MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Story Time

Filed under: General — triassic @ 10:46 pm Fri 7th April 2006

OK, its time for your bedtime story…..once upon a time a girl called Goldilocks went into the woods for a bit of fun and ended up having naughty sex with three Bears. This wasn’t the first time for Goldie and before long she and the Bears were having a good time. Goldilocks and the Bears were inventive, always suggesting new and perverted games. One of the Bears added his specialty and did wee wees all over her. Goldilocks did not like this and said so. The stupid Bear thought that unadulterated naughty sex meant no rules, and therefore was surprised that Goldilocks did not like it.

Many years later Goldilocks got married and then became depressed about her behaviour years before. Why had she debased herself and behaved like that she asked? With some help from caring, loving folk from the sisterhood, Goldilocks became aware that she had been seduced into that lifestyle. Yes, the answer for redemption and a return to a happy life was for someone else to pay the price for her sin. The Bears should pay that price she was told. “Bears are oppressors of our sanctity, without them you would be white as snow” they screamed.

However, there remained a problem for Goldilocks. In order to have the Bears pay she would not be not able to reveal her complicity in the fun and games. She would have to be seen as Snow White. ……

Now that’s a completely different story!!!!!!!


  1. Sorry Triasic but this sort of stuff hardly furthers the cause of men which is what I thought this site was for….. ?uh

    Comment by JamesW — Fri 7th April 2006 @ 11:01 pm

  2. Triassic – That was almost poetic. Well done ! Can I use your post as an email to ‘Send to every Man I know’ ?

    Comment by Moose — Fri 7th April 2006 @ 11:11 pm

  3. Sorry James, you are wrong. The biggest threat to men and fathers is hypocrisy. Exposing it is the main weapon in ripping down the ‘Lace Curtain’. I make no excuse for using any weapon I can. Look up Satire in the dictionary and it may assist you in redefining the post.

    Comment by triassic — Fri 7th April 2006 @ 11:19 pm

  4. Moose – I don’t disagree with the message, just the style. Look – let’s just get straight to the point about our problems in a clear and concise way without poetry which trivializes the affair. I doubt anyone of us disagree on the need to make public the previous history of those found ‘innocent’ but surely it’s important to keep some level of simplicity if we are to be taken seriously? uh?

    Comment by JamesW — Fri 7th April 2006 @ 11:23 pm

  5. Hey Moose, No copyright on that …..feel free to post it on


    Comment by triassic — Fri 7th April 2006 @ 11:29 pm

  6. James – To me, Triassic’s post is simple, and my previous post is to agree with him. IMO It is rather simple. Triassic uses a metaphor of a verison of goldilocks to point out how wimmin regret what they have done in the past, then in later years, use to thier advantage the now biased law against Men, which, they have obviously realised is their last chance to blame someone else for thier previous actions.

    I happen to admire the sarcastic ‘style’ of triassics post

    Comment by Moose — Sat 8th April 2006 @ 12:02 am

  7. With permission from triassic, I posted an entry here

    Comment by Mooe — Sat 8th April 2006 @ 12:38 am

  8. Bears must no longer be alone with Goldilock’s kindred, as the power of the bear skin, implied or explicit, is simply too overpowering.

    Surely it about time bears were hunted down everywhere, and kept in cages.

    Then indeed bears will be preserved the whole world over, in captivity, so that future generations can come and see them; feed them, and ask mummy (daddy of course not being in the picture): “mummy, what was it like when bears roamed free, in the wild?”

    Bear hunting season is soon upon us – the ultimate prize is your very own bear-skin pelt, to lay in front of your fire; your very own bear-head trophy to hang above your mantle-piece.

    Comment by Al D Rado — Sat 8th April 2006 @ 6:03 am

  9. JamesW
    There’s a little bit of me that agrees with you, but the larger part does not.
    We men must not fall into the same trap feminists use, of censuring our own.
    Feminist ideology thrives on the censure of all thoughts contrary to their own.
    ‘All men are bastards, and if any woman disagrees, it just proves the power of the patriachal society over her’.
    We are better than that.

    Comment by Al D Rado — Sat 8th April 2006 @ 6:09 am

  10. Triassic – I reposted your post to that Louise blog-site, as the previous post seemed to have been deleted.

    Clearly it didn’t fit their cause.

    Feminist censure, a vital tool in suppressing all thoughts contrary to their own.

