Convicted sex offender says it as it is

In a rather unusual sex offence case (as the alleged offender also gave HIV to his underage lover) the man convicted said it as it is:

I am not sorry we were together, no, I am sorry the HIV came into the situation. I never denied about us having a relationship.

If only more men were brave enough to state the truth in court – rather than grovel to the feminazis. Mind, I guess most hold onto the vague hope that someday they will be released. Due to the HIV issue in this man’s case – as well as some questionable claims he gave a toddler HIV – he has been sentenced to life so he had nothing to lose in stating the truth.

[EDIT] To clarify, I am not saying it is good that he gave a teenage girl (and possibly a toddler) HIV, but I am simply fascinated that he said it as it really was – i.e. he admitted he was wrong to pass on HIV but did not apologise for having an underage relationship. And it’s quite fascinating and peculiar that the truth came out in a rather unusual and horrific case.

This entry was posted in Free Speech, News. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Convicted sex offender says it as it is

  1. What says:

    He gave a toddler HIV????? How can you speak so positively about him?

  2. James says:

    No sympathy for the 2 year old with HIV? So how are you for youth rights?

  3. What says:

    The fact you forgot to edit your piece shows you have no concern for the youth/teen rights. You are fixated on sex with underage girls with no concern for their well-being, you make MAPs look bad. This guy should not be praised in any fashion unless you want people to think MAPs are sick psychopaths. I bet if a woman gave a teen boy HIV you would be mad at her and call her all types of names. Sincea man gave a teen girl HIV you celebrate him as your hero. You claim the police lie but have you reviewed the case or you probably do not care that a toddler has HIV and do not want justice for this toddler.

    Read multiple articles he gave herpes, chlamydia and HIV to both. Disgusting

    “In a court affidavit, the teenage girl said she and Wilson “would park on a cul-de-sac near her school and have sex in his car. The last time, they had unprotected sex.”

    So he had unprotected sex knowing he had 3 stds 2 of which incurable. Do you not see how it makes MAPs look bad? People will think we irresponsible and disgusting. Not only to people hate the idea of adults with underage kids but this proves why we should be hated.

    “After being tested for STDs, the little girl was found to be positive for three. Wilson was the only person in the house who was also positive for all three. He was tested alongside three other adults who lived in the house. Doctors said that the only way that the child could have got the diseases was through sexual assault.”

    Are the above all lies too? Do you think that people who have the toddler in mind would lie? Hell maybe the man is STD free and the police gave the toddlers STDs…dense

    “The tot was forced to go through reconstructive surgery as the diseases had damaged her so much.”

    Youth rights avocate, where is your sympathy to the toddler in all this? Or is this another police lie somou can dismissive this too? Do you claim something is a lie to get out of explaining yourself?

    Why did the man only apologize for giving the teen HIV when he got her pregnant and gave her 2 STDs?

    Look basically you make us MAPs look disgusting and are the main reason we will never get rights. I’m such there are better examples of MAPs out there but you chose a low life to praise. I bet you would never praise a female MAP.

    • holocaust21 says:

      Well, for one, I’ve stopped doing “political correctness”. What you are asking me to do is to be “politically correct”. I will not be politically correct.

      I was correct (but not politically correct) in saying that the guy – irregardless of what he may have done or what you may think of him or his actions – made a true and valid statement.

      It is an example of female privilege that women are allowed to openly advocate for innocent men to be sent to prison for the rest of their lives – to be anally raped and beaten every day – on false rape charges and no one criticises them. But if an MRA justifies something that an HIV positive sex offender says – even if he isn’t justifying the acts that the man has committed – then he is vilified! Hypocrisy or what?

      • What says:

        Well for one I had no idea you have no concern for the teen nor the toddler but the sex offender who gave them both 3 STDs. The toddler had to get surgery but to have sympathy for children is political correct then you are indeed a fool. You are basically saying you will not have any concern for the health and safety of children. Tip: If you want to change age of consent laws then maybe you should at least pretend to care about kids. Sheesh.

        You are sick and insane to value this man over the lives of the toddler and teen he ruined. No sane person would do this, even other MAPs (minor attracted person)

        This man is not innocent he gave a toddler and toddler 3 STDs!!!!! You clearly have no issue with adult men infectioning innocent children with deadly diseases for his selfish sexual reasons. How can you really be this sick?!?!? You and your ideas are dangerous to society. “Hey Let us destroy future generations by supporting men giving them HIV and other diseases to even to toddlers. That way feminist and old hags lose!”. Maybe you hate adult women so much that you support men like this that limit their life span by giving them multiple diseases.

        You make MRAs look like nasty men who want to be praised for giving toddlers and teens STDs. Plenty of MRAs would never support this man, most are fathers who are protective over kids.

