2nd reason why men have no rights: Woman Steals Ex-Boyfriend’s Sperm, Has Twins, Sues For Child Support…and WINS!

1st reason is in Israel a woman’s dream of rape put a man in jail. supreme court defends the conviction.

 

 

 

2nd reason why men have no rights is a woman can steal sperm from her ex impregnate herself and sue the ex for child support and wins

 

Brace yourselves, people: This is a long, strange tale about a woman who allegedly stole her now ex-boyfriend’s sperm from a used condom and then used it to impregnate herself with twins through IVF. She then went ahead and sued her ex for child support – and won! The baffled ex, meanwhile, is suing the fertility clinic that performed the procedure without his knowledge. You follow?

Here’s how it happened, according to Houston Press. Joe Pressil began dating his girlfriend, Anetria, in 2005. They broke up in 2007 and, three months later, she told him she was pregnant with his child. Pressil was confused, since the couple had used birth control, but a paternity test proved that he was indeed the father. So Pressil let Anetria and the boys stay at his home and he agreed to pay child support.

Fast forward to February of this year, when 36-year-old Pressil found a receipt – from a Houston sperm bank called Omni-Med Laboratories – for “cryopreservation of a sperm sample” (Pressil was listed as the patient although he had never been there). He called Omni-Med, which passed him along to its affiliated clinic Advanced Fertility. The clinic told Pressil that his “wife” had come into the clinic with his semen and they performed IVF with it, which is how Anetria got pregnant.
Read more at http://libertycrier.com/woman-steals-ex-boyfriends-sperm-twins-sues-child-support-wins/#pxlYSzcAyaedgQ8V.99

 

 

Questions about Toronto school trustee candidate

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/09/27/questions-about-toronto-school-trustee-candidate?token=d4d63fbd74f2b7172fb8602f2ccc201c

 

TORONTO – During the heat of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah forces in Lebanon in July 2006, Ausma Malik was front and centre at a peace rally denouncing the conflict and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s support of Israel’s right to defend itself against Hezbollah missile fire.

Pictures from that day show the Muslim woman, wearing a headscarf and attending the University of Toronto at the time, outside the U.S. Consulate, speaking beside Ali Mallah, a well-known pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas activist and CUPE official.

But, it was what Malik, who is running for Toronto District School Board trustee in Ward 10 Trinity-Spadina, reportedly said at the time that is nothing short of eyebrow raising, especially considering the conflict broke out after two Israeli Defence Forces soldiers were kidnapped and at least eight IDF soldiers killed during a Hezbollah ambush.

During the 34-day conflict, hundreds of Hezbollah rockets rained on Israel.

Yet, according to published reports from that Toronto protest, Malik called Israel’s actions “state-sanctioned murder.”

She also rebuked Harper, calling on him to get a “backbone” while those around her — sporting Lebanese flags and the yellow flag of the Hezbollah terrorist movement — chanted “shame” and cheered jubilantly when word came Hezbollah had killed another 22 IDF soldiers.

“Today we unite as people of conscience … as people who will not be silent while a nation is torn to shreds, while innocent civilians are killed in the clear light of day,” she reportedly told the Toronto crowd that July day.

Malik would only respond to my questions by e-mail.

She characterized the July 2006 protest as a public anti-war rally organized by the Canadian Peace Alliance.

The Canadian Peace Alliance includes as its esteemed members such vociferous anti-Israel critics as Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians, Ontario Federation of Labour’s Sid Ryan, Judy Rebick of the website rabble.ca, CUPE and CUPW.

Malik confirmed in her e-mail her quote about Israel is correct — that she condemns the “killing of innocent people, no matter who they are.”

She did not respond to a follow-up e-mail asking whether she displayed similar concern for the ambushed and slain Israeli soldiers.

Malik did insist in her e-mail that she does not “support anti-Semitism in any form.”

But, what’s as concerning about Malik — apart from her seemingly outspoken anti-Israel view — is the number of councillors or would-be councillors who have jumped on the bandwagon to endorse her.

Would-be councillor Joe Cressy and current councillor Mike Layton are sharing a campaign office with her — as if to suggest they are a trifecta of progressives.

Layton is even pictured with Malik on his website, informing us how “thrilled” he is to endorse her “fresh perspective” and the fact she is apparently a “community builder.”

Ward 27 councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, who has helped prop up the toxic Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) movement in Toronto’s Pride parade the past four years, also endorses Malik’s “ability to build bridges to get things done.”

No surprises there. But the rhetoric from the left would be laughable if not so sad and hypocritical.

The best came from mayoralty candidate Olivia Chow, who on Sept. 13 tweeted that she was enroute to the office opening for the Layton, Cressy and Malik Trifecta — all “great candidates” that share her values for a “caring, better city.”

