in the world for two or three years before returning and experienced adventures which piqued the interest of the other nuns. There must have been a lowering of moral tone when hardened, reprobate nuns were returned, even though many were severely punished.

I previously mentioned how the clerics- the vicars, the chaplains and the chantry priests, were the men who were most often the lovers of nuns. There were stray stewards of the convents, bailiffs of manors and other lay men, married or single, who appeared in the Bishops’ Registers as seducers or lovers of nuns. But it was the clerics, even though under vows of chastity, who were the worst offenders and partners in the poor nuns’ misdemeanors and transgressions. Those clerics, even though under a vow of chastity, often were dressed in a fashionable manner, in short tunics, peaked shoes and wide silvery belts. They had an extra advantage in that they could also absolve the sins of the nuns they tempted.

During the 16th, 17th and even into the 18th Centuries, the convents of France and Italy were haunted by the young gallants I have spoken of, the monachini, who delighted in love affairs with nuns. They were handsome, fashionable and difficult to resist. The convents of England, did not generally have such sophisticated visitors. But according to Power, the less sophisticated English nuns’ seducers in the 14th and 15th Centuries were the chaplains. They were sometimes the convents’ own chaplains and lived on the premises.  For the nun who was interested, there were many opportunities to transgress and breech her vows.

The tales and records of the shameless clerics and romantic nuns cannot hide the human tragedies buried underneath the desire of a convent to avoid a scandal. Sometimes the love affairs of a nun were ignored or even aided by fellow sisters who did not want their convent to receive an evil reputation. But the power of the Church was sometimes not strong enough to conceal the inevitable outcome of some love affairs. In those days of unsatisfactory birth control and abortion, there were children that were born as a result of the liaisons. Sometimes the nun was allowed to stay in her convent, hidden, until she gave birth.  At other times, a pregnant nun would go to any safe haven that would take her in, bear the child, and return to her nunnery.

Infant mortality was high during that era and many babies and young children died. But it was not considered a terrible dishonor to be illegitimate in that age, and surviving children often inherited in their fathers’ wills, along with legitimate children. Young men born out of wedlock were not supposed to be ordained or hold clerical positions, but dispensations could be given or bought that would allow them to hold those offices.

If a nun had money of her own through her family, she could dower a daughter.  One prioress sold the goods of her convent to provide her daughter with a dowry. Obviously prioresses that were weak or having affairs of their own were often those who had the loosest convents. It was not unknown for prioresses to give birth to children. As we know from the records, some of the women who had taken the vow of chastity gave birth to several children, sometimes with different fathers.

There was an attempt at reform in the middle of the 13th Century, but the Bishops’ Registers for the second half of that period do not seem to show much difference in recorded monastic sexual violations than during the 14th and 15th Centuries when monasticism had definitely passed its prime.  There was a steady downhill movement in its last two centuries in England alone. Henry VIII, the English King, decided to emulate the Germanic countries and establish his own church when the Pope would not grant him a divorce.  He also most likely coveted the Church’s riches.  Henry dissolved the monasteries and nunneries of England and named himself Supreme Head of the Church of England in 1531 CE.

Celibacy is unnatural and living in monasteries and nunneries, sometimes unwillingly and with no vocation for it, was an unnecessary and degrading situation for people.  It is part of the human condition to desire freedom and sexual pleasure.  Sympathy may be found for the nuns who kept their vows virtuously and quietly, as they had been taught they were living a life of superior sanctity. One can also sympathize and admire those rebels who flouted their vows and discarded their saintly habits to find the love, liberation and worldly happiness denied them by the Church.

Now I would like to turn to Renaissance monasteries and speak a little more about the convents in other countries, such as Italy.  I have given an earlier lecture about the nuns who were motivated by religious sadomasochism. (Please see “Religious Sadomasochism” at AtheistScholar.org.) Those women starved themselves, beat themselves and tortured themselves for the purported love of god.  Many of those nuns are quite famous, such as Catherine of Sienna, for example. In other lectures, I have also mentioned well-read and creative nuns of the Middle Ages. They were willing, some of them very eager, to live out their lives in convents. But in this talk, I would like to continue with the enforced entrance into convents of women with no vocation for celibacy and no interest in holiness.

This part of the lecture necessitates a brief return to some customs of pagan Rome. I have mentioned before in this series of talks that the Roman father decided which of his infants should live or die.  The wealth of the Roman family descended patrillineally from father to son. Too many heirs would have spread the family wealth too thin, so fathers did dispose of some sons. But they allowed more sons to live than daughters. Most Roman fathers chose two daughters to live and doted on them.  Other girl children were placed for adoption to families of lower social status or left to die by exposure to the elements. [ this is what Jesus found]

The Christian father of a later age had fewer options than a pagan Roman. Infanticide was forbidden, abandonment discouraged, and oddly enough, adoption was almost unknown. But there was often family wealth that needed consolidation. Daughters required dowries that accrued to their husband’s families. However, there were safe places where young women could reside and not drain their family’s resources. 

Convents that were dedicated to the preservation of celibacy came to be considered ideal for families that did not want to or could not pay out the large sums needed for their daughters’ dowries. Fathers disposed of superfluous daughters in those convents for much of the history of Europe.

The early Middle Ages saw the creation of convents in large numbers. Young girls and widows were consigned to them. Families sent young children to them as “oblates,” and gave the nunneries a monetary donation. The donations were welcome and well-used by many convents which managed to guard their wealth.  The young girls were taken care of there and were assured of a secure future. Boys, too, were sent to monasteries as oblates, but in nowhere near the numbers of girls who were sent to nunneries.  Widows, wives and sisters in need of asylum were also delivered to the convents. This lecture has earlier discussed the violence of the time and some convents were fortified and safe. The system worked well, but there was always difficulty because of women who were not suited for celibacy. By the time of the Renaissance, convents in cities, built there because they were safer, added to the number of nunneries already built in agrarian areas.

