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) and photo (2012) by Peter Klevius.
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.
The main outlet of islamofascism - i.e. the "respectable" wrapping that
really makes it tick. By allowing sharia islam into UN history repeats
itself. Either UN as a whole or sharia islam (islamofascism) has to go.
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.
Saudi based OIC (and its sharia declaration against the most basic of
Human Rights) and its Saudi Fuhrer Iyad Madani constitutes the backbone
of islamofascism today. So what do you have to say - you half to one
billion anti-sharia "muslims"? Talk louder cause Klevius can't hear you!
Klevius wrote:
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!
Klevius beats BBC in reporting on the
most essential and critical issue of our time: OIC and its Fuhrer
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu's islamofascist violation of the most basic of
Human Rights!
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:
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!
Posted by
Peter Klevius
Klevius wrote:
Rapetivism and heterosexual attraction
Researching rapetivism in research
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:
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
Samantha Lewthwaite, Mishal Husain (BBC's sharia presenter) and Michael
Adebolajo all have islam and its Human Rights violating sharia in common
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.