        An adult with 3 STDs should not be having sex with minors, especially unprotected. It is illegal to give others HIV. Perhaps you believe this should be legal, who cares if children quality of life is ruined because a disgusting man gave them STDs.

        Your goal is probably to reduce children and females to property thus harming or even killing them is not much of a crime. This man in your world would be free to roam infecting other girls. What if the toddler died because of his sexual acts? Meh as long as men like him enjoyed himself, that toddler is just property.

      • holocaust21 says:

        Congratulations for being an SJW and completely twisting what I said. Your reply had absolutely no relation to what I was trying to say.

        From what I can tell you appear to be a feminist. You genuinely support having innocent men anally raped and beaten in prison. Now please do kindly fuck off.

  4. Salem21 says:

    Has that guy ever heard of ‘context’ FFS…Anyway, reason I’m here is this article from Return of the Kings – “if you disagree with paedophilia, you mare a bigot”…The article itself is a biased load of crap with the usual ‘slippery slope fallacy at play:

    • holocaust21 says:

      Thanks for this. Truly awful garbage from return of kings. Roosh is becoming as bad as the feminists. I left this response in the comments section:

      This article is the worst piece of garbage I’ve ever read. If Relampago were a REAL MAN then he would realise that all men are infact “paedophiles” as they have evolved to be attracted to young teenage girls not 50 year old hags. Someone even made a film asking the question “Are all men paedophiles?”, watch it here:

      Furthermore studies have shown a whopping 1 in 5 men are strongly attracted to children 13 or under (see here: If they studied this on 13-17 I bet it’d be over 50% of men.

      You make the absurd claim that societies which normalise paedophilia collapse and give no evidence for it. You willfully ignore the fact that PAEDOPHILIA WAS BOTH LEGAL AND NORMAL in most (or all?) countries of the world prior to around 150 years ago! For example, in the US state of Delaware the age of consent used to be 7. In Britain it used to be 12 and infact in Spain and the Netherlands it was 12 until as late as around 1999.

      Most importantly it was FEMINISTS who raised the age of consent. For example, in Britain a woman called Josephine Butler – a bitter feminist hag (see: was responsible for raising the age of consent in 1885.

      • holocaust21 says:

        And I should add for that reply I’ve been blocked by Roosh. Fuck him!

      • Alan Vaughn says:

        Thanks holocaust21, but I doubt whether too many (if ANY) of the aspies readers at RoK will understand, or ACCEPT any of the simple truth you just tried to point out to them. In fact, if any of them actually bother to watch that superb 50 minute YT, it will probably send most of them into a frenzied, tantrum of paedocritical denial, because they’re afraid of what their fellow paedocs and of course, their bosses in the gynocracy might think about them, for merely looking at it.

  5. Alan Vaughn says:

    I think Roosh is probably trying to crawl up their smelly old vaginas after their Australian chapter successfully lobbied the government to cancel his visa on the grounds that he is a misogynist who only wanted to come here to spread his sexist agenda to Oz ‘Losers’…
    Which makes him look the biggest loser of all. You’re right, we don’t need him or his ilk.

    • Alan Vaughn says:

      And here’s my reply to one of the NUMEROUS feminist fearing mangina Paedocrites who replied to your post calling itself ‘GhostOfJefferson’

      A 17.5 year old ‘child’?? LOL!!! My great grandmother was legally married with 2 young children (my grandfather and my Aunt) when she was 16!
      You are an IDIOT!
      All you’re doing is showing your respect of the bitterly jealous old feminists who would love to see you publicly executed for being a normal heterosexual male, assuming you ARE normal…. That is the same femihags that successfully lobbied for these disgusting laws that ultimately target ALL men.
      Watch the movie if you DARE. You might find that you are normal… Or according to the feminists you obviously worship – a paedophile!

      I’m sure that will be liked even less than your original comment…
      One of the other feminists there tried to argue that they also used to send 12 year old boys off to war, so do you want a return to those days? Ridiculous argument. Killing people and CREATING them are not really a compatible analogy. Besides those young boys were only there because they lied about their age and wanted to go. They were never forced to be soldiers.

  6. Salem21 says:

    A rather biased video I must add, It had part of the Dutch clips in it from “are all men paedophiles”…People are certain that P will never be accepted, But how could they know — Time does not all lead to now, its a continues journey. Maybe kids will be granted more rights to chose whom they have sexual relations with; Or on the other hand, Things will get worse for the minor attracted, With more advances technology to keep tabs on us, In the video the question of adult/child sex (sex as in, sensual oral before around twelve) is something seen as sacrosanct, for them at least.

Leave a Reply to Salem21 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.