According to Margaret L. King, whose statistics I am using, a great many of the Renaissance convents, very likely the most, “served the elite of the community.”  The early Benedictine establishments took up the surplus young women from the royalty.  Then the expanding groups of monastic orders accepted the daughters of the lesser nobles, magnates, burghers and patricians.

Most of the best established convents of France, Germany and Italy housed nuns who came from the nobility. For example, in Florence, Italy, the monetary donation for nuns entering a convent was 435 florins, while the donation for future wives was only 417 florins.

But to marry off a large number of daughters with rather small dowries would entail marrying the girls to men of lower social status.  Even though the donation was higher for a girl to be placed in a convent, noble families did not want their daughters to marry beneath them.  The option of convents was chosen instead. However, the young women placed in them were forced to take vows of celibacy, and those vows were very often taken unwillingly.  According to King, as many as half of the women in some elite Florentine families resided in convents by the 16th Century. [now look at Italy]

Poor women were also allowed to live in convents, but as servants and workers. The nuns themselves came from wealthy lineages. It was those families that needed to consolidate wealth, and that wealth was threatened by fertile young daughters. Therefore, they were humanely removed from the cycle of reproduction. Widows, too, whose reproductive duties had ended, were placed into the safety of convents. Venice, Italy was particularly given to the practice of sending extra daughters to convents. In the mid-17th Century, there were nearly 3,000 nuns in the city, which was 3% of the population. By 1815, about 3,789 former nuns received state pensions. In general, the numbers of nuns in southern Europe increased after a slight decline during the plague. In Northern Europe, there was a fairly continuous decline, which ended with the closing of the monasteries and convents in the German states and England, as the Protestant religion gained hegemony. [Italy doesn’t get to bitch about birth rates]

But the wealthy convents of Southern Italy had many problems as well. The morale, or esprit de corps, of earlier dedicated celibates declined as the convents filled with the luxurious conditions that were expected by nuns from wealthy families. “As with male monasteries, incomes that had sustained a hundred residents now served as few as ten, and all evidence of austerity vanished.” In Strasbourg, France, the spirit of reform began to take fire when the townspeople saw the luxurious condition of the convents and became infuriated.  A wealthy mother, Christine de Pizan, visited her daughter’s convent and lived with the luxuries she was accustomed to in her own home. She ate off silver and gold plates, toured the entire nunnery, and chatted with her daughter for hours. No limits were imposed on this noble family.

But the luxury enjoyed by wealthy women who had been placed in convents was not the only cause of unrest from the population. The freedom and sometimes licentious behavior of some of the nuns gave rise to bitter criticism.  The rules of claustration were completely ignored. As in England, the French and Italian nuns went out freely and mixed with the public. Visitors, especially male visitors, to the convents came and went, entertained with, and entertaining behavior, that the rules of chastity forbade. The well known author, Boccaccio, told tales in his 1353 volume, The Decameron, about nuns’ frivolities and even worse behavior, and there was a realistic basis for his claims.

The cries against the poor morals of nuns in Italy were continual and filled with rancor.

There was a 1537 report from a city government titled: “For the Reform of the Church,” which claimed that many nunneries “performed public sacrileges with the greatest possible shame to all.” In 1538, the councilors of Milan asked the Pope to do something about a Benedictine house that they claimed had become so corrupt that far from being virgins pledged to god, the nuns “had become and were held to be lay prostitutes.”

Venice had the worst reputation of all.  In 1497, the friar, da Lucca, preached in the city’s basilica and charged that the nunneries of Venice were “not convents but whorehouses and public bordellos.” A few years later, a chronicler made the same accusation about Venice’s “open convents.”  He said that they were “public bordellos and public whorehouses.” Scholars agree that while such charges cannot be completely proved, statistics garnered from church and city court records support them.

According to Power, “In the 14th and 15th Centuries, thirty-three convents were involved in one or more prosecutions involving fornication with nuns. Nine of them had between ten and fifty-two prosecutions.” But the Benedictine convent of Sant’ Angelo di Contorta, the convent that housed nuns from Venice’s most illustrious families, had the worse reputation of all. Power states: “Between 1401 and 1487, it faced fifty-two prosecutions for sex crimes. The court records tell tales of ‘dissolute deeds’ performed at picnic outings and in convent cells, of illegitimate births, of jealous rages, of fugitive lovers. Those involved were not only noble nuns, but also two abbesses, who shared their favors with aristocrats and popolani alike.” In 1489, the Pope shut Sant’Angelo down.  But other convents, more cautious and quiet about their misdeeds, remained open. 

It is certain that many aristocratic, medieval nuns enjoyed rich food, domestic services, and conversation with foreign visitors. They played the lute and embroidered luxurious fabrics. They also entertained their lovers and gave covert birth to illegitimate children.

Behind the tales of immoral and scandalous behavior lies the human tragedy which took such gently bred girls and young women and forced them into a prison. The Church profited from the system. The families who desired to consolidate their wealth profited still more. The nuns from those families did not enter the convents because of vocations that sought spiritual contemplation.

The customs and the economy of the times did not allow the young women to find employment or to live on their own. They could not be given freedom and could not or would not marry.  In many cases, the family did not choose to or could not provide them with decent dowries to marry within their class.  At the same time, many of those aristocratic parents did not want their daughters to marry into a lower social status. The perfect answer in their eyes was to send the young women off to a convent.