At the opening she was pictured posing side by side with Layton, Sarah Doucette, Joe Mihevc (who represents a ward with a huge percentage of Jews), Gord Perks, Cressy and Malik, as if they were all one big happy family.

I asked Chow at a Toronto Sun editorial board how she could align herself with a woman who reportedly contended publicly that Israel committed “state-sanctioned murder” and whether such a woman espoused “caring” values.

At first Chow, looking like a deer caught in the headlights, said she wasn’t 100% familiar with Malik’s background or her “foreign affairs point of view.”

Asked whether she checks people out before she endorses them, Chow said she does know “who she is” and local school boards don’t really have a lot to do with her seemingly anti-Israel views.

In a follow-up e-mail to me, Chow spokesman Jamey Heath said Malik has a “strong record on inclusive education” and that her criticism at the 2006 protest was about “foreign policy” and “not about public education.”

Hmmm. I don’t suppose Malik’s views will ever make their way into the policies of the TDSB. Nope, never.

Malik’s opponent for trustee, Richard Klagsbrun, who happens to be Jewish, said he is running to “rid the TDSB of the egregious politicization” that has made its way into the curriculum.

“Ms. Malik, a speaker at a rally that was out supporting an Islamist terror group … represents much of what’s wrong with public education in Toronto,” he said.

 

 

Two Studies Confirm Women’s Preference For Dominant Men

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/two-studies-confirm-womens-preference-for-dominant-men/

 

 

Touch — aka “kino” in the pickup artist lingo — is a powerful courtship tactic thatincreases women’s compliance to men’s requests.

Previous research has shown that light tactile contact increases compliance to a wide variety of requests. However, the effect of touch on compliance to a courtship request has never been studied. In this paper, three experiments were conducted in a courtship context. In the first experiment, a young male confederate in a nightclub asked young women to dance with him during the period when slow songs were played. When formulating his request, the confederate touched (or not) the young woman on her forearm for 1 or 2 seconds. In the second experiment, a 20-year-old confederate approached a young woman in the street and asked her for her phone number. The request was again accompanied by a light touch (or not) on the young woman’s forearm. In both experiments, it was found that touch increased compliance to the man’s request. A replication of the second experiment accompanied with a survey administered to the female showed that high score of dominance was associated with tactile contact. The link between touch and the dominant position of the male was used to explain these results theoretically.

Touching a woman early and often during the attraction phase of a pickup, andescalating the erogenous intent of the touching as familiarity deepens, is one element of what I call the core precepts of game. (Qualifying, teasing, body language, and outcome independence are other core precepts.) Womanizers and love maestros have long extolled the virtues of touching, and now science has added its stamp of approval.

Most interestingly, touch appears to work its magic on women by signaling greater male dominance. Women have a feedback loop that registers male touch as dominant behavior; behavior which arouses women because evolution honed in them a subtle appreciation for men who can protect them from danger and provide them hard-gained social and material resources. A sexually, romantically, and tactilely entitled man is attractive to women for the same reason a beautiful, hourglass-shaped, young woman is attractive to men: They both signal possession of deeper traits that would maximize an opposite sex mate’s reproductive advantage.

If you spend any amount of time in the field, one of the first things you’ll notice is how men who stubbornly refuse to touch women, often from fear of rejection or of “crossing lines”, fail to close the deal. I could pick out the handful of alpha males in a bar with no information to go on except which men touch girls the most often and effortlessly.

***

The second study (from 1987, but given the feminist-polluted condition of current sociology departments, that is perhaps a good thing) is a diamond shiv straight through the black heart of sex difference denialists. Dominance behavior increases male attractiveness but not female attractiveness.

Four experiments examined the relation between behavioral expressions of dominance and the heterosexual attractiveness of males and females. Predictions concerning the relation between dominance and heterosexual attraction were derived from a consideration of sex role norms and from the comparative biological literature. All four experiments indicated an interaction between dominance and sex of target. Dominance behavior increased the attractiveness of males, but had no effect on the attractiveness of females. The third study indicated that the effect did not depend on the sex of the rater or on the sex of those with whom the dominant target interacted. The fourth study showed that the effect was specific to dominance as an independent variable and did not occur for related constructs (aggressive or domineering). This study also found that manipulated dominance enhanced only a male’s sexual attractiveness and not his general likability. The results were discussed in terms of potential biological and cultural causal mechanisms.

Dominance alone, as apposed to sheer aggression or domineering control freakery, made the male subjects seem more sexually attractive to women. The effect was not seen when the sexes were reversed.

Color me shocked. Women prefer virile, dominant men and men prefer feminine, deferential women. Thank you, ❤science❤!