Presence of RAPE IV.

             In the animal kingdom, always the female selects her mate for herself and not vice versa, which is exactly why the males are more coloured, ornamented – where there is gender dimorphism – females are gray or monochromatic. But they do not have to prink themselves because that's what the male does. We, humans, as the only species, have successfully overturned the basic laws of evolution and only the human females are more prinked than in males, and only human females try to please to the males by giving them the chance to choose. The human females are the nicer gender, and the males are the cleverer – they hold the public eye, though they have no realistic basis. The basis for this practice is deeply rooted in the principles of the gender discrimination system and is the consequence of the division of genders and division of labour based on it. With the appearance of the property, women became available for sale and were sold as property for whom she had to be married "purely", untouched, "unopened". Girls, as deprived of self-determination, have been simply excluded from all aspects of life (see such a GYES nowadays) and was reduced their education only to housework and child-rearing, and they were bought by men in childhood for domestic servant, sex slave, and breeding animal. They became uneducated, non-worthy, sellable property objects, of course they could not have own property and were deprived of  almost all rights which having, owning by men, including the right of mating, which was transferred to the hands of the men having possess. Women could not decide on their own destiny – in many countries this is still the case – their dads, their brothers and other male relates chose the person of their husbands. In this situation, only one thing could be done unofficially to improve their lives – and many women still do so – namely that somehow they try to involve richer, wealthier, higher ranked men, so that if they can not marry in love, they do not have to starve and living in need next to a poorer, simpler husband. This was only achieved in one way: with their appearance! The more affluent men did not choose by how much the bride would cost and could they pay it, but wanted the most beautiful one and therefore they were able and willing to pay a lot.
          Everything is happening the way men want it, it favours men, it serves their needs. Men, with wealth and power in their hands, had the power and could do to choose between the female children offered for sale, because everybody who buys anything, wants better, nicer, younger than others, so the girls' goal of life (after being married) was to make their appearance more appealing. They wanted to be more desirable, sexually appealing than others, because this way they could attract as many men as possible, and the more men were circling around them, the bigger the chances that there were really rich among them, who had to "bid" to girls just like to the cows in the fair. The lucky ones were chosen unhappily, but they were able to live their lives in riches... with some other wives. Since at that time, virginity was the only valuable, sellable property of a woman (plus the only one with which she was honest), so if a man wanted to get a woman, he had to buy her under a marriage contract, only after could fulfill his wishes. The emergence of men's sexual desire through the manipulation of the look and appearance became an integral part of the "female role". The more attractives received the wealthy husbands, and at the same time the more luxurious become the luxury courtesans who could live well until their attractiveness passed by with their youth. To this day, this is about being a woman to be a term, in conjunction with servitude and breeding. It is so true that the number of such thinking women would not decrease, but that it is growing. Modern, "enlightened" women unfortunately have fallen for the billion dollar beauty industry's increasingly  money magnet catchphrase of "be real woman" because only the beautiful woman is "precious" for men and women do not "get along without men"  and they will do everything, ready to do anything to be sexually attractive for every men coming towards them. This time they are terribly happy, they are also glad of the whims of the worst, weirdest road workers, and they take it a success. Men enjoy the show made for them. What women are doing half-naked, stretched in tight stuff on the streets, anywhere. Men sit  out to the parks in the spring and summer, go out to the beaches to watch women half-naked, watching them as a movie in the cinema, a play in the theatre, striptease in a peep show, because women are so. To arouse men's sexual desires, to show men's pleasure their parts of the body hanging out of dress. And when men want to fulfill their desires, they are outraged and do not understand what the hell is men using violence to them? What can not you understand? A hamburger is going to make appetite and then be eaten. Women are hamburgers what men want to eat.  The majority of women do not even want to be more than a hamburger.
                Now, for sure, many people wonder why, why cannot a woman wear clothes that she wants? She can wear any clothes, but I'll answer with a question. Is it certain that women would like/want to walk in such dresses, with silicone balls, with full make-up, to go under plastic surgeries to satisfy men's tastes, needs, wishes if they were NOT sex objects for men??? If they did not think the same thing about themselves? Are you sure that women would run in the streets dressed as prostitute if it were full equality? On the other hand, it is not really a lucky thing, for example, to dress up as a slave in a slavery society. Could this be justified by wearing what I want? And if they take me for slave for my dress, how do I explain that I'm not that and what right I would be upset to believe it?  Likewise, it is not a lucky action to be dressed as whore in a society like ours where gender discrimination is the dominant "religion" in which women are treated as objects and instruments only by men. Then it can be done without any negative consequences, if true equality and freedom will “reign” over the world again.  
               For the moment and for thousands of years, everything is done according to the will of men, men have everything to do. Even if women misrepresent that they have the "tool" (their sex organs) that men need, so they can "rule" them, but this is nothing more than sex extortion and what actually sells their sex organs during the exchange trade (if you do it, you can get me) - that is, prostitution. Would that be the power? We are where the shore gets torn...
            The fate of women is in the hands of men, for instance in the case of a proposal. Millions of “honest” women wait shaken, sitting on needles for long years, decades, for the great and mighty man, the master of the world, to be "married" to them. Men decide when, where, how, and whether they want or not at all, and the decide, too, to make fun of women, to take advantage of women for years until they are bored or not. And women are just waiting for the "big day" of their lives, the only important thing in their lives, instead of taking their destiny into their own hands. The majority of women, even successful and rich ones, still want to be as a property of men and are willing to do anything. The wedding was turned into a terribly disgusting thing by women, namely the celebration of the sealing of the business contract, though marriage is not really about love, but the ordering a woman under a man legally.
            Women's bouts of wedding / marriage odor (bridezilla phenomenon) can be traced back to a different set of values due to gender discrimination – just like almost everything else. The useless, unable to worthy labour,  sellable, buyable girls were taught only to serve the man, to housework, to understand nothing else, to be unable to earn money, prohibited to hold a state position, so they could not support themselves. They could be happy if someone bought them for good money. Later, this feminine worthlessness grew to the point that men did not buy women for good money, but fathers bought husbands for their daughters, and this practice was named dowry so that men would not even fall into the "buyable" category by accident. In India and in many places, men are still marry for money, and as this phenomenon has widespread in the wording of our male chauvinist society mistakenly: he takes the woman for money! They still count as buyers! Absolutely meaningless wording! By deliberately creating a paradoxical situation, still claiming that the husband bought for money/dowry continues to "take away" the woman, that is, he does "buy"! It's like buying a bread in a store and we do not have to pay for it, but we even get some money for purchasing. It lacks any logic, not about what it is talking about, but it's so perfect for men as it keeps their ownerships.
                 If a man has the kindness to take a worthless, having no knowledge of anything only of service woman as a domestic servant, that counts as an unchallenged glory and an esteemed female career that must be blown to the world without delay, so that everyone who lives and moves to be informed about how honour the worthless woman received. The wedding ring wearing by just a bride means the same, and that a man has already seized her, deposited the advance, deposit for her. Since there was no official registration at the time, the Church was the only one keeping book about some sort of record of birth, death, marriage, baptism, so there was a need to settle a marriage “for seven countries”, so that everyone could see the glorious bride, could be witness the sealing and then celebration of the treaty, that later, if necessary, to rove that this woman was really married, she was really needed someone, not just lying to be married. For this reason, even today, the most important moment of girls' lives, their most important goal, the meaning of their lives, and according to the male chauvinists, every girl dreams to be "sold", that is to say, to be a man's property and proudly advertise that I already have a master! That is why it is kept up to nowadays that the wedding is about the woman, the bride's day, not the groom's, since the status, the existence, the name of the man does not change by the marriage, he is still the one who has been before the wedding, but everything changes for the woman. One formally owned by a man has become "more valuable" to society (more valuable is a cow that is bought than a stew, which no one needs, even though it gives milk), and becomes "someone" as opposed to free, independent, self-sustaining  women who do what they want. Unfortunately, the majority of women believe that if they do not want to be alone, it is a necessity for marriage, and this means that they have to be subordinated to the husband and her family, because that is the "price" of it.
               And after that, we still wonder about the existence of violence against women and as accepted practice, but there is no reason for the opposite. Of course, a street sweeper despised by other men also think of being the lord of the world and women if he knows someone at home is waiting for him, who is even less than him: Mrs. Street sweeper! How would not he think of being the world's lord when he is sure that his name, though worthless, but for a woman it is worth of a medal, great honour and career. Marriage is, in fact, legal prostitution, in which the woman provides her husband with sexual and household services in return for money-support.
               The so-called decent women play even more in line with men's rules.
They want to prove to men and world that they are not whores but fair by being shameful of their gender and self sexuality and proudly being "less", who do not lie immediately with someone, play to be "hard-to-get" (like objects) for a long time and all matter in a man for them, but not the  appearance. Famous women in the media are repeating by throwing their chests for people do not believe them to be a whore, that they are not interested in men's looks but their soul – in spite of their wealth with which not in need of men's money. They want to make people believe at all costs that men can be as repulsive as they are, if they recite Shakespeare's sonnets nicely, they "can get" even the most beautiful women in the world!