    Comment by Al D Rado — Sat 8th April 2006 @ 7:02 am

  11. Yeah my post was censured in that site as well.

    Comment by Moose — Sat 8th April 2006 @ 11:12 am

  12. This is post is in very bad taste, no matter which side you’re on. It’s obscene.

    All I can say is that I hope that no-one who circulates this piece of obscenity is ever in a position to read bed-time stories to his child again.

    Scat and beastiality are both illegal in New Zealand. You should be ashamed of yourself sinking to this crude level.

    Comment by Livus — Sat 8th April 2006 @ 5:48 pm

  13. Yes it’s really no wonder at all that men are seen as complete and utter wankers when we endorse this style of expression. As I said earlier, I don’t dispute the content and fully support the message but if you are serious about furthering our cause then stop this poetic shit. In fact, I even wonder if you are not a woman who is purposely managing to discredit men’s views by way of your trivialisation of the subject.

    Comment by JamesW — Sat 8th April 2006 @ 6:05 pm

  14. Livus, Have you read Animal Farm Orwells satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution, particularly directed against Stalin’s Russia. Led by the pigs, the Animals on Mr Jones’s farm revolt against their human masters.

    Don’t be alarmed as you read it as no harm was done to the animals in the making of this story. You see its not real….Its just simply a way of getting a point across using satire. Have you taken the time to read the printed transcripts of the Rickards,Shipton and Bob Schollum rape trial?

    Beats this post hands down!!!!!
    It maybe that some people need it spelt out for them. Unfortunatley you will have to wait for the suppresion orders to be lifted first.

    Were you on the jury in the Peter Ellis trial Livus?

    Comment by Bryan — Sat 8th April 2006 @ 6:53 pm

  15. Livus – You obviously fail to comprehend the meaning behind the post. It may not be your style of humour, but nevertheless it states the fact that wimmin can flout the advantage they have with the law being heavily biased toweards them in these cases.

    For Men’s sake, look at the bigger picture, and put things into perspective.

    There has been an unusual string of rape cases laid against police as of late. Why ?

    I’ll tell you why : Whether these charges are false or not, they get media coverage. And with the current “All men are bastards/molestors/ etc” ideals now prevailant in society, these contraversial issues reinforce the femminst ideals . The Judges rulings in the court don’t matter. The public now believe that every Man accused of rape IS GUILTY due to this ‘brainwashing’ hence the pamphlet saga, and as you have probably seen, the mobs are the ones who truly control society.

    I think you, and many other people are failing to take into account the vast amount of false rape cases laid against Men, and as a result, hold a more sceptical view the case.

    Comment by Moose — Sat 8th April 2006 @ 11:18 pm

  16. I’m outta this forum – it’s loaded with idiots who have no idea whatsoever of how to bring about social change. Pissing about with this esoterical crap will NEVER change our position. Get involved in politics at a high level and take no crap. That’s what I’m doing and will distance myself from these idiotic discussions. I am now even more convinced that the majority of the contributors to this forum are actually women…. clever form of sabotage eh! Bye….

    Comment by jamesW — Sat 8th April 2006 @ 11:26 pm

  17. I won’t be voting for you

    Comment by Moose — Sat 8th April 2006 @ 11:42 pm

  18. There was a young man called James,
    Who couldn’t stand poetic games,
    So he left in a huff,
    And he took all his stuff,
    He going to be a politician he claims!

    Comment by Stephen — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 6:22 am

  19. Thanx to those that have protested about this post. I had informed a few people last week about this site and I know they are looking in. I understand boys will be boys but you should have just e-mailed it to each other. Just bad timing I guess.

    Comment by julie — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 12:01 pm

  20. Unfortunately I can only agree that this post is in poor taste and does little to promote the causes of New Zealand men.
    Whether it’s defenders are indeed female ‘agents provocateurs’ as JamesW suggests, ot simply misguided men I dont’t know. But by casually throwing together themes of adult sexuality and children’s fairy tales it crosses a line and instead of becoming food for thought, ends up as a toxic mix.
    It’s a shame because I can see that Triassic’s satirical meaning might otherwise have validity.

    Comment by PaulM — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 12:56 pm

  21. And I think we have to be very careful what weapons we use, and not just reach for any old clever idea we can lay our hands on. It’s a battle for hearts and minds, surely?