But many were aware that the practice of forcing women into convents was unjust. Peter the Venable (1092-1156 CE) called a newly founded convent “a glorious prison.”  A Venetian law actually lamented the fate of so many girls from noble families who “are imprisoned in monasteries with just tears and complaints.” In 1523, Erasmus (1466-1536 CE), the eminent philosopher, wrote about a young girl who voluntarily entered a convent for intellectual stimulation and independence, but called for her parents to take her home again in twelve days.

Erasmus himself had earlier left what he called the slavery of monasticism and rejoined the secular world.

I would like to quote from one of the very few laments voiced by nuns who spoke for many of the silenced women: “My mother wished me to become a nun to fatten the dowry of my sister, and I, to obey my Mama, cut my hair and became one.” This sad and passive statement could have been echoed by many young women who were not unaware that they were being sacrificed for family honor and family greed. The lecture has discussed the stories of some of the nuns who fled and their unsuccessful attempts at freedom.  But escape was not an option for most of the women.

It was a truism of the Medieval Age that young girls should not be taught to read and write unless they were destined to become nuns. If nuns were willing, they could learn the skills needed to express themselves. So even when they did not choose or could not physically escape, some were most able to articulate their ideas, even if obliquely. It was nuns who made up a large percentage of educated women during that era and they were generally much more literate than their married counterparts. They also had leisure to read and study in the convent. Many of them wrote moral plays and devotional works in the service of the Church, but some cleverly slipped in some protest.

One of the most striking of those works, Amor di virtu, was by the nun, Beatrice del Sera (1551-1586 CE), who was housed in the Dominican convent of San Niccolo in Prato, Italy. She used the images of rock, wall, and tower to convey the unwilling confinement of women in the cloister.

One of her characters claimed that women were not born for happiness but to be “… made prisoners, slaves and subjects.” Del Sera was confined in the nunnery all her life and wrote that she put all her hopes in her future life. The fact that we now know that no life exists beyond our sojourn on earth makes the confinement of that unhappy and intelligent woman even more tragic.

Another nun, Arcangela Tarabotti (1604-1652 CE), also was not ever to escape from her prison.  But for her entire thirty-two years of unwilling confinement, she protested against forced entry into convents, defended the female sex and called for freedom. She was born in 1604, sent to the convent of Santa Anna as a child, and became a nun in 1620. She began her principal work in 1644, knowing it would never be published in her lifetime, but luckily it received publication two years after her death.  The title, Simplicity Betrayed, is telling. However, its original title, Paternal Tyranny, speaks for generations of daughters sent to convents, both unwilling and unsuited, to live a life of confinement and celibacy. Tarabotti wrote eloquently and movingly about young women consigned to a kind of living death by greedy fathers. She argued that the nun’s shaved head was nothing more than the sign of a slave, and insisted that variety in life and not the sameness of convent life, was the natural human rule.

Tarabotti criticized the society of her era which supported the confinement of innocent girls to shore up the wealth of noble houses.  She gave voice to her rage through her writing, and it is astounding how far ahead of her time she was.  Women through the ages owe her a debt for her brilliant and inspired critique of the plight of women.

How many scholars did the world of the Renaissance lose when they confined obedient daughters into what was a living death for many of them? [anti-natalism pretending to be Christian]

Eventually people began to turn against such treatment of young women. Greedy parents seeking to add to the dowry of another daughter or inheritance of a son were reproached by the 17th Century French Bishop, Claude Joly. The well known playwright, Carlo Goldoni (1707-1793 CE), was disturbed by the discontent and unhappiness of his niece and ward. She was being educated in a convent, and wrote him a letter which said she was “in chains.” To her great pleasure, he released her from the nunnery and arranged a marriage for her. This happened in the century which saw the Napoleonic Revolution exported to Italy.  Convents were reorganized, made more rational and less powerful. 

Fathers and other relatives were urged to leave wealth to daughters as well as sons.  The cynical and greedy former dispensation slowly started to come to an end. In England and Northern Europe, the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century did away with convents and monasteries. Many reforms of monastic orders in other countries were undertaken by the 18th Century. The history of women and the convents demonstrates that the Church had participated in the perversion of an institution which began as a place to house women with a religious vocation. For the sake of monetary donations it helped turn convents into dumping grounds for young women who did not have enough money for proper dowries.  The Inquisition tortured and killed people’s bodies. The convents murdered women’s spirits.

Nuns in the present day continue to face many difficulties from the Catholic Church even though taking holy orders is voluntary.  Under the previous Pope, Benedict XVI, the Vatican doctrinal office appointed three bishops in 2012 to overhaul the Nuns’ Group- the Leadership Conference of Women’s Religious. The Vatican believed the group was straying from Catholic doctrinal issues, such as criticizing the all-male priesthood, advocating birth control and sexuality, and critiquing Jesus’ centrality to the faith. Since the 2013 ascension of the new Pope, Francis, there has been a conciliatory tone on doctrinal matters. In anticipation of Francis’ visit to the United States in the fall of 2015, many of the issues have been resolved. The nuns’ groups under scrutiny have not been dissolved or taken over. The new Pope has expressed appreciation of the nuns’ work in the church schools, hospitals and charities. Since they have been administrating those institutions in the United States, he should express appreciation of their contribution and leadership.

According to a New York Times article in 2015, “the number of women religious in the United States is around 50,000, less than a third of that in 1966.” The article went on to say that there are more nuns now over the age of ninety than there are under the age of sixty.

I cannot reiterate enough the harm religion does to human lives, ambition and progress.  When it is combined with the power of the state, extraordinary human tragedies ensue. The states of the Middle Ages enforced the Church’s extraordinary meddling into the lives of ordinary people. 

