British siekh leader Lord* Indarjit Singh: Cigarettes are to cancer as muslims are to sexual grooming/abuse. However, he also cowardly added that 'it's not islam'!
* i.e. elected by a politician for the purpose of supporting a certain political ideology or cause. Such "life peers" are entitled to sit in the House of Lords for the duration of their lives, but their titles are not hereditable by their heirs.
Sikh and Hindu organisations have signed an open letter claiming that sex-grooming gangs "predominantly originate from a Pakistani muslim community, while their victims are almost always of a White, Hindu or Sikh background".
Klevius comment: How could it possibly 'not be islam'? Islam seems to be defined as 'without negative consequences' although islam itself eagerly points out such negative consequences of the "disbelievers" infidels" or "wrong believers" and proudly tells us that we all should be muslims and if we don't we are just crap - i.e. we are no longer "innocent" and therefore the legitimate target for whoever lunatic muslims. This is what your imam means when he says (usually via BBC to make it sound more serious) that 'islam forbids attacks on innocent people'.
Islam is all about sex apartheid (sexism) and "hatred against "infidels" (racism). In fact, Klevius blog Origin if islam - the worst crime ever against humanity, started as a blog against sex segregation and racism.
Klevius has been loaded with at least the average (probably more) tesosterone since his early teens (i.e. 10-30 times more than most women). Klevius has also had the opportunity to befriend a lot of representatives of the opposite sex. Not a single one can report abuse or failure. However, Klevius has never seduced anyone - precisely because he has always considered himself prepared for sex whenever while simultaneously never been in need for sex and therefore left the initiative to the one with a lower libido! Moreover, Klevius has never had sex without heterosexual attraction as the motivation - which fact in no way should be seen as criticism of other forms of sexuality. Likewise Klevius has often sneezed in the kitchen because of white pepper but never deliberately thrown white pepper around just because of the pleasure of sneezing.
The power and curse of biological female heterosexual attraction - leading to stupid cultural "femininity" and due sex segregation/apartheid
Teenage girls (and many women as well) realize the power of their asses but mis-connects it as part of their personhood. And often with disastrous consequences when males act without respecting basic Human Rights, i.e. seeing the individual that's connected to the ass.
Is RFSU suffering from sexual correctness or what's going on here? The pic below is from RFSU's campaign "Don't put it in".
Is this man a victim of MGM (male genital mutilation) or is he just religiously mutilated - or both?!
RFSU: 'Don't put it in!'
The video from which the first pic is taken has been a success in Thailand and - Saudi Arabia!
RFSU's picture (top) modified by Klevius (bottom)
The Swedish Association for Sexuality Education (RFSU, Riksförbundet för sexuell upplysning) is a Swedish nonprofit organization that works with public opinion formation on sexual and reproductive health and rights as well as information and education about sexuality and relationships. One of RFSU's main issues is the right to free abortion. The current Secretary-General is Åsa Regnér.
RFSU was founded February 24, 1933 by, among others, Elise Ottesen-Jensen, Gunnar Inghe and Hanna Lundin. Ottesen-Jensen was chairman from its inception until 1959, and has come to be strongly associated with the organization, whose journal, Ottar, was named after her.
RFSU works with information, education and advocacy by organizing courses, conferences and debates. Moreover the RFSU carries an extensive international work with similar organizations in other countries. RFSU is the Swedish national affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
RFSU's booklet “Sex: your own way” for teens is about sexual feelings and what you can do when caressing, making out, masturbating or having intercourse with someone.
It is aimed at everyone, whether you have sex on your own, with someone else, or don’t want to have sex at all. We’re also writing for those who would like to have sex with someone, but haven’t done it yet.
RFSU believes that sex isn’t just something you do or feel. It’s also about knowledge. It’s good to have facts and tips, so you can make your own decisions – now and later in life. Everyone has the right to make their own decisions about their body and their sexuality.
Openness is a key factor for prevention and sexual health. Everyone should have the freedom to choose, to be oneself and to enjoy.