    Comment by PaulM — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 1:06 pm

  22. Last time I looked, I was indeed male.

    Censure of expression of thoughts and ideas contrary to a politically acceptable idealogy is precisely the took feminists use to push their message.

    That is precisely why we have a PC society.

    That is why Air NZ won’t let men sit next to unaccompanied children.
    That is why men are being forced out of a range of parenting / male role model roles.

    Because feminism shouts down contrary opinions – even from its own gender, as negating their cause, ordinary and fair minded women are forced to blindly follow the paths and dictums set by their feminists voices.

    When men start censuring their own voices so that only a specific ideology is presented, then we too have fallen into a PC crapology, which stifles freedom of expression.

    Surely we are better than that.

    To any man here who has been stung by the femi-nazi with their tirades of anti male sentiment via the dictums of Family Court, usually that all men are violent; men are respionsible for all violence, all men are potential child rapists, only mothers are suitable parents etc. , then I fully understand and endorse the desire to fight back – through any legl means whatsoever.

    I am in that situation myself.

    But we are limited in the tools we can use.
    Policital Change? absolutely.
    Societal change? Definately.

    Men must be seen as fully capable in all facets of parenting, with equal, albeit differing, skill sets.
    Fathers must be seen as a fundemental right of children, equal to that of having, seeing and living with their mothers.

    Satire is a valid form of expression to denounce unjust structures within society.
    Policital satire has been used to denouce politicians for years. Religious satire has been around for years.
    (unless it happens to be religious satire targetting musloms and images of the prophet Mohummad).

    Three policemen (or ex-policemen) have been found not-guilty of raping Louise Nichols.
    That means in essence that Louise was a willing partner at the time .
    Louise may well have been young and naive.
    The police officers may well have been offensive in their actions.
    Louise appears to have subsequently changed her position.

    That a women can be a willing sexual partner at one time, and in retrospect decide whe was somehow conned, or violated, does no give her grounds to seek to have her sexual partners charged with an offence.

    Her charge in that respect comes equal to none other than a false complaint.

    That the media lapped up this case, is only another in a long string of man-hunting feminist PC-ology gone mad.

    Any legal means that ridicules that femology is to be commended.
    And yes, satire aside, prevention is better than cure, and political / societal change must occur if we are to ever acheive a society when men can freely live their lives without the shadow of suspicsion following them.

    Comment by Al D Rado — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 2:22 pm

  23. Anyone interested in the history of fairy tales will know that they were not simply pleasant bedtime stories invented to keep the young ones happy.

    Go back to an authentic copy of Brothers Grimm, and you’ll find many fairy tales were quite abrupt and down-right mean.

    Fairy tales existed to teach children.
    Good children were rewarded.
    Bad children suffered gross punishment.
    Children who misbehaved were often gobbled up or turn into croaking monsters.

    Blame Walt Disney for giving them all happy endings.

    Comment by Al D Rado — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 2:26 pm

  24. Why the high dudgeon over this post?

    Sometimes people say things you don’t like

    Sometimes people say things in a way you don’t like

    If the only things that can be posted here are things which will meet with universal agreement then this site will be worthless.

    Let’s not get silly about it

    Comment by jimmy — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 3:47 pm

  25. Jimmy and Al D,
    I’m with you bros.
    All this pathetic whining about a satirical writing style completely overlooks the important message contained within that writing.
    Paul M even goes so far as to say –

    “by casually throwing together themes of adult sexuality and children’s fairy tales it crosses a line and instead of becoming food for thought, ends up as a toxic mix”.

    What a load of arrogant bollocks.
    It actually had me thinking a great deal about the message!
    who knows for sure if the prose was ‘casually thrown together’?
    For all we know the author may have gone to great pains to compose it.

    And ‘toxic mix’!!!
    Oh My God! Everybody, Quick put on your biological warfare suits and gasmasks!!!! LOL.

    The only thing I see on this thread as toxic is folks trying to guilt trip those who exercise thier right as free men to free speech using legitimate forms of expression, because it offends thier oversensitised PC sensibilities.

    Take your PC attitudes and shove ’em where the sun doesn’t shine.

    If the whingers go to the TV and radio media, NZ Herald and other NZ rags I’m confident you’ll regularly find such a style of writing is commonplace.

    Get over it.