              Women inform men in an ambiguous floral language of liking them and play virgin who is not interested in sex, running honour circles in line with the expectations of men, they assure men of being worthy enough for having sexual relationship with a big and strong male, who, in many cases, is a worthless pimp who has gone through half the city. Many women resist for the last moment and repeat it, "no, I do not want it", because it's so proper, because they should not confess their desires, they must pretend to be "left" by the forceful siege, or they simply want to turn men on.  Men do not even turn on by yes after such fake, lying gaming, but rather a negative answer. With this miserable and liar play, men believe that a woman dolled up, dressed in sexy clothes, and with silicon breasts is just playing her mind, pulling the time, wants to turn him on and does want sex, despite all her opposition.  It is no accident that the female "no, I don't" mean “yes, I do” and it was not by accident that a Hollywood movie star declared "women love to be raped without their consent." Nor is it a single   and also often depicted case in films when a man who committed rape by grinning broadly and tapping the bottom of the raped woman says: "You were a good slut,  I saw you enjoyed it, do not deny!
           Let's go back to the phrase "the bitch was swaying to and fro until there was no return" comment – which was just one of many of these, when a 40-year-old photographer in a freshman camp made an 18-year-old girl drunk and raped. The gist of opinions in the comments are the following:

          - If a girl drinking a lot of alcohol has a good time in a company and flirting and joking to have fun, you'd like to take it seriously because such a woman, even if she's only a 14 to 18 year old girl, THINKS totally SERIOUSLY it!
          - If she has already said yes, she can no longer change her mind, she has no right. She has no right to play with a man. Only men have the right to play.
         - If she would say no, that actually means yes, especially if she has already said yes drunken before, sooner, because women like to play being hard-to-get.
         - Everything a drunk woman says is to be taken seriously, because women are not affected by the alcohol, whatever they drink, they remain perfectly sober, so they decide on a pure state of consciousness after several liters of vodka whether they want to have sex with a man or not.

         - Women are automatically the objects of sex; their job is ab ovo to  turn men on (for women it is totally unnecessary - an ax does not have to enjoy the woodcutting), and to give men the greater enjoyment.
         - Rape, which is not really that for women, is just presented as violence for not having to admit that they enjoyed it, too, because they would be taken as whore. The bitch in the street corner standing outside   because she is a sex maniac, so anyone is good for her and even earns   money!
        - The primary aim of every dolled up girl with make-up and in high heels, about starting to a party, is to be raped by somebody after/during the party. If she is no longer a virgin, especially no matter who with, when, how many times, how many men with. She does not even care who with, how often, how many times if she drinks, since she drinks to be able to have sex in unhindered way.
        - Conversely, when a drunken man commits something, he rightfully defends that he did not think it seriously, nor did he remember what had happened because he was drunk, he was just having fun and he could not help anything, he just did it by the effect of alcohol. Not strange?  Opposite, a drunk woman is aware of everything.

         - The best scenario is when a woman drinks to be unconscious drunken because then she does not know about herself, she does not know what happens to her, so she cannot say no to sexual act.  And if she does not say no for whatever reason, then that will no longer be rape! She becomes effectively a subject that lies unconsciously on the street to be  abused by any man!

                  When drunken men are being abducted by women (and their male accomplices) by promising sex for them, everyone is sorry for the poor men who did not deserve it because they "went in good faith" to the women's home, especially because men are invincible, immortal. In good faith? Sex with a stranger in a stranger's apartment? Why does not anyone ask them why they went to a stranger's apartment – as it is used by in the case of raped women? Because it's natural, normal and self-evident that men can have sex with strangers, anywhere, anytime. It can be for them. They can go anywhere anytime, because they are always buyers, they are never the goods to be bought.  In the case of women, however, it is inconceivable that they are "in good faith", because they know very well what is waiting for them when they walk up to a pretended “gentleman's” home by telling her a lie about will be shown to his parents. Why cannot they be also "poor people who are deceived"?
                  The “deserved", the "there was no return "and “why did she go  to the apartment" comments well illustrate that rape is not just a source of pleasure for men but also a kind of punishment for women -  these two are now completely confused in the minds of the people -, and is about punishing the disobedient, flirtatious woman, who had picked up a miniskirt, stirred us up, smiled at us, and then shrugged and dropped us. We punish her to be "unworthy", “dishonest”, because for a woman as an object to be bought, the greatest treasure of her virginity, because men like to buy an unopened package, even if they do open the package before marriage. I heard from a man's mouth tell his girlfriend that "you can go to bed with me, but I only marry a virgin". What does this mean exactly?

                     - I am the man, that is, the puppeteer, I choose only who, when and why I "take away (marry)".
                    - I am the man, that is, the puppeteer, a virgin woman is due to me, an unopened package.
                     - I am the man, I can "open" any package, but the "package is not allowed to be opened" outside of marriage – that then the packages I have opened become worthless, despicable by other men, who cares for it, it's their trouble, not mine, I do not care what's going to happen to them. Why did the "whores" sleep with me? Because they loved me? Ahh! Then they should not have slept with me!
                      - As long as you do not sleep with me and you are still a virgin, I consider you valuable, and I'll probably be "rewarded" once again with marriage, but if you're going to bed with me, even if you love me, you'll be a worthless whore for me. Why? Because I do not regard you as a person, I do not respect you as a person who has feelings, desires, I look at you as only an object, a means that a man uses and not vice versa! I will not buy a half-eaten sandwich – and you will not be more than that.
                      Raping wives by husbands is even worse because – as such – it does not exist at all. Wife is for doing her husband's favour, not vice versa. Women raped by other men are left by her husband, stigmatized and expelled by her family, and wider environment in Muslim countries, but even in the civilized countries, almost everyone thinks, although they condemn rape itself, that rape happens because of woman's fault – dress, makeup, flirtation, late night time. It is considered almost everywhere, but most of all in Muslim countries, that ravish violence is only a woman's sin because she deliberately drew attention and provoked the act. They probably think that because women are veiled from the top to the bottom, they are covered as something ashamed, often their entire face, you can not even know who is hiding under the cloak: 12 or 80 years old, nice or ugly. Because of this (and also others), if such a veiled woman was raped, so she clearly wanted it because he could not see whether she was "sexy" or not. No one pays attention to the fact that men who are socialized in Muslim countries have grown up women means for them only a covered black small dress heap and at most they can see only the female members of their own family without mourning veil, so it's just that the cloth-heap is the "woman" and even the "sexy woman"  for them. For Muslim men the black veil is the trigger when they see it in the street.
Why does a woman / girl deserve to be raped? Because she also considers herself a human being who has right and wants to have fun like men, just it is not due to her?

              Women, by leaving home and going to the street, hand over their fate, their lives into the hands of men, and from then on, it is up to men to beat, rap or kill them. Even worse is when a girl goes up to a boy's apartment or gets into his car. Police and authorities' first question to the victim: "Why did you go to his flat? Why did you sit in his car”? They do NOT ask the aggressor questions about "Why have you raped her? Why did you hurt her? What right? Why did you think this was allowed for you?”.  It does not come up, no one questions his right to it, accepts that only one new born-to-sex-by-law man who couldn't carry it and satisfied his desires with violence – what a pity, so perhaps he should not have been done it when pleasure women are on the corner and are there for that purpose! It is as if it is "necessary bad" to have rape, such as stealing a meal with a very slight punishment, because one can be dead of hunger, which would be a great shame in a welfare, civilized society. Likewise, if a man does not get the sex, he will die – of "sex shortage”. In our sexist society, it is believed that at the moment when a woman crosses the threshold of a man's house she immediately loses her right to self-determination and all other rights towards a man, she gives up her life, her fate in his hands, and from then on only a man has his rights, only his rights prevail, and his rights override any other right, he does with a woman he wants!
                It is more incomprehensible and unfair when it is also the woman's fault when she calls a man into her own home as a guest! Interestingly, no one protests against the conviction and practice that a woman may lose all her rights over her own life even in her own home or property towards a man and he can do with her there, too whatever he wants. In addition, in any situation where a woman and a man are alone, the will and right of a man automatically comes into play, he decides what happens, women becomes the only helpless puppet of him. It matters naturally that he wants to get what that is due to him, which is NOT a sin, it's a basic one. Sin is that women do not prevent it somehow, for example. they hide in a cellar or sneak beside the wall with downcast eyes and they do not go there where men do. Or why do not they stay in a harem where guards take care of them and never put their feet out of it? In the case of equality, such a set of thoughts and judgments would not be come up, or would changed that way, that if women have rights until they reach the threshold of a man's apartment, then it must be true vice versa. Why is it not that? Why do perpetrators have more rights than victims do? Why is the town,  the living space, the nightlife for them? Why fair people, women are limited and why not criminals?
             According to today's legitimate view, in my own home, anyone has the right to hurt me in any way because I am just a subject who is subordinate to men. The law of a man is stronger than that of women and, unanimously, legitimately overrides the rights of women. On the street, at nightclubs and then on! There only men have the right to do anything with anyone. Anyone who goes out into the street in the evening in a deep clevaged dress will only get what she deserves. Why is this so? Why does everybody think this is an equality? Unfortunately, 99% of men and the majority of women have this view, not least 5% of rape is revealed. They accept the right of men to do everything and do not want a series of humiliations when policemen, investigators, lawyers, and judges make her the same foolish question: why did you wear cut-out clothes, miniskirts, why did you drink, why did you have fun, why did you trust another person? You deserve your destiny.
           However when a man is robbed and beaten up, because in the hope of sex he goes up to inviting women to their home, where a male partner beats and robs, nobody ever asks why he went to the apartment of unknown women? It is natural that because of sex, because it is for him and he cannot be hurt, he is inviolable, untouchable! Many people even feel sorry for him that how they could do that with this poor guy? But no one says that poor girl was cheated, because the boy told her to present to his parents but instead raped her.
         The extent of the punishment is also very different between the two sexes, as it is a thorough judicial and legal practice, even female judges and lawyers, that the female "aggressor" receives twice as much punishment as the man.
        "Deserved", "no return" and "why went up" comments point out that rape is not just a source of pleasure for men but a kind of punishment for women, and these two are now completely confused in the ignorant brains and are about to punish the disobedient woman. How? By rape,  "defamation,"since as a woman as an object, the greatest treasure of her is the virginity, becomes fair by it and men like to buy an unopened package. Who would have touched a woman whom another man had made him? I would ask these men to consider their mother, their grandmother as a pile of garbage, what do they think of them at all, since they have been embraced by a man and not once. What would they say if their mothers were hurt by another man for it? Or is the situation different in marriage? Is there a place for rape, because it does not count as rape? But outside of marriage it counts, it counts as defamation and the woman's fault. If a man establishes sexual intercourse with a woman by violence who is not her husband and owner, then it will be shameful and unforgivable to her.
          To this day, contempt is given to raped women as criminals, sinners, and in Muslim countries directly death penalty or excommunication for it. 1,7 billion Muslims say in the case of rape, a woman who has been covered by a head-to-toe sole, whose eyes only look or does not, has tried to pleas until it has no return and man was “forced” to rape her. A pile of dress for which you can not even know how old she is. It could be ridiculous if it were not real and would not require a lot of human life for this conviction. It is common in wars that soldiers systematically and at the command line force women in large numbers joining the plea for promoting the extinction of the hostile nation as no one is found to be a family with a raped woman.
        “Defamation”, “making her mine”, "marry you", "take you" - all concepts that characterize women's guilt and objectification. Sex is glory for man, sin and punishment for a woman. Man makes the subject of sex his, woman has no say in it, it is solely his decision. Only the man gets the woman during the sexual act, the woman does NOT get the man. She is only the suffering subject, the device that promotes the satisfaction of the man. Sex is therefore not reciprocal, but even coupled masturbation for the man. Women should keep their virginity even after marriage, even after children, so that they can be fair women. In the case of in flagranti, only a woman is sentenced, only she counts as a bitch; man remains a decent, honest gentleman, and he leaves with head erect because he only did his job as a man.
         And all this horrific thing is done by men to be free to rule and to completely exclude women from life outside the kitchen and childcare, thus wiping out the competition from their journey.
        What should a girl do to be punished by rape? To flirt with a man then changed her mind what she has no right to do
if a woman is agree with sex drunken or for the fun, and then she will change her mind about it a few minutes later because she realizes she does not want to, why is it unthinkable? Why is it illegal, why it is unfounded?  Why does not it matter! Because it is not so? Even though it is if we regard women as sensational human being and not as objects or livestock. It must be existed and compelled to respect it as if a man says no to something. Under all circumstances, even if the woman loves the man, if he is her husband or boyfriend, even then. No is no!!! !!! Once a woman said no, even during a sexual act, man has to stop immediately if he respects his partner as a human being. There can be no excuse that there was “no way back”! There is no return only to a man who considers a woman's object and does not respect her. There is no such reason that she said yes a few minutes ago, and now the no is not valid, because the yes is forever, eternal, irreconcilable, that is, man has right to carry out the act with violence, even after the woman has protested.
       Everyone, every human being, even a paid prostitute has right to say no to anything, even during an act, and everyone must respect it! But this works only in the case of equality, between two equal, equally free and independent people, and not between a superior man and a woman subordinated to him.
       Until this unjust and humiliating double judgment exists and people do not start thinking differently, as long as people/men continue to think of women as possessive objects, until women begin to do something for their own protection, as long sexual violence/rape will persist until humanity extinction!