Klevius additional clarification
For analytical purpose one needs to distinguish between heterosexual attraction (residing only in the "male gaze") and physical sexual acts (incl. intercourse, masturbation etc). Most people are able to feel sexual pleasure just as Klevius feels pleasure by inhaling a little white pepper enough to make him sneeze.
However, although men have a stronger overall sex drive (plus the heterosexual attraction* feature programmed in their brain) than women, the latter may feel a strong urge sexual around the time of ovulation.
* Do keep in mind that 'heterosexual attraction' is here biological, not cultural! Rapetivism, nymphomania etc are cultural.
The relaxation of the smooth muscle in the vagina and clitoris and the increase of blood flow into these organs is thought to be essential in the female sexual response. However, unlike Klevius (and most other men) who is always ready for hetero sex (but never in need for it) women are most receptive for sex only a couple of days per month. And how else could heterosexual reproduction function if not based on heterosexual attraction implanted in males as a code for seeing females as sexually attractive? The pistil is receptive for pollen but to get them she has to attract them, e.g. via honey bees etc. And many male fishes get aroused not by the female fish but by the eggs on which they spray their sperm without a penis.
However, due to the fact that religion has made sex so culturally weird, we now have a situation where heterosexual attraction is used by both men and women as an excuse for sex segregation/apartheid.
To really see the confusion surrounding heterosexual attraction do consider the following:
Wikipedia: The term heterosexual or heterosexuality is usually applied to humans, but heterosexual behavior is observed in all mammals and in other non-human animals.
Klevius: Would you believe it! 'Observed in all mammals and in other non-human animals'! Since we left the germ state of being, heterosexual attraction has been the rule of sexuality. It's the very definition of sexual reproduction, dude! And even in creatures with both sexes within the same individual there has to be heterosexual attraction to get the sperm to the egg.
Wikipedia: Heterosexuality is romantic attraction (Klevius: impossible), sexual attraction or sexual behavior between persons of opposite sex or gender (sic).
Klevius: Thus single sentence is packed with stupidities. Heterosexuality can never be romantic attraction because it's purely physical. 'Hetero' means different biological sex. And what would cultural 'gender' have to do with biology!
Wikipedia's senseless babble continues: As a sexual orientation (sic), heterosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional (sic), romantic (sic), and/or sexual attractions" to persons of the opposite sex; it "also refers to a person's sense of identity (Klevius: How could physiology suddenly become cultural?!) based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community (sic) of others who share those attractions."
Klevius: Unbelievable conflation of poorly understood (or poorly conceptualized) concepts. Heterosexual' can not be anything else than based on biology, i.e. sex - no matter what you or someone else thinks about it. And yes, you can well be attracted to someone of the opposite sex without it being heterosexual! And the other way round, a man can get heterosexually attracted to someone of the same sex who mimics the opposite sex. What determines heterosexuality is what the man thinks it is. To understand this you may compare a cyber sex robot whom you can't distinguish from a living person.
Drawing
(1979) by Peter Klevius. For those Humanrightsophobes with really
limited understanding or blinded with prejudice, do note that the DNA
"ladder" has steel rivets (i.e. strong both for trapping as well as for
escaping), and that the female curvature shadows transgress from below
over painful flames into a crown of liberty.
Perpetua (203 AD):
'I saw a ladder of tremendous height made of bronze, reaching all the
way to the heavens, but it was so narrow that only one person could
climb up at a time. To the sides of the ladder were attached all sorts
of metal weapons: there were swords, spears, hooks, daggers, and spikes;
so that if anyone tried to climb up carelessly or without paying
attention, he would be mangled and his flesh would adhere to the
weapons.' Perpetua realized she would have to do battle not merely with
wild beasts, but with the Devil himself. Perpetua writes: They stripped
me, and I became a man'.
Peter Klevius: They stripped Perpetua of her femininity and she became a human!
The
whole LGBTQ+ carousel is completely insane when considering that the
1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) art. 2 gives everyone,
no matter of sex, the right to live as they want without having to
"change their sex". So the only reason for the madness is the stupidly
stubborn cultural sex segregation which, like religious dictatorship,
stipulates what behavior and appearance are "right" for a biological
sex. And in the West, it is very much about licking islam, which refuses
to conform to the basic (negative) rights in the UDHR, and instead
created its own sharia declaration (CDHRI) in 1990 ("reformed" 2020 with
blurring wording - but with the same basic Human Rights violating
sharia issues still remaining). The UDHR allows women to voluntarily
live according to sharia but sharia does not allow muslim women to live
freely according to the UDHR. And culturally ending sex segregation does
not mean that biological sex needs to be "changed." Learn more under
'Peter Klevius sex tutorials' which should be compulsory sex education
for everyone - incl. people with ambiguous biological sex! The LGBTQ+
movement is a desperate effort to uphold outdated sex segregation. And
while some old-fashioned trans people use it for this purpose, many
youngsters (especially girls) follow it because they feel trapped in
limiting sex segregation.
Islam is a grave violation of women's sexual freedom (incl. freedom from sex all together). However, Human Rights freedom lets you lead your life as you wish.
It's precisely UN's and PC babblers' "diversity" (islam) rhetoric that paves the way for and legitimizes muslim "extremisms" and gives their cause something to resonate from.
Klevius wrote:
Monday, May 21, 2012
Klevius beats BBC when it comes to true reporting about OIC!
Totalitarian fanaticism replacing Human Rights while BBC misinforms muslims and others on how they're robbed of their Human Rights!
Sadly, Klevius is still the foremost (and lone?!) expert on sex segregation/apartheid and, consequently, also the web's foremost expert on islam. Why? Because islam rests so heavily on sex segregation/apartheid, even in its most "secular" form (as long as it's meaningful at all to call it islam) that an effort to understand islam without understanding sex segregation/apartheid is doomed to complete failure! In essence what Klevius is doing is in Bourdieu's words 'to restore to historical action, the relationship between the sexes that the naturalistic and essentialist vision removes from them'. And where Bourdieu went to the Kabyles Klevius went to the origin of islam, Christianity and Judaism!
BBC, the largest broadcaster in the world, has as its main responsibility to provide impartial public service broadcasting.
Klevius question: How come then that Klevius beats BBC when it comes to informing about OIC? As you can see on the 'OIC BBC' search below Klevius' 'BBC News', i.e. not BBC, is the first to offer real info about OIC. on the web (see the eighth result on the pic below: BBC News by Klevius)! And to really prove it you will find a picture of the first BBC post (BBC News - Profile: Organization of the Islamic Conference) further down to show that it completely avoids to inform the most essential feature of OIC, namely that it has abandoned Human Rights and replaced them with Sharia.
According to BBC OIC's aims are to 'safeguard islamic holy places' (Klevius comment: Those places are already carefully destroyed by the Sauds) and toe eradicate racial discrimination (meaning Human Rights "discrimination" of islamic Sharia) and colonialism (sic - islam has been the worst colonizer ever throughout 1400 years!). But nowhere in BBC's text can you find the most important namely OIC's violation of Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia!
While BBC has some 23,000 staff Klevius is not only alone* and without resources, he is also deliberately hindered in his extremely informative work by active and continuous "islamophobia filtering". Yes, Klevius knows that he could do much better by avoiding words like 'islamofascism' etc. but he loves it.
* no offence to other "islamophobes" out there but Klevius happens to be the one with the best potency for evaluating the origin of islam from a perspective of sex segregation/rapetivism.
Klevius wrote:
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Heterosexual attraction & sex segregation in islam
Quote of the day (Edmondo de Amicis visiting islamic Morocco some 100
yrs ago): "She appeared sad. Perhaps the reason was that her husband's
fourth wife, a recently arrived young 14 yr old girl in his harem, had
triumphed over her in a way that was clearly reflected in her husband's
indifference." Klevius comment: Heterosexual attraction (HSA) combined with sex segregation
is often disastrous for human relations! Only with full access to
respective social spheres, as well as full awareness of the HSA
discrepancy between the sexes (i.e. what möst feminists deny) an open
de-sex segregated interaction is possible' HSA per se doesn't
presupposes/determines sex of any kind - neither does women "need a
normal penis several times" (S. Freud) nor does a male need to rape.
What could the older wife possibly offer her husband behind an
impenetrable wall of sex segregation when her physical attraction didn't
work anymore? Only islam was satisfied because she had to continue her
inescapable (Sharia & apostasy ban) fate of fostering new islamists!
Klevius wrote:
Monday, April 15, 2013
Rapetivism and heterosexual attraction
Researching rapetivism in research
“I had no power to say ‘that’s not okay:’” Reports of harassment and abuse in the field, By Kate Clancy.
Klevius (who seems to be, sad to say, still the world's foremost expert on sex segregation): Sexism is a widespread social disease fueled by sex segregation/apartheid. And it's not cured by covering in burqas and Sharia.
Sex segregation results in girls being stripped off their humanhood and hence becoming the sole target for heterosexiual attraction and cultural sexism. Usually the only sex freed relationship outside a girl's own sex in a sex segregated world is with close male kins (because they lack bio-heterosexual attraction).
Rapetivism , i.e. the enslavement/abuse of confined/veiled girls/women as physical and cultural reproducers of as many new muslims (i.e. islam) as possible under the threats from Sharia and apostasy ban, is, in fact, a form of HSA perversion , i.e. "cultural/physical necrophilia" that rests on cultural sex segregation. However, although islam is the ultimate sex segregation/apartheid, most of us, at least partially, still suffer under milder forms of the same cultural disease. This (+ our untreated vulnerability for fascism) is the main reason why evil medieval islam has been able to rise its ugly face of slavery/racism/sexism again.
(text extracted from Klevius old original writings)
So underpinning these rapes and sexist attitudes lies a cultural sex segregation/apartheid that is codified in the Bible and driven to ultimate excess in the Koran/Sharia.
God made Adam in his image but to entertain Adam he created a being called Eve from the least valuable part of Adam's skeleton, i.e. a ribbon which happens to be the only bone that has multiple copies and which doesn't cause much of a trouble even if broken.
Educate yourself on the crucial difference between positive and negative Human Rights!
Klevius wrote:
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Muslim stupidity behind islam's misogyny
Klevius, the world's foremost expert on sex segregation (sad isn't it), sex tutorial for muslims and their accomplices in their crimes against Human Rights
onislam.net (a deceptive but popular A/Q site for naive/ignorant people): By covering herself, a Muslim woman declares that she is equal to man and has brains. She closes the door to being seen as “a piece of meat”.
Klevius: Really! Muslim women have brains! A muslim brain, is it? However, Klevius has always enjoyed seeing his infidel girlfriends and wives as heterosexually attractive (i.e. what muslims see as “a piece of meat”). However, unlike all true muslims (defined according to onislam.net) and many sexist non-muslims as well, Klevius has always seen women as equal to himself - even while appreciating their heterosexual attraction and during sexual acts. This approach seems to be radically different from muslim sex predators who, following the Koran and onislam.net etc., see "infidel" girls/women as sex slaves 'their right hand possesses'. In other words, whereas muslim women just belong to an inferior "race" in need of male dictators, non-muslim women are considered even lower than that. Klevius approach, however, goes in the very opposite direction and makes it possible for him to encounter, on an equal basis women with or without heterosexual attraction! Klevius is the opposite to Casanova or Don Juan and has never ever seduced a woman - and he is extremely proud about it. Why should he even try to lure her into something and consequently loose the human virginity in the relation?! And how could one fully enjoy a relation with a woman if there are mutual "no go zones" - not to mention restrictions laid on her? And what if the woman isn't interested in heterosex or sex at all? The fact that Klevius might appreciate the look of a woman's body doesn't make him believe the woman wants it. And although Klevius has nothing to say about voyeurism emanating from women themselves, he completely disapprove of peeping Tom. Likewise Klevius can not comprehend how anyone could be aroused by seeing a naked woman who isn't herself aware and positive to it. Klevius files such perversions under necrophilia.
onislam.net: As for women praying behind men, it is not, my dear (sic), because they are inferior. Muslim prayers involve bowing and prostrating. If women were next to or in front of men, their movements would be distracting. It is again, to keep their chastity and avoid focusing on their bodily existence.
Klevius: Poor muslim men. They seem to be real extremists. Although Klevius would love to be unique, facts seem to prove him "extremely"* normal". Unlike muslims, the majority of civilized men have no problem seeing female bodies without connecting it to sex or sexism, not to mention rape etc. Where Klevius differs from many other civilized men is only when it comes to sex segregation, i.e. the prevalent but so problematic confusion produced by mixing heterosexual attraction with the human person. And in this both men and women have been guilty of upholding a perverted view on each other. This is also why Klevius always refers to the (negative) Human Rights declaration from 1948 which clearly states that one's sex ought not to infringe on one's Human Rights - as it does in islam and which caused OIC (all muslims Saudi based and Saudi steered world Umma organization) to abandon Human Rights and replace them with misogynist sharia.
* Among 1.5+ Billion muslims and another 1.5+ Billion naively/ignorant (or purely evil) muslim supporters, Klevius normality has to be underscored in the same way as his normality in defending Human Rights isn't "extremism" but extremely important today.
onislam.net: In Islam, the husband is responsible for all the expenses of the household. Then, in return, the wife is to guard his property and her chastity in his absence. She is to obey him in things regarding their life together.
Klevius: An imprisoned whore!
onislam.net: A Muslim husband has the right to order his non-Muslim wife not to serve pork or alcohol in the house. Yet, he is also responsible not to offend her creed or prohibit her from her given right of worshiping, according to her Christian or Jewish faith.
Klevius: Only Christian or Jewish faith? What about people outside the book, i.e. the majority of the world's population? And is she allowed to eat pork? More to the point, Klevius would hate to be a family dictator. Why? Because Klevius believes in democracy. Which fact doesn't exclude criticism of bad decisions/opinions. And the best way to criticize is to highlight possible drawbacks and let her balance them just as she would do against his. I.e. that kind of criticism that isn't allowed against islam!
onislam.net: But, if a Muslim woman were to marry a non-Muslim man and he ordered her to serve pork or alcohol, what would she do? What if he ordered her not to pray or fast?
Klevius: She doesn't have to eat it, does she, precisely because he is a non-muslim. Or should we interpret it as muslim women aren't allowed to even touch wine bottles or pork packages etc. Islam is a laughably rigid system of restrictions and impositions. And a civilized non-muslim man would probably not "order" a woman at all. Only in the worst ever ideological hate crime is it today possible to even hint at such stupidities.
onislam.net: A Muslim wife is originally obliged to obey her husband, in order to maintain peace and love with the family relations. Yet, off course a woman should obey Allah first. So, if there is conflict between the husband’s demands and Allah’s orders, it puts a great strain on the marriage. Thus, Islam prohibits a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man.
Klevius: Not at all. The will of "Allah" is completely deleted in islam. The real reason is that the kids should become muslims. And this extreme one way immoral is perhaps the most striking feature of islam compared to civilized Human Rights thinking.
onislam.net: Even if a non-Muslim wife doesn't respect Islam the Muslim husband has the right to demand certain behavior from her.
Klevius: "Certain behavior" like domestic sex slavery and responsibility to foster her kids to muslim jihadis and not according to her own beliefs.
onislam.net: Men and women do not have the same responsibilities and rights in Islam. For example, the wife has the right to stay home and care for her young children. She can instill the best values in them. She can build a strong family… and strong families build strong healthy societies.
Klevius: Healthy societies?! The majority of the most unhealthy societies are and have always been muslim caliphates, nations or muslim communities! No matter if a muslim nation is rich due to slavery or Western oil money, or poor when this is lacking - the result is always unhealthy societies!
Iyad Madani, the Saudi dictator family's islamofascist leader of the world's muslims most important organization OIC.
No comments:
Post a Comment