    Comment by Stephen — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 4:17 pm

  26. For many of us there’s a lot a stake in our fight to change ideas and beliefs about men.
    For starters, I want my boy back and I want this damned man-hating society to uphold his right to have a father in his life.
    I agree, modern life suffers terribly from political correctness, from constant sanitisation of the ugly truth, and from someone’s need to make everything ‘snow white’ when it isn’t.
    Bears are wild, savage creatures, to be sure. And Goldilocks was no innocent either. The same may or may not apply to an alleged rape victim and three policemen- I don’t know.
    It’s certainly worth discussing, but if we want people everywhere to try thinking about gender and power differently for a change, then being deliberately offensive is just not going to be effective. It turns people off.
    The internet is a wonderfully anarchic place, and we are largely free to be as offensive as we like – within the esteemed web-masters’ discretion anyway. But will causing offence get us taken seriously, get us respect, get us what we want? I doubt it.

    Comment by PaulM — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 5:06 pm

  27. PaulM, I agree with some of what you say. Sometimes you have to communicate at the level of the audience and it may be that I over estimated some of this sites viewers. Let me point something out without satire.

    If you are a man of the world you will have by now seen pornographic movies. These movies (Unless Gay) most always have adult females performing in them. I have seen these women perform acts that have turned me ‘off’ rather than ‘on’. I have seen them place objects up their vaginas far larger than ‘batons’. Feminists will tell you that these depraved women are ‘victims’ of male domination. Like Louise Nicholas they were abused and made victims when they were young and therefore not responsible for their actions. We do not KNOW what happened in the case in question. What we do know is that a jury does not believe Louise. They believe she is a liar.

    Two points I want to make here.

    1. If we apply the same rule to the three men on trial we need to look at their backgrounds. What if we discover that Mr x was abused when he was young and his father brought him up to see sex as just another sport. Shouldn’t we feel sorry for his plight as well??

    2. At what point in life do we demand personal responsibility? Females are constantly under pressure to never accept it. Their mistakes in life are always someone else’s fault, mostly men’s.

    It is apparent that Louise was a loose girl and willingly participated in sport sex. If our society was not driven by feminist madness, Louise would never have made a complaint and instead used her energy to encourage other young girls to respect their bodies. Our society is full of victims both male and female. Her complaint and the complaint of Ms X last year, where an unsafe conviction was obtained, is all about feminist revenge.

    PS. Graham Capill is the type of guy who would never watch a porn movie. Beware of pseudo saints. They often judge others as perverted without just cause. If pornography can be defined as the ‘objectification of the opposite sex’ have a think about all the TV shows and girl magazines that objectify men as objects of MONEY & SUCCSESS.

    Comment by triassic — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 6:48 pm

  28. As a man who has read quite alot into the story of 3 bears and goldilocks and was present when the story was told before other people, I would not recommend taking the sides of the 3 bears.

    I know all to well that there are many feminazis out there and there are many false allegations and parts of the system are biased towards women, especially when it comes to sentencing of peadophile women and child custody. But if you wish to be taken seriously later on down the track, I would recommend not posting anything that appears to support the 3 bears.

    There are other things that you have not mentioned about the 3 bears and there are more than 3 bears involved in the full story, there are also many other goldilocks’. No one here knows exactly the full bedtime story so I think it wise that none of us come to a complete decision if goldilocks or the 3 bears were lying, were guilty, or innocent.


    Comment by John — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 6:54 pm

  29. PaulM,
    I tried it your way for years. I was the archetypical nice guy, choosing my words carefully so as not to offend. The end result of such a softly softly approach didn’t work.
    Why do I say that?
    Well, look where we’re at man.
    From what I gather the family court’s still shafting men. Ex parte ‘protection’ orders are ridiculously as easy to get as takeaway pizza, the feminist media is still whining away whilst turning a blind eye as fatherlessness and teen male delinquency runs rife. That’s before mentioning the raw deal the male taxpayer gets in health services.

    Yes, some folks will be offended by what I have to say, and the way I express it.
    But that’s thier choice. I’ve come to realise that many a tyrant, big and small, will choose to take offense at my blunt criticism, and try to deny me and other men our rights. But don’t kid yourself into thinking that by contrast they’ll respect soft wordage and won’t respect bolder souls when we call them to account in no uncertain terms.

    Or to put it another way – where the hell’s your spunk man?

    Comment by Stephen — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 7:22 pm

  30. PaulM – I have much at stake too – I see bugger-all of my children.
    And when I do, I have Ms Eiseneers following me in case I act on some sudden uncontrollable urge to rape them.