The lectures in this series on the Inquisition, the Crusades, homosexuality, marriage, sexual hatred, the war on reason and the forcing of young women into convents all demonstrate the cruel, ignorant and tyrannical nature of the Church vis-à-vis the freedom of women and men. We are very fortunate to have a secular government in the United States. A secular government reigns in the excesses of religion. [no]

Religious fundamentalists continuously attempt to convert our nation to a theocracy. But we have seen the misery and suffering theocracies produced in Europe in the past.  We can also observe what comes of such governments in the present day when we observe the injustices in the Middle East.   Let us resist fundamentalists’ efforts to turn back the clock to the times they and their doctrines were in power. The light of reason and secularity has banished the shadows that religion cast over human lives for centuries.

Do not forget; never forget what religion brings when it achieves ascendancy.  The dark days and the burning days have been banished, but there are those who long for their return.  Obscurantists lurk on the edges of our courts and other institutions and attempt to get a law passed here and another one there. They will put one foot in the door if they are allowed and follow it with an army of religious repression. We must be alert and fight the fundamentalists in the hospitals, fight them in the schools, fight them in the courthouses, fight them in the Supreme Court.  It is a battle that we must wage for our liberty and for our children. If we remain vigilant and strong, we shall prevail.

Thank you for your attention.  I am looking forward to our discussion.

63  BIBLIOGRAPHY Sex in Medieval Convents

Abbot, Elizabeth. A History of Celibacy. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2000. This volume contains excellent end notes for further reference.

Bullough, Vern L. “Introduction: The Christian Inheritance.” In Vern L. Bullough, Ed. Sexual Practices and the Medieval Church. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1982. 1-14.

___________. “Formation of Medieval Ideals: Christian Theology and Christian Practice.” In Vern L. Bullough, Ed. Sexual Practices and the Medieval Church.  Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1982.  14- 22.

Holland, Glenn. “Celibacy in the Early Christian Church,” in Carl Olson, Ed.  Celibacy and Religious Traditions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. 65-85.

King, Margaret. Women of the Renaissance. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1991. Excellent Bibliography for further reference.

Kuefler, Mathew S. “Castration and Eunichism in the Middle Ages.” In Vern L. Bullough and James Brundage, Eds. Handbook of Medieval Sexuality. New York and London: Routledge Press, 2010. 279-307.

McGlynn, Margaret and Richard J. Moll. “Chaste Marriage in the Middle Ages.” In Vern L. Bullough and James Brundage, Eds. Handbook of Medieval Sexuality. New York and London: Routledge Press, 2010. 103-123.

McNamara, JoAnn. “Chaste Marriage and Clerical Celibacy.” In Vern L. Bullough and James Brundage, Eds. Sexual Practices and the Medieval Church.  Buffalo, New York:  Prometheus Books, 1982.  22-34.

Power, Eileen. Medieval English Nunneries c. 1275-1530. London: Biblo and Tannen, 1922.

Schulenberg, Jane Tibbetts. “The Heroics of Virginity: Brides of Christ and Sacrificial Mutilation.” In Ed. Mary Beth Rose. Women in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1986. 29-73.

Russia gives pedos a real patriarchy

They’re right, rapists are NOT human by any Darwinian definition, they literally operate at a subhuman level of depravity.
Repeat offender should not exist for rape, especially an attack on virgins/children (so including adult virgins, same traumas mentally).
Death penalty is cheaper and more efficient as a deterrent but I suggest we fund such places to send our immvaders there, the rape gangs would give the place a certain vibrancy. They could pray as many times as they like.

Most of these offenders are cut, when they bother to take the data. Ban the practice. It fucks them up sexually. Treat it as a research facility to scan their brains and DNA and find out what they have in common. This is useful for screening accusation cases and increasing the detection rate. Hey, if other sexual behaviour is said to be genetic, why not this?
In addition, deport all of their relatives in the country for enabling such obscene attacks as part of national security. This would deter the family from sheltering them and covering, like lying when the police come knocking. This must be done, make aiding and abetting or concealing a rapist a crime by itself. It is vital. Otherwise people cover up, fearing being confused for one by association.

comment
As a victim of child rape, which shattered my psyche & made it torture to live in my own body since, I HEARTILY APPROVE!!!

The suicide rate of rape victims alone (adult or child) makes this an excellent policy.

comment
When it comes to this kind of thing, I’m very much an “eye for an eye” kind of guy.

Locking up rapists with other rapists does have a certain irony.
Only lock up rapists with other rapists, and have no doors while they’re asleep…. 😉

comment
“Repeat child rapist” shouldn’t ever exist as a sentence.
Once someone is found guilty of such a crime, just beat them to death. Voila, no repeat offences.

They attack all ages, so you’d need to generalise it without the ‘kid’ caveat, otherwise they’ll just rape technically barely legal adults or mental children (low IQ, who are often mute – no witness).

comment
i’ve always thought that child rapists should be taken from the court room to the firing squad, but i appreciate the idea of them suffering in an arctic gulag lol

WITH ONE ANOTHER THO

comment
So gulags for pedos? I’ll allow it.

But they’ll just go for technical adults, especially the disabled or adult virgins. It’s about corruption and destroying that person’s potential happy life with trauma and humiliation. Predators don’t just stop. They will switch strategy. The adult rape rate will surge as a result, if this isn’t implemented properly. Kids are just easier to kidnap. It’s literally in the name.

I suggest they randomly shoot the pedos for sport and turn it into a reality TV show.
Kinda like death row. Only open plan with more icicles on testicles.

Get them to compete in gladiatorial sports to the death. I can dream, can’t I?
They can pay for their own imprisonment with the views.
Loser gets a millstone about his neck and is thrown to some hungry polar bears. It’s Biblical.

ANNOUNCER: AAAAAND HERE COMES THE POLAR BEAR!

IF YOU DIPPED THEIR DICK IN HONEY, THE BEAR WOULD AIM THERE FIRST AND RIP IT OFF.

Interesting how you get the Real Victim Here comments from Totally Not Rapists about ensuring that somebody actually did repeatedly rape children, as if that’s something one can do either by accident or consensually. As if rapists don’t ever re-offend, which is the whole point? See, this law will also reduce their overall rapist population, culling their most extreme r, meaning adult men and women are also safer for it since the predators of opportunity will theoretically lack it, but they can try to bluff those (yes, a rapist would lie!) as consensual or misunderstandings or simply being framed*, as if physically internal scarring and other forensic evidence isn’t required, and several cases don’t add up to fire for the smoke. Normally I just tell those people in person about the prosecution guidelines for rape and the forensic evidence required to shame the gamma (loudly) in front of third parties for thinking you can get those ‘by accident’ (because they lie). This isn’t a Hollywood film, the evidence burden is extreme, presuming innocence. Most rapists get away with it. Otherwise logically, there wouldn’t be repeat offenders, dipshit?

(reads from a list of evidence standards required for prosecution, let alone incarceration)
In light of ALL THAT, which part could possibly be done by accident? …Well? We’d all love to hear?

Only a rapist would hate you talking about the forensic evidence of rape. A real concerned man (not just concern trolling) would be relieved.

I picture this tone of author for such things, sort by Newest Comment to see the fresh ones:

*comments about political framing seem popular when massive slags of the male population get done for years of abuses. Sharia law has lower standards of witness count than the trial of Harvey Weinstein. Literally. So most women would consider a legal system based on Sharia, handling rape cases, to be an improvement! Threaten us with a good time morons, we could hang ’em high!

For example, spot the Totally Not a Rapist tells in this essay of gamma cope:

I’m OK with mob justice as long as if the subject turns out to be not guilty everyone coresponsible for execution HANG. No IFs no BUTs, everyone get the hemp tie. No statute of limitations either.
Overwhelming majority calling for death penalty or lynching are shortsighted cowards. They think this won’t come back to bite them, they can pose as hardass protectors of comunity while as they believe paying no price and accepting no real responsibly for eventual consequences.
Most people don’t have the stomach to be libertarian nor classic liberal. Dank proves to be no exception.
There is so much more condensed stupidity in here and returns of me posting this are so low. I think I’ll end here.

A brief list of tells and rapist rhetoric:

  1. Threatening the rest of society with murder. Well, they’re rapists, obviously murder isn’t beneath them. They’re not even being killed, it’s just a life sentence and he’s a pussy.
  2. For thee, but not me. Apparently BEING a rapist MUST have a statute of limitations (Creeps: your attack happened years ago so must be fake, right?) but murdering everyone prosecuting them has no such limit, that makes sense – if one is insane. Evil is still evil, even years ago. They plot in gangs over decades. That’s their MO. See Prince Andrew. Epstein. And Co. It can take years to build a case, which is LITERALLY THEIR WHOLE POINT. You can already sue people for false accusations, once they’re proven false. There is already justice. PERJURY? Wasting police time? Contempt of court? However, they push for killing accusers, to DETER other accusers that apparently won’t come forward if they’re Not a Rapist. See? What are the odds you can be falsely accused of the same crime on two separate occasions? HE DINDU NUFFIN reasoning. Jesus never said there was a statute of limitations on the millstone treatment. He’s the moral standard, move to Thailand if you don’t like it. Rape doesn’t just EXPIRE as a crime. Neither do any of the others. Note: they ‘believe’ the law makes something right, so will travel to countries with the laxest laws humanly possible. We need a universal, global age of consent. Child rapists hate that. TO PREVENT TRAFFICKING.
  3. Calling people opposing child rape cowards. Projection much? Why so scared to live with rapists, if you claim they’re all secretly innocent?
  4. It seems very long-sighted, genetically. Very K-selected.
  5. Coming back to bite them = stop raping anybody? Like just don’t do it? Most men I’ve ever met don’t care about rape allegations because even when the guy did it, it rarely goes to trial. Why do you think you’re repeatedly at risk of going to trial? What are you doing? Isn’t that a sign you should probably stop? Psychopaths have no mind for consequences, it’s the glibness coming out in him. The You’ll Be Sorrys is a common threat of the degenerate. You saw the revenge fantasy of killing society’s antibodies against their menace. This is why society is literally better off with them dead. You won’t be falsely imprisoned for rape unless you partake in enough actions that legally look a lot like rape. You can’t just be imprisoned on somebody’s word but it’s the biggest myth pushed by this type. Is Trump in prison? Prince Andrew? Jimmy Saville wasn’t even accused. You need forensic evidence or at least sufficient physical proof in the medical file of the victim, like loss of virginity. That’s happening later and later with the internet. You cannot tell by looking.
  6. ‘don’t have the stomach’ Neither of those take responsibility for deviance in society, they pass it off or pay for it to go out of sight. This is a real solution. Note the distinct bitter tone of persecution delusion, common to criminals. Nobody cares about You, they care what you DID. Psychos have solipsism. But what about MEEEEEEEEE? Is this about you? Really? How so?
  7. Everyone else is stupid, Secret King wins again. Apparently the moral high ground is to slap the repeated child rapists on the wrist? Plus moral high ground F L O U N C E. This is why the manosphere is harbouring a serious case of cancer. Quit the pedo-defence league rhetoric. Everyone will think you endorse this shit if you enable it to speak for you.

This one was so blatant, I’ll tell you the OP name was Krzysztof Kozłowski.
-ski -ski -ski -ski

STOP SIMPING FOR RAPISTS

IT’S THE MOST LEFT WING THING EVER

The cuckservatives will feign concern for even this shit. Criminals SHOULD fear the law.

As if you couldn’t have guessed why this is important to implement across the West.
WHY AREN’T WE FUNDING THIS???

We can also send fetishists of cock and ball torture as prison guards. Our little gift.

UK enabling child rapists

By hiding the obvious evidence.

The pedo paradise thanks to pick-up culture.

The UK is trying to push a chemical abortifacient over the counter. No minimum age limit, paedo paradise. How many rape gangs or child groomers will feed this to their prey, coercive or secretly? The capacity of even parents for reproductive abuse, secretly giving it to their children like a harmless preventative (when they might already be taking it themselves) is abhorrent. There are no proportionate laws criminalizing giving this to children. Mull over that.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/08/contraceptive-pill-will-be-available-over-the-counter-for-the-first-time

““Pharmacists have the expertise to advise women on whether desogestrel is an appropriate and safe oral contraceptive pill for them to use and to give women the information they need, to make informed choices,” she said.” It isn’t only women who will buy it, fathers raping their daughters, rape gangs attacking girls en masse, controlling mothers drugging their daughters ‘just in case’…. pharmacists are not doctors and cannot order appropriate tests to maintain healthy hormone levels. You cannot make informed choices as a minor by definition.

“The MHRA’s decision to reclassify the desogestrel products follows a safety review by the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) and a public consultation taking in views from patients, pharmacists and doctors.”
Patients are idiots and so are pharmacists. They’ll opine when they’re damaged, but why didn’t you warn us?

“Edward Morris, the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said he was delighted that some contraceptive pills would be available in local pharmacies after the college’s years of campaigning against “unnecessary barriers” for women and girls.”
Women and girls. No minimum age noted.

He said: “Even before the pandemic, too many women and girls were struggling to access basic women’s health services. The consequences of this include an increase in the number of unplanned pregnancies, which can result in poorer outcomes for women and their babies.”
These people are child rape enablers. Apparently the TRUE evil (sarc) is holding child rapists accountable for the fruit of their loins. This is rape culture if the term ever applied.

Saving money on actual medical advice again, cost cutting:
“She said: “The fragmented sexual and reproductive healthcare system is notoriously difficult for women to navigate, and successive cuts to public health budgets have made it harder for women to get the contraception they need. Reclassification may also reduce unnecessary pressures on GPs, who will not need to see patients for repeat prescriptions.”
They need to monitor anything hormonal. When are steriods OTC? No? They have noted health benefits.

The Pill’s push to the unmarried will go down in history as true evil. Yes, it counts as abortion. They continue to lie about its basic mechanism. They already pushed the morning after form OTC. Long term use of any medication requires doctor supervision to ensure the organs aren’t being poisoned. Oestrogen dominance is rising amid well, everyone, and causes severe damage including obesity. Progesterone can mess with all other hormone levels. The idea of drugging just women/girls with this shit is misogyny. It’s purely misogynistic. You must hate them to endorse this. Are we selling testosterone and other supplements OTC at drug concentrations to anyone, whatever the age?
This is tacitly enabling child rapists and pretending children can consent to be raped. It places blame squarely on the child. It enables the continual abuse of children under the guise of ‘responsibility’.
There will now also be social pressure to conform among girls. It isn’t harmless. If you have to ban sugar lollipops at schools for being ‘bad for health’, this is nothing less than evil to push.
A gyno on GB News, claiming to be a patriotic TV station here, had her go on about ‘painful periods’ – which is no excuse to drug the reproductive organs of a developing child. You also know the BPD parents will be forcing this onto their sons like tranny abuse of the drug class for ‘therapy’. Even if a girl has painful periods, painkillers already relieve that, as I well know. There are no longitudinal studies on the damage of chronic Pill use. I repeat, no long term studies. In adult starters, let alone minors. The Guardian even sub-links to an article about blood clots caused by the Pill.

Tracking Pill use is vital to monitor whether a woman is being abused, and whether SHE actually wants to take a medication, rather than being drugged. She must attend her own appointment and talk to a doctor, bearing in mind her medical history. This system of protection prevents coercion. They tried pushing this shit on me for no medical reason as a minor and virgin (obviously) so I know they do it. Thankfully I understood what longitudinal studies were and told them like three or four times on separate occasions, no I don’t want their drug pushing (I had a normal ovarian cyst*, the first time – making it completely random and insulting to suggest) and no amount of fear mongering or ‘you’ll be sorrys’ will make me anything less than really really sure. The longest I had to repeat this was about twenty to twenty five minutes. They don’t take no for an answer. They don’t even care if your family has an extensive history of damage reactions to hormones. They will still look you dead in the eye and gaslight you that it’s ‘really harmless’. Based upon??? They are actively PUSHING this shit onto women/girls. Painful periods require giving up sugar half a week before it starts, not this bullshit. But they want to save money and face on child abortions. It’s difficult to call a girl a liar if she’s literally pregnant.
This is all about enabling child abusers and disempowering victims, who have no legal recourse against food adulteration and coercion when it’s available like a breath mint. No proof of crime, no time.

*one or two cysts happen naturally when you ovulate but they’re so accustomed to seeing women and girls drugged up to the eyeballs that they treated this like I needed meds. More like they wanted kickbacks.

deportations look surer

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews/13361804/four-children-arrested-suspicion-raping-woman-sheffield/

they haven’t released the names so I’m sure you can all guess

there are no ‘nice ones’ because these are their children

evil beings, with none of the normal innocence bred into the sitting duck population with PC men enabling it

bring back hanging, we deserve a referendum as the prisons overflow

women would vote for the death penalty for child abusers and serial rapists (statistically most rapists), I guarantee it

a lot of men would be eerily averse and shrinks defend predators to use them as lab rats in studies, I’ve seen them admit the motive (who would we study?) because m or f they’re hybristophiliacs

women consider rape worse than murder, because of the trauma and damage on all levels including spiritual

any predators would mysteriously self-deport upon the decision to have a real law of patriarchy (Bible says to interrupt and kill rapists, meaning abortion law is not needed)

The ‘rape gang’ Marxism (asking for it)

If you wear a skirt, you’re asking to be raped.
If you’re wearing heels of any kind, you’re asking to be raped.
If you wear patriotic red lippy, you’re asking to be raped.
If you have long, uncovered hair, you’re asking to be raped.
If you are white, you’re asking to be raped.
If you’re Christian, you’re asking to be raped.
If you live close to a Muslim area, you’re asking to be raped.
If you’re a girl or woman (rarely boy), you’re asking to be raped.

Where have we heard this?

Anyone?

If you have savings, you’re asking to be taxed.
If you have a Rolex, you’re asking to be mugged.
If you have a sportscar, you’re asking to get carjacked.
If you have white privilege (your life), you’re asking to be killed.
If you have a business, you’re asking for a wealth distribution.
If you’re a young man or woman, you’re asking to be kidnapped and trafficked.
If you have a factory, you’re asking to lose your means of production.
If you have a laptop, you’re asking to be doxxed.
If you’re a conservative (real one), you’re asking to be fired.
If you have a sense of humour, you’re asking to be ostracised.
If you have long hair, you’re asking for it to be cut.
If you’re thin, you’re asking to be bullied.
If you have a rich white country, you’re asking to be invaded.
If you have a high trust society, you’re asking for diversity.
If you have a nice house, you’re asking to be burgled.
If you have less upper body strength as a woman or child to resist, you’re asking to be beaten to a bloody pulp.
If you’re attractive, you’re asking to be verbally abused and publicly groped. (Happens to men, too).
If you’re intelligent, you’re asking to be blacklisted from work.
If you’re artistic, you’re asking to be dismissed as ‘problematic’.
If you’re tall, you’re asking to be shorter by a head.
If you don’t want to ‘freely’ convert, you’re asking to be beheaded.
If you’re a capitalist, you’re asking to be shot, comrade.

Do not adopt one part of their narrow end of the wedge.

That is victim blaming. This is about property rights.

That is moral cowardice.

That is why PUA types push it. They’re nomadic and lolbertarian dyscivic types.

It exploits natural weakness or Western expression AS a weakness. It’s down with Western Civ by punishing the culture e.g. protect women and children from rape. It makes our native culture inferior by default.

Nobody has the stones to mention it as a PRIME tactic to disincentive and demoralise us, literally de-moralise. It’s psyops. Mentacide beckons, the psyops form of genocide to prime the pump for it. #BLM

It’s cultural colonialism, they’ve won only if we let them limit our Western expression.

Cultural replacement is more insidious than racial replacement. A 100% white but ‘non-Christian’ society isn’t us, it’s cuckold nationalism.

The spiteful Harrison Bergeron types must be opposed, at all costs.
Sexual Communism, rape is degenerate. No is the legal default, consent arguments fail because the burden on the victim is impossible – it’s impossible to prove a negative. The burden to prove consent is on the rapist, since consent is a positive claim. Otherwise, every murderer could claim it was BDSM ‘gone wrong’ (they do, in recent choking cases*) and every burglar would get off (making burglary de facto legal) by claiming they were hired for an insurance scam. After all, you can’t prove a dragon isn’t in the corner, can you?

It’s just invisible, like their conscience.

White people need to accept that the amoral exist, there are moral subhumans lacking conscience.

Asking a rape victim of any age to prove non-consent is unfalsifiable as asking to prove the lunar Teapot.
Sexual sadists are one form of psychopathic sadism, one face of the evil, see Psychopathia Sexualis for a pre-pozzed (pre-Freud) discussion.
Society is more conformist than ever, but conforming to Sodom times 100. We have more evils than they could’ve imagined. Moral relativism is the apathetic, conscience-less perspective of psychopaths, who have no emotional empathy. They have cognitive empathy, to fit in, enough to rationalise their prey as deserving it.
Just World fallacy. They’re gaslighting their would-be victims.
Predators have rhetoric, don’t buy it. They’re priming the social norms to use it on you, too. They just start with the smallest gazelle – women and children, in this case.

They’re all fellow travellers in Cultural Marxism, which adopts the ‘relative’ morality of “stop hitting yourself”.

That is no civilization.

Few men know you can be raped to death, it happened to one white girl at the Katrina stadium who went to the bathroom and a few hours later, was dead. Most women would actually rather die than be raped.

Step 1. punish lechery again. This protects minors the most. Lechery disturbs the peace of high trust society. No ‘holla’ culture. Women now shop online to avoid it, so the cities are empty of whites. Fewer interactions, lower birth rates and stagnating GDP.

Step 2. enforce etiquette, legally.

Step 3. long prison sentences, bland prisons.

Step 4. make it clear that ‘rape gangs’ are a form of human slavery, drill on this point. The Left is scared of it. Pimp is the PC term for slave owner. As such, referendum on the death penalty for repeat rapists**, especially of a virgin (which includes minors but religiously-motivated adults too). Protect the innocent, actively. Sexual innocence as a legal right. The Left make fake victims. A points system like, every year from 18, is ten points and 100 = execution, the child or adult being a virgin is 50 points. The monsters who raped hundreds would easily qualify in the Rope Budget. Sexual consent is medical, therefore age of consent at least 18. Pedo politicians prevented that ‘oversight’ from being corrected.

*another reason porn should be banned as incitement to rape, grooming and sexual violence. It isn’t legally possible to consent to assault. But rapists have no problem lying about it, like murderers have no problem stealing a gun.

**and serial killers, they’re the same offenders. Most violent criminals are repeat offenders, crime data goes by instance, not offender (crime data v. forensic).

Link: Common trafficking tactics, job bait

Men and women are trafficked everyday.

There should be warning about this in schools.

https://theamericangenius.com/business-news/human-sex-trafficking-job-scams/

Schools practically deliver them by saying things like ‘follow every opportunity!’ and ‘don’t upset the interviewer’!

There should be hierarchy in legitimate work, yes, but not a huge difference in the balance of power.

This isn’t master/slave.

That only encourages (currently Boomer) elders to abuse their position.

Men also become targets for sexual harassment, serial bullies etc.

Your boss isn’t your parent. Nagging is unacceptable.

Human slavery would be nigh impossible without “libertarians” talking about prostitution as a right (it isn’t, that’s a fundamentally dishonest* spin on what a right is**).

What they don’t mention is that many of them have mental problems (so much for consenting adults), drug problems (force/blackmail, memory issues) and in American brothels the hookers are locked in and cannot leave.

Yes, the average household dog has more freedom. There’s no such thing as prostitution, only slavery. It is institutionalized rape of white men, children and women.

“But if they want it…”

Stockholm Syndrome, no.

The amount of gaslighting alone, combined with drugs, means no human would be capable of thinking clearly.

Remember MKUltra, humans are malleable mentally.

*in bad faith

**As a ‘service’,  it involves the market and by that logic, there’s also a market for bestiality, necrophilia and pedophilia. Market doesn’t make right.

If you want to finger the true cause of American degeneracy, it’s “Israel is our greatest ally, let your daughter become a hooker” libertarianism.

Think that’s a non sequitur?

And who sells her the pharmaceuticals to do it?

“Native” Americans still savages

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/17/native-american-rape-reservations-sex-assault

You can taste the 80s average IQ.

One full SD, emphasis on the D, apparently.

Many Olive Oatmans, few of them white.

The noble savage trope is incredibly racist – and statistically false.

https://www.hcn.org/articles/tribal-affairs-why-native-american-women-still-have-the-highest-rates-of-rape-and-assault

SJWs: You can’t pretend to care about women then act like Chief Indian is a victim.

Concern about white rape is funny

He was saying rape gangs, you classist bigots.

I was going to put white slavery but most people probably don’t know that slavery is primarily sexual.

To this day.

Notice they never try it on with middle-class girls.

They know they wouldn’t get away with it.

“these girls say they were” the judges forced to prosecute don’t believe them, consent should be age of majority and never presumed but then the pedo politicians wouldn’t have a cover either.

And why are they given special treatment on religious grounds in prison?

What if their religion were the anti-prison platoon? It’s absurd.

The point of prison is you have no control. And don’t put them all in one block. That’s a freedom of association.

This is slavery. Call them what they are: white slavery rings.

The only way to deter these predators is bringing back hanging.

The majority wants this. It was taken off the books illegally, without a vote.

Twice they crashed the Parliamentary petition website on that issue shortly after it went up.

It’s the most pertinent solution to people who should not be allowed out.

Sympathy for the victim, not the predator.

Unless of course, the girls and women are finally allowed their right to self-defense? Battered wife syndrome for slaves? Don’t attack someone without expecting them to attack back. First World logic.

It’s like the men who stupidly slap a woman on the arse and object when she slaps them on the face. Well, you started it. If a man did it to them, they’d escalate to a punch, minimum.

We probably need a return of etiquette laws. Hell, just enforcing harassment and stalking law.

These monsters were allowed around these girls. Like leaving that goat in Jurassic Park.

Prosecute the aiders and abetters just as severely. Name, shame, face in the paper.

Of course, the surest way to trigger a Muslim slut is to call them a slut.

They think nobody would dare. Just describe them. Narcissists are easy to trigger.

Also, let the wife leave them for “adultery”.

The rape culture is imported.

It’s low IQ so fixing it is not an option. Deport or hang.

We did this with our native rapists for centuries and it’s the reason they’re so low prevalence nowadays, the DNA was largely wiped out. White nation safety didn’t just happen, it took a lot of rope.

People forget, and then we need to begin again.

We can’t enjoy it any longer because people who want to destroy us invited the snakes in.

Start with the schools.

Why are taxpayers funding any religious schools or religion taught IN schools?

No religious teachings should go through the state. This is preaching.

Ban RE. It’s an abuse of human rights.

It has no place in a school’s compulsory curriculum, it’s too complicated and there are too many religions to teach below a university level.

Freedom from religion is a freedom too.

(Even atheistkult can get behind this).

Women have been going missing for a long time

Nowadays, we’d call it trafficking/slavery.

Back then, they pretended it didn’t exist. To protect powerful men. So male privilege did exist, just rich male privilege.

I’d love to have Q or something like it open up these old cases and expose what really happened.

Vindicate Humiston, for one thing. It would draw a lot of normies’ attention.

It feels like recent history is Swiss cheese, giving people answers is a proof without being sued because all the culprits are now dead. There is no reason NOT to release this and I’ll be disappointed if there’s no review of history given present gatherings.

They always call people a crank if they’re onto something. Journalists gaslight and slander all the time. If you notice anything true, you’re just mad or hysterical or crazy or deluded. …No.

This was like a one-woman chan, it’s amazing.