    So I have absolutely no sympathy for women playing the ‘I was sweet and innocent, niave, taken advantage off etc’, such as Louise has done.
    But nor will I pretend those three coppers were all lovey-dovey nice guys either.
    They were in it for the sex.
    And here was some young women all too willing to oblige the call of duty.

    And now it seems there are a few too many women out there prepared to break the law to support their cause, because (and it’s a fair bet almost none of them were in court during Louise’s trial), a woman has cried ‘wolf!, and a sound jury of peers has said ‘no wolf’.

    I have yet to hear one sane women declare Louise the author of her own misfortune.
    All women I have heard have declared her the victim, and the three (ex)policemen, the aggressors.

    This is no different to the modern day witchhunts perpetratesd in classrooms, churches, and in the Family Court.

    Simply because an allegation is made, does not mean a crime has occurred.

    Feminist theology would have us believe it does
    (refer Ellen Bass in her book ‘The Courage to Heal’, which in essence states in one of the earlier chapters ‘if you think you may have been abused (as a kid), you almost certainly have been’!
    My copy of this book is at my other home, so I can’t readily quote you the exact words, but will happily supply them next week for any serious pundits.

    These policemen may have carried out some immoral, even repulsive acts.
    But that does not make them criminals.

    Comment by Al D Rado — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 9:19 pm

  31. Al D Rado were you present at the Louis Nicholas’ trial?

    I wouldn’t be so quick to jump on the “innocent” because the jury said not guilty or “guilty” because suppressed information wasn’t presented in the case, bandwagons, until all the facts have come out. No one can comment for certain unless you are one of the accused and going to come forward and admit to doing it or you are Louise Nicholas and are going to admit to lying.

    Jurys are not always right nor wrong and alot of the time their decisions aren’t based on fact or evidence, but you saying “This is no different to the modern day witchhunts perpetratesd in classrooms, churches, and in the Family Court.”
    makes out as though you are the male proto-type of a feminazi who believes the system is dominated by males, except ofcourse you believe it is the other way around.

    A witchhunt is quite a distance away from what the trial and investigation are and were. It was a police officer who sparked this, not any of the accusers. The officer leaked information of cover ups in relation to allegations, to the media. The media then approached Louis Nicholas, not the other way around. If there wasnt a prima facie case to answer for then things would not have gone before the court.

    Before you comment anymore on the investigations and court proceedings being an anti-male witch hunt ( you could imply it’s an anti-Maori cop witch hunt too I guess ) I suggest you look up about the Herbert-Savage case and tell me what your thoughts are about this and Herbert-Savage, as her case was one of the others which sparked off the police investigations.

    If you want to be taken seriously by both men and women I suggest you don’t present yourselves as extremist male equivalents to feminazis.

    Comment by John — Sun 9th April 2006 @ 10:20 pm

  32. Sorry John, but these officers have not been found guilty of rape.
    I will not pronounce them guilty of any crime they have not been found guilty of.
    Louise has claimed she was raped. A jury has declared that she was not.
    Whether or not a miscarriage of justice has been done, time may tell.
    But even that does not entitle people to break the law, by publishing suppressed information.

    Comment by Al D Rado — Mon 10th April 2006 @ 4:54 pm

  33. Agreed, On all points there Al D Rado.

    Comment by John — Mon 10th April 2006 @ 8:46 pm

  34. I have been shown a pamphlet of the Suppressed info, and I will say that I think that those of you who are hasty to side with the accused in this case, will feel like you have egg all over your faces if it ever gets made public. You will feel like Graham Capill’s supoprters must have felt.

    Bryan, I still think this “story” is tasteless and gross. Orwell was a decent writer and he did not stoop to obscenity to make his points.

    You people do real men no favours by automatically siding with every rapist/accused rapist who comes along. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a pretty stupid policy for NZ Fathers to follow as you’ll just end up alienating everyone.

    Real men don’t rape.

    Comment by Livus — Sun 23rd April 2006 @ 11:57 pm

  35. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and perspective. Whether it is agreed with or not, respect should be given. Instead of fighting back and forth, who’s right or who’s wrong, why not concentrate on making it right. If sexual abuse, rape or violence was nipped in the bud decades ago when it was ‘entitled in society’ we wouldn’t be having these specific debates now, no victims no perpetrators. Debate the issue of violence not the people bought into it.

    Comment by T.Mcc — Tue 12th September 2006 @ 10:03 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar