Since the great wave of feminist reforms first struck our peaceful shores thirty years ago, the goal of reformers has been to transform rape law to make it easier to charge and convict men and boys. These reforms typically are being made under the radar, without fanfare and often without any public debate. Most readers will assume it can’t get any worse than it is, but trust me, it can get worse. This article will chronicle some of the more dangerous proposals. Before we do that, it is well to summarize the history of these reforms to underscore the sexual grievance industry’s incredible track record for effecting change.
History of Rape Reforms Since the Dawn of the Feminist Revolution
Starting in the 1970s but especially in the 1980s and 1990s, our politicians kowtowed to the sexual grievance industry, which insisted that rape was grotesquely under-reported and that reforms were needed to do justice to countless women who supposedly suffered the brutal indignity of rape in silence. So they set to work to solve a problem that no one can prove even exists.
They adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of corroboration. Other crimes had no such requirement, they said, blinking at the fact that rape is not like other crimes. In many cases, the sole evidence of rape is precisely the same as the sole evidence of the most common act of love, performed innumerable times throughout the world every day. That act of love can be transmogrified into an alleged felony merely by claiming it was performed without consent. In practice, the elimination of corroboration essentially flipped the old law on its head: now, women don’t need any corroboration of their claims, but men and boys accused of rape are arrested, jailed, charged, and sometimes tried and convicted, solely on even the far-fetched say-so of any woman or girl if the men and boys can’t produce corroborating evidence of their innocence. It is literally guilty until proven innocent.
That wasn’t enough, they said. So we adopted rape shield laws that barred the admission in a rape trial of almost any evidence of the accuser’s prior sexual history with persons other than the accused. There is no evidence that rape shield laws have had more than minimal effect on the incidence of reports of acquaintance rape, but who cared? Rape shield laws too often have been abused, sometimes resulting in the conviction of an innocent man or boy. They have been used to exclude relevant evidence that the accuser has made prior false rape claims; that the accuser has used the same modus operandi to seduce other men; and that the accuser is a prostitute. In one famous case, a woman claimed she was tortured and sodomized; the man claimed the act was consensual. She denied ever expressing interest in sado-masochism, and he tried to introduce into evidence emails showing that she had expressed interest in sado-masochism. The email evidence was excluded, and her lie was permitted to go unrebutted.
That wasn’t enough, so we extended rape shield laws to civil actions in Federal Courts and in a growing number of state courts. The Advisory Committee that pushed the federal rule change expressed its hope that this protection against invasions of privacy, potential embarrassment, and unwarranted sexual stereotyping will “encourage victims to come forward.”
That wasn’t enough, they said. So we adopted laws that eliminated the requirements of force and resistance, and innocent men and boys who mistook the acquiescence of a woman as consent were sent to prison.
That wasn’t enough, they said. So we eliminated the mens rea requirement for rape. Historically, in a rape prosecution, the guilty defendant must have had the intention to have intercourse with a woman without her consent. Too stringent, said the sexual grievance industry, and the requirement was lightened or dropped altogether.
That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted laws in the UK and a handful of US states that legally forbade naming rape accusers. Moreover, in the US, news agencies and outlets have, by common consensus, agreed not to name rape accusers. The mere allegation of rape by the anonymous female, without any other evidence and no matter how far-fetched, often causes a man’s name to be splashed all over the newspaper, TV, radio, and Internet for the world to titillate to the details of his humiliation, destroying the man’s good name forever. In contrast, his accuser’s identity is guarded with all the tenacity that Clark Kent uses to shield Superman’s.
That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted laws that lengthened and even eliminated statutes of limitations for rape, but not for other crimes, and now, men are sometimes accused of, and charged with, alleged rapes that occurred 20, 30, 40 or more years after they supposedly occurred. This, of course, effectively forecloses the accused from mounting a meaningful defense because the evidence that might have proven them innocent — corroborating witnesses, after-the-fact letters suggesting consent, receipts showing he was actually out of town that day — has long disappeared.
That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted VAWA which, among many other things, pays the legal bills of alleged victims of sexual assault. VAWA pays none of the legal bills of men accused of rape, the presumptively innocent. Not even the falsely accused.
In the UK, it’s worse. The UK compensates alleged rape victims, even the ones not subjected to any physical force, no matter how slight their injuries. In contrast, the UK does not compensate men falsely accused of rape, no matter how egregious their harm. And, yes, sometimes false rape accusers are compensated.
That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted laws that exempted rape accusers from taking polygraph tests as a condition to proceeding with the investigation of their rape claims. But polygraphs are considered just fine — when they are used on men and boys accused of rape. If males refuse to submit to them, often even flimsy charges won’t be dropped. (Moreover, polygraphs are routinely used to insure that sex offenders, predominantly male, are adhering to the terms of their probation, and a refusal to take the polygraph will land the refusing party in jail. Worse yet, men and boys are subjected to penile plethysmograph testing, a sort of junk science polygraph of the penis, which typically requires the subjects to engage in self-arousal.)
That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted rules on college campuses making it easier and easier to expel males accused of sexual wrongdoing, with kangaroo courts that forbid confronting accusers and that employ inquisitorial, as opposed to adversarial, hearing processes that dispense with silly things like due process. Most colleges have lowered the burden of proof from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “clear and convincing evidence” or a “preponderance of evidence” – just for charges of sexual assault or harassment. Many college campuses also adopted rules that forbid charging rape accusers with underage drinking in connection with their accusation, thus providing young women looking to evade an underage drinking charge with yet another motive to lie about rape.
That wasn’t enough, they said. So we enacted draconian Federal Rule of Evidence 413, and many states adopted similar laws. With this law, unlike any other criminal charge, including murder, robbery, even planning the World Trade Center attacks, a rape trial in federal court and in various states allows evidence of the defendant’s commission of prior offenses of sexual assault to show that he has a propensity for committing the crime at issue. This rule, which is unique in all of American jurisprudence and widely condemned by legal scholars, allows the jury to hear about the defendant’s prior acts, whether or not the defendant takes the stand. Even mere accusations of prior sexual offenses that occurred years before — and even criminal allegations for which the defendant was acquitted — are admissible if the alleged prior act is proven by just a preponderance of the evidence (far lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt”). This law was enacted specifically to nab more rapists – if you show the jury smoke, they’ll assume there must be fire even when there isn’t.
But surely all these massive reforms must have cut into underreporting of rape? Surely after decades of one reform cascading upon the next to encourage women to come forward, the women must be lining up, right?
Well, no, we are told. In fact, the sexual grievance industry insists that nothing has ever worked to curb alleged underreporting, and that it is supposedly still rampant. So, what do we to curb the problem? Why, we keep listening to the same people who’ve been taking our tax and tuition money, and who haven’t been able to solve the alleged problem.
Here’s the reality: it’s all nonsense. The sexual grievance industry needs rampant “underreporting” to perpetuate the rape cottage industry. So they manufacture it from whole cloth. There are powerful and entrenched financial interests at work that depend on rape hysteria. But they’re not finished.
I honestly can’t think of a single serious rape reform proposal that hasn’t eventually been enacted. The track record of the sexual grievance industry in getting their way is astounding. Here are some of the most dangerous proposals they want to enact:
THEY ARE NOT FINISHED:
Sex Will be a Presumed Crime When a Woman Cries Rape
Most readers think this is already the case, but trust me, it’s not. Few non-lawyers appreciate the importance of placing the burden of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” on the prosecutor in criminal trials. Under present rape law, the prosecution must prove the essential elements of the crime, including the alleged victim’s non-consent, beyond a reasonable doubt. While far too many innocent men and boys are arrested and charged on flimsy false rape claims, most avoid lengthy prison terms simply because the prosecution bears that burden.
The Holy Grail of rape reform for feminist legal scholars is to flip the duty of proving consent to the accused. In Addressing Rape Reform in Law and Practice(2008), Professor Susan Caringellaof Western Michigan University’s Sociology Department, posits one such proposal. She says: “It is high time to give victims a fair shake, to dismantle the zealous overprotections for men accused of this crime, which have been buoyed up by the myths about false accusations, ulterior motives, and so on, commonly embraced when rape charges are levied.”
Among other things, Prof. Caringella lays out an elaborate legislative scheme to reverse the presumption of consent for rape. Most rapes are of the acquaintance variety, and consent often is the sole issue in dispute in a rape trial. Under this professor’s plan, if a woman alleges rape, non-consent would be presumed, and the man would be required to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the act was consensual. In most of those cases, there is no significant evidence aside from the testimony of the accuser and the accused. If the jury doesn’t know who to believe, as is often the case, the male will go to prison for many years. (And we have reported innumerable cases on False Rape Society where false rape accusers were found to be very credible.) The male will have lost the trial before it has begun.
This rule also means that the accused in a criminal trial will be forced to testify on his own behalf if he wants to stay out of prison – the same as in many countries ruled by dictators that have no regard for due process.
Think about the implications of this proposal: this feminist scholar wants to turn the most fundamental act of love, the act of procreation, that has been performed countless times every minute of every day of every year since the beginning of time the world over — into a presumed crime whenever a woman cries rape. This, of course, is a jurisprudence bordering on pathology.
Professor Michele Alexandre has an even more drastic plan. Currently, rape law adheres to a contract law standard of consent, where consent may manifested in any way that it actually occurs. In matters of romance, people toss formalities to the winds and typically express their desires in body language, smiles, nods, and caresses. There are, in fact, an infinite variety of ways people signal consent. Many, perhaps most, couples establish routines where unspoken conduct cues responses in a willing a partner. Currently, the law recognizes that whatever ways parties actually manifest consent is admissible evidence of it. That can’t possibly be unfair, right?
Well, wrong. Professor Michele Alexandre wants to junk all of that and severely limit the way consent may be legally manifested. She insists that the contract theory of consent treats women’s bodies as goods. She proposes that consent not be presumed; when a woman cries rape, the sex act is a presumed crime. The burden is on the defendant to prove “that express and present consent was explicitly obtained at the time of the actual sexual interaction, not before or after . . . .”
Moreover, she would junk all the non-verbal manifestations of assent: “. . . express consent entails verbal or written assent that leaves no doubt as to the victim’s agreement to the sexual interaction. . . .” (The other-worldly proposal about written assent is a dead giveaway that this professor is operating in a different universe than the typical bedroom where real couples are getting it on.)
She continues: Only if the defendant is able to establish “express, present, and uncontroverted consent to the sexual interaction at issue” does the burden shift to the prosecution to prove withdrawal of consent, and “withdrawal of consent can happen at any time during the sexual interaction.”
In this professor’s world, past sexual behavior – all those routines a couple has established over the course of months or years, all that private, unspoken language – none of it may be cited as evidence of present consent, and sex that occurs as a result of such flawed consent is rape. See M. Alexandre, ‘Girls Gone Wild’ and Rape Law: Revising the Contractual Concept of Consent & Ensuring an Unbiased Application of ‘Reasonable Doubt’ When the Victim is Non-Traditional, 17 American Univ. Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 1, 41, 55-56 (2009).
And it isn’t just the eggheads sitting in their Ivory Towers who buy into this inanity. Feminist superstar Jessica Valenti recently wrote this “. . . we should look to [Swedish rape laws] as a potential model for our own legislation. . . . In fact, some activists and legal experts in Sweden want to change the law there so that the burden of proof is on the accused; the alleged rapist would have to show that he got consent, instead of the victim having to prove that she didn’t give it.”
If you think this is science fiction, you’d be wrong. It’s already happening in Washington state. Prof. Richard Klein describes it:
“The Washington State rape statute defining consent as requiring ‘actual words or conduct indicating freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse,’ was . . . silent as to where the burden lay as to the showing of consent. The defendant in State v. Camara claimed that judge’s charge to the jury improperly inferred that the burden was upon him. The Washington Supreme Court determined that there was ‘support in the history and purposes of rape law reform’ to conclude that the intent of the legislature was to shift the burden of proof to the defense. As a result of the Camara decision, Washington courts typically included the following instruction to juries in rape cases:
“’A person is not guilty if the sexual intercourse is consensual. ‘Consent’ means that at the time of the act of sexual intercourse, there are actual words or conduct indicating a freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse. The burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the sexual intercourse was consensual.’”
R. Klein, An Analysis of Thirty-Five Years of Rape Reform: A Frustrating Search for Fundamental Fairness, 41 Akron L.Rev. 981 (2008).
Laws Forbidding Women Who Falsely Cry Rape From Being Charged
Shifting the burden of proving consent onto the male accused of rape isn’t the only thing on the sexual grievance industry’s wish-list. In the aftermath of the arrest of a woman in the UK for apparently falsely recanting a rape charge against an allegedly abusive partner, the government is establishing guidelines for charging women who recant. The director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, will need to approve all efforts to charge women who recant rape allegations and, Starmer said, “we will monitor them closely.” Specifically: “If the victim has decided to withdraw a rape allegation, we must explore the issues behind that, particularly if the victim is under pressure or frightened.”
In fact, this is a step on the road to achieving what prominent sexual grievance industry leaders have advocated: not charging rape liars with crimes. Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape has been quoted as saying the following: “Every prosecution [of false rape claims] puts women who have been raped off reporting it.” Another time, she called efforts to prosecute women for making false rape claims “a concerted witch-hunt.”
When a 17-year-old New Zealand girl was arrested after falsely claiming that she was dragged off by three youths and sexually assaulted at knifepoint, Dr. Kim McGregor, director of New Zealand’s Rape Prevention Education, was quoted regarding false rape complainants: “I would recommend some form of therapeutic intervention rather than charging them.” Dr. McGregor claims that “someone needed to be ‘pretty distressed’ to make a false allegation of sexual assault,” and that “very few women made false complaints as a form of revenge.”
Scrap the Adversarial System in Rape Cases in Favor of an Inquisition
Dr. Kim McGregor is also on record as favoring a change from the adversarial system that pits one person against another in terms of their credibility. She would like to see an inquisitorial form where both parties must answer questions in court. But, she has cautioned, the new inquisition for rape needs to be wary of male judges who would interview women and children because this may increase a victim’s anxiety. Don’t fear – she wouldn’t require all female judges in rape cases. She says that the anxiety could be avoided by the way the interviewer questions the victim. (Apparently sensitivity training would be required for male judges.)
The disciplinary procedures in many colleges already have scrapped the adversarial system when it comes to sex allegations.
Quasi-Quotas for Rape Arrests and Convictions
Two years ago in the UK, it was a pet project of then Labour’s deputy leader, Harriet Harman, to jack up the conviction rates for rape. Ms Harman floated a trial balloon that indicated she was toying with the idea of establishing targets for prosecutors and police to secure more convictions. This likely would have entailed police and prosecutors being required to furnish reports explaining the reasons the “targets” were not met, with all manner of negative consequence imaginable for “unsatisfactory” explanations; further, it is reasonable to suspect that police would be deprived of certain government funding in the event their responses were not “satisfactory.”
What effect would this have on innocent persons falsely accused of rape? Let’s furnish an example. In the United States, law enforcement agencies are notoriously afraid of losing highway dollars from the federal government if they fail to make a sufficient number of DUI arrests. A DUI expert famously contended on American television that innocent people who have nothing to drink are taken to jail after submitting to roadside field sobriety tests. The charges are later dropped, but presumably the incarceration is sufficient to help meet a quota.
Under this quasi-quota system, innocent men and boys not only would need to worry that a woman might decide to lie about their relationship, now they would also need to worry about whether the police department has hit its numbers in a given month when a woman falsely accuses them.
Harman is out of power, but my guess is we’ll be seeing this proposal again sometime. And given the sexual grievance industry’s track record, don’t be surprised if it becomes law.
{ 158 comments… read them below or add one }
Combine this with the $17,000 government gift to any woman who accuses a man of rape, I can see big problems.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
64 
1
N.O.W. how many women/womyn care about this?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
1
off topic, but hilarious all the same, however, the comments are interesting.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1362586/Transplant-Womans-husband-leaves–taking-life-saving-kidney-promised-him.html
Hot debate. What do you think?
10 
10
Mr. Pierce Harlaan, apply most of what you have brilliantly written and apply most of the feminists’ precepts to assault laws. Feminist assault laws often require no more than the word(s) of the female accuser(s) as absolute “proof” of “victimhood”.
“If you can’t ruin/destroy a man’s/boy’s life with a rape/sexual assault accusation, you can accuse him/them of assaulting you.”
VAWA .
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
47 
1
Great article as always. I go to your site almost daily and sometimes post under anonymous. It is beyond belief that things are getting so insane in society. Just when we thought it couldn’t get worse…
All men can be accused of rape by any woman in any context and none of us are safe. We need to reduce our exposure to the risk to borrow the concept from the insurance industry. What does that mean? Men need to avoid dating, casual sex, marriage and living with a woman. It is simply too dangerous for us. Work and social environments that leave us alone with a woman must be avoided.
Sadly most men will take years to catch on, if they ever do, to these issues and how to best deal with them. Some men never learn.
Keep up the great writing!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
49 
1
Feminist laws; her word(s) = absolute proof/evidence of her victimhood.
Feminist laws; his word(s)/behavior ,and everything/anything else about him, = absolute proof/evidence of his “inheirant guilt”.
Guilt-by-default?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
0
It’s interesting to see that feminists, having already made marriage to a Western woman a proposition with a negative EV, are busily doing the same for sex with a WW. Cue the chorus of “where have all the good men gone”?
Answer: “Far away from you, b*tch”.
It’s my opinion that a mental shortcoming peculiar to, or at least more noticeable among, women is the tendency to assume that other people will simply fall into line and do what they woman prefers; women seem not to understand that other people are thinking individuals with independent agency and desires. As a result, when a woman wants X, she will apply a stimulus S, under the theory that, in principle, S could elicit X, but overlooking that it could also elicit A, B, C, D, etc., and that one of those alternatives might be preferable to other actors in her little drama.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
53 
0
Sorry to post a non-related post. There is news on the “future we create” conferrence.
CALL TO ACTION:
Laura Vosejpka just made a cruel post mocking the appearance of the most successful woman in the history of Biology, Roslind Franklin:
“…..apparently the only women able to be recognized for their scientific success back then had to be considered unattractive…..Rosalind Franklin is another example of this….”
Don’t let her get away with this. Franklin’s work was responsible for the discovery of the structure of DNA, which ignited the modern age of Biology, and made possible virtually every modern medication that extended the average human lifespan from 50 years to 70 years.
Franklin did not need feminist privilege to do her work, and she deserves better than to be disparaged by a modern day “princesses of privilege” whose accomplishments are irrelevant.
Tell MS. Vosejpka that the MRM respects women who fight, and win, without the help of “big daddy” government:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/FutureWeCreate
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
25
Crimes against humanity tribunals are too good for these savages. Meet the modern day Hitlers of today at your local “institution of higher learning” Sadly, unlike the Nazis, many of these ivory tower storm troopers will escape justice in our lifetime.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
41 
2
Feminists have always held their mouths right up to the sewer pipeline of lies when it comes to rape. Its as if they live in fantasy land. Ive had one tell me those convicted of rape go to anger management therapy and thats all.
I myself have never understood why we need to give women incentives to come forward. isnt the fact you were raped incentive enough to come forward? If youre too afraid to report it under fair laws, then you dont deserve justice. Thats a hard pill to swallow, but there it is.
And then, we have to protect poor dearies reputation, at the price of key evidence that could keep an innocent man out of jail. nevermind the man has a lot more to lose than letting everyone know his bedroom habits.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
1
Virginity’s making a comeback, report says
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41879879/
Off topic: amusing report by the USG so who knows how inaccurate it is? Bottom line findings:
Virginity is now higher for men and women, and elsewhere both sexes reporting about the same levels of different types of activities. No hypothesizing why in this report. Maybe do to obesity among people especially younger adults was one comment. Maybe also do to immigrant growth rates and more of whom are conservative in their values. Women report being bisexual at 3x the rate of men with more bi-activity being done by less educated women. That caused some angry comments by offended women who insist there are lots of educated bisexual women. Either way, what passes for a four-year or grad education in modern America is a joke. Oh and btw, would you believe the USG report stated that human sexuality is a learned behavior and not defined by sexual gender? Ever hear that one before?
Like or Dislike:
16 
3
Good Morning America: ‘It’s Official: Women Win Battle of Sexes’
Submitted by anthony on Wed, 2011-03-02 15:45.
Video here. The (male) author of the book “Man Down” outlines the many ways in which women have men beat in all possible critical ways imaginable. You be the judge..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQdM3fAlVjE&feature=relmfu
http://news.mensactivism.org/node/16377
Study: Women Are in Charge at Home
Submitted by anthony on Wed, 2011-03-02 16:55.
Article here. Excerpt:
‘Men might throw their weight around at the office, but at home, women are the bosses.
A study, which was just released, finds that wives have more power than their husbands in making decisions and dominating discussions.
“The study at least suggests that the marriage is a place where women can exert some power,” said lead author David Vogel, a psychologist at Iowa State University (ISU). “Whether or not it’s because of changing societal roles, we don’t know.”
The results counter past research.’.
http://www.livescience.com/1673-study-women-charge-home.html
http://news.mensactivism.org/node/16378
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/2705-feminist-gulag-no-prosecution-necessary
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
So this woman and I, clothes strewn about, are locked in a passionate embrace when I have to immediately stop everything and say something like…
…”Excuse me we’re now at the point of the sex act where I need to ask you if I may have your consent to insert my erect penis in your vagina at this time.”
Rape Hysteria Culture feminists know this doesn’t happen and absolutely HATE the fact that the male of the species is naturally dominant and the female submissive. It infuriates them because it’s not “equality” and this is their way to “socially engineer” the sexual dynamic through the legal system.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
59 
3
This evolution is not so surpising.
Feminists once said that every (heterosexual) sexual intercourse was a rape. We can see them bringing it to action.
Feminist say that men are redundant and should be exterminated. We can see laws degrading men to second (third, fourth,…) class citizens now.
Remember, Hitler was speaking (publicly) about his plans, years before realization, but only few had believed him. And he almost got it!
I do not think we get to the extermination. Simply because there will be noone to execute it. But we will reach levels of existence of the worst contemporary third world failed states. To run any form of civilization you need functioning society and we have crossed point of no return.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
4
Keyster March 3, 2011 at 11:17
So this woman and I, clothes strewn about, are locked in a passionate embrace when I have to immediately stop everything and say something like…
…”Excuse me we’re now at the point of the sex act where I need to ask you if I may have your consent to insert my erect penis in your vagina at this time.”
Rape Hysteria Culture feminists know this doesn’t happen and absolutely HATE the fact that the male of the species is naturally dominant and the female submissive. It infuriates them because it’s not “equality” and this is their way to “socially engineer” the sexual dynamic through the legal system.
It is how they dominate/control/use and abuse (victimize) / use the sytem and made it their w*re along with ALL IN IT.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
2
I have asked this question for years……
“HOW SAFE ARE YOU GOING TO BE WITH MORE AND MORE RESTIRCITVE LAWS REGARDING PERSONAL SAFETY?”
I get the same answer every time from sheeple> :::::silence:::::
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
1
I guess the feminist hate mongers did not even bother to say that women also need consent before sex. Are we really going to reduce this to who is moving their pelvis and when?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
1
Before I began to visit this site, approximately a year ago, I had been a contributor to a Forum which has since closed. One of my last posts there was one where I imagined what might most surprise a visitor to 2009 from 1959; not computers, or the lack of WW3 but (I said) the acceptance, nay encouragement of Homosexuality, and the consequent demonisation of Heterosexuality.
It seems to me that the Liberal Elite (all White Knights and Manginas) get off on their fantasy of an epidemic of Rape, whereas the girl in the street wanders around in the shortest of micro-skirts, without chaperone or chastity belt quite unconcerned by Rape; aware only, that if for reasons of revenge or to cover whoring, or to seek attention she should choose to seek police assistance she will get the same and if subsequently found out will be let-off lightly. As I have said before, all the cases personal and professional that I have ever come across were false allegations (so far as I can tell) and that included three women who seemed to me to be boasting of their Rape Ordeal with the unspoken sub-text being ‘ I was so desirable that men could not resist forcing me and therefore you should fancy me too’. I didn’t. Had their Ordeals genuinely been Rape then they would hardly have wanted to mention it to anyone let alone myself little more than a stranger.
Blackstone makes clear that Rape was an offence against Chastity, and a woman’s past was therefore relevant. That is not only the only justification for the offence but how it should still be.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
6
The American gender-Raunch community have become super-powers on most (if not all) universities across America by Rape hysteria and selective “perversion construction ism”.
American gender-Raunch constructionists have been nearly un-challenged for 20 years now; but their walls of forced perversion are showing stress cracks.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
At what point will the legal, financial and health risks that come from sex with women be enough to make men think twice about having it? It’s like watching a really bad game of poker, with each player upping the stakes.
The ironic thing being, of course, that the only value most women actually have is between their legs, and they themselves are either reducing that value through inaction (allowing such ridiculous laws to be passed, etc.) or through action (being selfish irrational whining nagging bitches).
Of course, this makes the truly good women only more valuable and the search for alternatives for men more lucrative. Which only hurries the whole process along. Hang in there, guys, and, if you have the strength of character, stop playing the women’s game. Few things will hasten this collapse (or keep you safe) like a fleshlight and some internet porn.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
8
On the bright side, this is the subject of episode 3 of AVfM radio.
Post flyers to advertise AVfM radio before then (March 15). We can hardly afford not to!
Example :
Why does the Government reward women for making false rape accusations?
- or -
Why are both left and right ok with sending an innocent man to prison for a falsely made rape accusation?
Google ‘A Voice for Men Radio’ to learn more.
Post flyers!! We cannot afford not to!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
0
The “”Gender-Raunch / American law enforcement misinformation and manufactured statistics Alliance”” ; has proven effective in the immediate and unchallenged “Empowerment” of the American gender-raunch community as a United whole.
But the perversion and manufactured statistics of American law enforcement, that has given gender-raunch their “Empowerment rhetoric”; will inevitably be challenged, for there is nothing in the US constitutions enumerated powers clauses that give American Law enforcement the authority to pervert protocol in order to manufacture faulty and inflammatory rhetoric.
It may take a while for America to “Break the Empowerment Alliance”, so this may be just a “heads up” for other nations that aren’t that enthusiastic about an “Empowered gender-raunch community”.
Other nations may be able to keep gender-raunch Empowerment- misinformation perversion out of their law enforcement, before it gets as deep as it is here in the United States.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
As others have written about before, for some women having experienced some degree of actual sexual assault, it is almost a badge of pride or honor for her to wear among her friends much like having a child or getting a degree. Some males seek out glory through boxing, daredevil x-sports, and war to prove themselves. It is not too far fetched to imagine that some females have a similar quest for danger/pain/glory. People can be complex and bizarre in their shallowness.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
35 
1
“And then, we have to protect poor dearies reputation, at the price of key evidence that could keep an innocent man out of jail. nevermind the man has a lot more to lose than letting everyone know his bedroom habits.”
A woman’s preciouse feelings are always more important then a man’s very life. It all boils down to “We Want” and nothing more.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
0
Eventually, a woman will be able to state in court “I gave my consent at the time and enjoyed it, but NOW I have decided I wish for it to not have happened, and therefore, he raped me.”
Any guesses as to how long that will take to come down from the FemiNazis?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
51 
0
Ken March 3, 2011 at 11:24
I have asked this question for years……
“HOW SAFE ARE YOU GOING TO BE WITH MORE AND MORE RESTIRCITVE LAWS REGARDING PERSONAL SAFETY?”
If you were a female there would be “relatively” nothing to worry about. Your word and feeling(s) = the gospel truth/pure gold.
“I get the same answer every time from sheeple> :::::silence:::::”
Until females get stung by equality in justice, you will probably hear silence. What else could you expect from a society/system that is owned/controlled by feminism?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
0
Eric J Schlegel March 3, 2011 at 12:05
There is also “need” which can be interpretted/defined/redefined/relabeled at feminist whim/desire.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Did you know that your name goes on the sexual offender list in some state’s for urinating in a public place. This actually include’s a man hunting on public ground’s if he needs to take a leak.
Eventually as the law’s get more absurd a majority of men will be on the sexual offender list. When that happen’s, it’ll carry as much of a stigma as a fart in the wind.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
0
How many men are executed by lethal injection, removal of children, false accusations, or just shiver to death in the cold, homeless due to mental or physical incapacity?
I don’t think it is far fetched to think that our society will begin to elimate men by extermination.
I see no evidence anywhere that our society, today, right now, would have any problem with killing men and boys in large quantities if it in any minor way was requested by our feminist overlords.
If it meant a dollar less a gallon for gas, how many US boys lives would be worth the cost? Thats my point.
Things will get much much worse. They stopped teaching the boys, they will have to find food, they will become a bother….that is justification enough, IMO, for them.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
2
“’A person is not guilty if the sexual intercourse is consensual. ‘Consent’ means that at the time of the act of sexual intercourse, there are actual words or conduct indicating a freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse. The burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the sexual intercourse was consensual.’”
That has to be unconstitutional under the 5th amendment. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and they must prove every element of the crime and intent beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trials AND a jury must bring in a unanimous guilty verdict.
To require a man to prove his innocence even by the lower standard of proof means that he will have to take the stand and will be questioned by the prosecutor. Sure, he can invoke his 5th amendment rights but we all know that the jury will think he has something to hide if he does so. There’s also the question of him being held in contempt if he doesn’t answer the questions because he did take the stand even though he was coerced into doing so. Is he protected by the “rape shield” laws? Can the prosecutor ask any question she wants about his sex life?
********************************
In the United States, law enforcement agencies are notoriously afraid of losing highway dollars from the federal government if they fail to make a sufficient number of DUI arrests
And this is why the drinking age was raised to 21. The States that didn’t raise the age would be cut 5% and they caved into pressure from the manginas in Congress.Let me also add that the statistics on fatalities and drinking in the US are bogus. Alcohol is not the cause of fatalities in half or 30% of whatever figure they are currently pulling out of the air. It’s about 8% and that figure is constant from statistics taken in Europe and around the world. What these people like MADD and the other prohibitionists who make their money from this racket are doing is including everyone who had even a drop of alcohol and is involved in a fatal accident and saying “alcohol was involved”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
1
Sometimes, I have trouble feeling really sorry for some of those innocent guys who know some women can be trouble but still put themselves in the way of danger or harm. I’m always shocked and sometimes upset to read of the latest injustice against some innocent man. Yet, when the man has knowingly put himself into some stupid high-risk situation with a woman he knows can be trouble in the modern era I also find myself critical of his stupidity. I guess my thoughts would be the same if some cute young woman puts on a revealing mini-dress and goes walking alone in some dangerous areas to get attention not expecting rape.
I realize things are not simply black and white, and that some accused men never imagined they would get into trouble. Yet, after all these decades one would imagine men would wise up to women. Of course, the brainwashing schools, mass media, and politicians pump out the propaganda that only a guilty man will get into trouble…and then good honest men knowing they are good and honest, and did nothing wrong, get accused!
It really stinks.
Great jobs of the future:
1) Provider of audio-video equipment to record consensual sex — be careful as it maybe not be legal to later use in court to prove your innocence
2) Vasectomy doctor
3) Seller of virtual sex equipment
4) Relocation Specialist helping men relocate out of the USA
5) Prison Guard at male prison
6) Social worker for alleged female rape victim
Bad future jobs:
1) marriage counselor — who is going to get married?
2) engagement ring salesperson — see above comment
3) manufacturer of his and hers bath towels
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
15 
50
Aharon: The trouble is this, that it is the dangerous ones who are also the exciting ones.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
@Singledad: the death of men and boys will be more subtle. The alpha males will be in symbiotic relationship with the feminazis and the female sheeple. the beta males and below will be cannon fodder for their social engineering and wars. they are doing it right now with Keynesian economics and the increasing totalitarian socialism. Finally we in the west will be overrun by the barbarians, and the alphas and wimyns will be crushed.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
67
Feminism and Nazism
http://www.angryharry.com/esFeminismandNazism.htm?note
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
5
Opus,
True. Men often crave sex and danger.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
THIS is what I’m writing about: while “mrms” pat themselves on the back about ephemeral online “victories”
…REAL power – the Leftist Government kind that fines, jails and executes – IS being wielded AND EXPANDED by foes.
Liberal fascism will “grant” you all the forum victories you want…so long as they RUN the Government.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
9
If this travesty passes and men with a brain withdraw further from relationships for purposes of self-protection, get ready for round #87,993 of “where are all the good men” or “why won’t men ‘man up’ and marry?”
If this is where the majority of society wishes to go, then societal collapse can’t happen fast enough for me. I’d be laughing my *ss off in the background as the urban she-males find out what life is like when they’re around bona fide ‘dangerous men’.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
0
“You will verify that Nazism and feminism ideology are quite far way from each other.”
Look up the definition of Nazi facism and you’ll see the similarities.
They’ve combined Marxist ideology with Nazi tactics.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
2
“Why is the say-so of a woman necessarily far-fetched?”
It’s certainly not. Sometimes it is (and I could show you a number of examples of that), but let’s talk about even NON-far-fetched claims: if both the male and the female have plausible accounts, which is often the case, the case needs to end. And that’s not to say the woman has made a false claim. Given the burden of proof, it is never appropriate for a disrtict attorney to “roll the dice” and leave it up to the jury to figure out if a claim is rape. I know that might strike some as wrong, or “misogynistic,” but a prosecutor is the gatekeeper of justice who should only bring charges, as Prof. Bennett L. Gershman described it, when he or she is convinced to a moral certainty of both the defendant’s factual and legal guilt. To bring charges when there is any less certainty does not fulfill the prosecutor’s duty to do justice, but invites miscarriages and the possible conviction of an innocent defendant. My beef, sir, is more with the way too many law enforcement apparatuses apply this law.
“What does the method of seduction or whether or not the accuser is a prostitute have to do with consent for the act performed?”
A prostitute isn’t paid, so she cries “rape” and the male isn’t permitted to let the jury know that this was a transaction for money? That’s a no-brainer. As for method of seduction: I am, of course, referencing only peculiar and distinctive methods, not garden variety stuff, in the same way prosecutors are allowed to use modus operandi evidence to convict (it should work both ways).
But what do I know?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
3
What is Futrelle’s website?
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
I was actually very skeptical of a lot of the points made by this article, because a lot of the Federal Rules of Evidence for rape do make sense, including the rape shield laws, as Peter has pointed out. For example, past sexual history of the accuser outside of the context of the accused is inadmissible because it would indeed be irrelevant to the present case and only prejudicial against the accuser.
But to think that the rules of consent would be shifted onto the accused in the State of Washington….I was going to call bullshit on that until I actually went and read State v. Camara and a related case, State v. Coristine. I read them with the belief that people had simply misinterpreted these cases, as there was simply no way American Jurisprudence would go against the fundamental tenets of criminal law for a free society for any crime, including rape.
Not only was I horribly wrong, I am completely stunned. Those cases are some of the scariest decisions I have ever read. Reading such statements as
“Placing the burden of proving consent on the defendant is not a violation of due process.”
“The jury was told that the State needed to prove that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with Ms. Fjelstad. This element was not contested. The next element is that the victim was incapacitated and incapable of consent. Ms. Fjelstad testified that she did not consent. This testimony alone would support the element of lack of consent.”
makes me wonder what in the world happened. Where’s the proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Why does the accused have to show consent by a preponderance of the evidence? Why are these cases not discussed more in law journals? How could we have fallen to this point?
I really hope that this is only something that happens in Washington, or else it would really appear that the US is headed down a path that is only taken by oppressive societies like the Soviet Union.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
4
Keyster:
…”Excuse me we’re now at the point of the sex act where I need to ask you if I may have your consent to insert my erect penis in your vagina at this time.”
WRONG.
You’ll need consent on a stroke by stroke basis.
Of course, as is the case now, why should we believe that she won’t simply say she didn’t give verbal consent, even if she gives a breathless YES PLEASE with each “in and out”.
Jessica Valenti must be giddy and engorged with the prospect.
In 2015, Kay Hymawitch will pen another masterpiece, touting the women as the Master Gender, while shaming the men for being the Masturbating Gender.
And then there will be more laws.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
1
Peter some history for you:
http://fedrz.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/teen-rape-double-standards-now-and-then/
“Why is the say-so of a woman necessarily far-fetched?”
Verily dost thou built up a strawman.
Like or Dislike:
15 
3
boys aged 10,11 were found guilty of attempted rape and were charged with rape of a 8 year old girl:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/may/24/boys-guilty-attempted-rape-girl
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
I refer back to Blackstone again (I qouted him at length on a thread a few days ago). He rightly pointed out the difficulty of proving Rape and urged the greatest caution – rightly so. It is still hard and probably even harder than before (what with marital Rape, date Rape etc), in fact virtually impossible. The state however wants convictions because it has allowed itself (by pandering to women and men’s protective instincts) to whip up the current Hysteria – Hysteria being a word Freud used solely in relation to females. The term witchhunt is also appropriate, and worse, women (who seem to have collectively lost any sense of restraint) are running with it.
I, and I am sure many other men too, now yawn when some women claims Rape – I instinctively do not believe it. Until these endless false accusations are properly punished – and as Blackstone said as severely as the crime itself – it will continue. Ultimately it is the State who are to blame for allowing this nonsense to go on (not the women as they are really just by nature self-servingly irresponsible).
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
2
My attitude now is that unless the alleged victim is in ER then I don’t believe it could possibly have been rape.
Fuck em.
The boy who cried wolf etc.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
40 
4
@ Wondering
You are correct. We should not compare feminism with nazism. The Nazi’s don’t deserve to be compared to feminists. It wasn’t the idea of the Nazi’s to cleans the master race by killing the Jews.
That idea came directly from the United States of America. Brought to us by the feminist demi-god, Margaret Sanger:
http://www.spectacle.org/997/richmond.html
How many babies have been killed so far by our own death machine? Abortion is the end all and be all for feminists.
The reason is that feminists hate children. That’s also why they are the biggest child abusers.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
3
Next Tuesday (3-8) is International Women’s Day. This information would be great counter-demonstration material.
Thank you Pierce Harlan.
Like or Dislike:
14 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
50
nanka-do you realise that a boy under the age of 14 could not even be charged with rape in England in the past? And I’m not talking about a 1000 years ago but during my lifetime. Very soon we’ll be charging 2 yo boys like we charge elderly men today even though all knowledgeable people know that these old guys do not even have the ability or strength to rape a girl and besides never even think of sex.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
44
“Unfortunately, with 10 downvotes, my previous comment will likely get mentioned on his site as an example of the extremism of the MRA movement . . . .”
Because you’re so perfectly reasonable, right?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
3
“The examples you site are a good case of double standards that young men face when it comes to stat. rape. But this has nothing to do with the general credibility of women.”
it wasn’t for that, I (mis?)construed your statement
“The laws in this period were unjustly tilted towards men.”
as that the past history has been patriarchal and hence favorable for men.
“What about assaults involving drugging of the victim?”
how many cases are there? Female physiology is simply too fragile against alcohol for that to be a reasonable choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flunitrazepam
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
That’s a straw man and you know it. AfOR’s point was that rape is sex BY FORCE or threat of force, and anything less is not rape.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
6
Piece, that was excellent. In fact, I’d say it’s good enough to serve as a sort of manifesto for your site. It’s a great overview of why sites and organizations like The False Rape Society are necessary, and it exposes feminism for the virulent evil that it is. The feminists are at total war with men and boys, make no mistake about it.
Thanks for everything you do.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
1
Mothers are choosing feminism over the well-being of their sons. Their creepy hive mind is more important than the son that loves them. And the foreskin? Fuck that shit, sacrifice baby penises to the Gods!
Keep that in mind, as Mother’s day is only a couple of months away.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
41
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
42
Pierce Harlan,
I wonder how many lawyers who don’t practice criminal law understand the sex offense laws as well as you do. Feminist have incrementally stripped away the Constitutional rights from the accused and made it easier for false rape claimant to go unpunished or unscrutinized.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Florida Star vs. B.J.F.. (1989) ruled unconstitutional a state law that made it a crime to publish a name of alleged sex assault target. Link
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=491&invol=524
quote
“Florida Stat. 794.03 makes it unlawful to “print, publish, or broadcast . . . in any instrument of mass communication” the name of the victim of a sexual offense. B. J. F. filed suit in a Florida court alleging, inter alia, that the Star had negligently violated 794.03. The ”
However, the media voluntarily does not publish targets name even if the charge was unfounded.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
@ Wondering….
lol…..change subject, you lose…thanks for playing.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
3
Peter writes-Nope, it’s not a strawman. Let’s say your daughter goes to college. A guy she meets at a party buys her a drink, which he proceeds to spike with a rohypnol. He then has sex with her when she is incapacitated. Is he a rapist?
There’s no proof that this has ever happened in real life to a female. What you do see is voluntary intoxication that the female has done to herself. The media likes to promote the myth of “date rape” drugs but in reality it never happens. And btw, rohypnol is no different than valium or xanax and is sold in other countries, I’ve taken it myself.
However, there is a lot of drugging of Men by females for the purpose of robbing them. And even generations ago men would be drugged with a “mickey finn” (chloral hydrate) by females so they could be robbed. From everything we know about drugging both today and from the past, it was Men who were being drugged. I’ve never heard or read of any female being drugged(yes, I’m sure it may have happened but it had to be very rare)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
3
OK troops another blog invasion, again $2 per post, type, do not cut and paste into the text box.Also note the 300 word limit.
The topic is a perfect segway for us.
Seems like fairfax is upping the man/boy bashing….
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/they-were-sacrificial-lambs-led-to-the-slaughter-20110228-1bbhl.html
Like or Dislike:
8 
2
OT:
It’s official, moms in Canada can kill their kids, maximum sentence, 5 years:
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2011/03/02/17466186.html
How long till the feminists pass laws labeling children crying as verbal abuse of mom setting the stage for the abuse excuse for filicide?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
0
Well he can always just kill the bitch. We had an article that had a female attorny argue in court before a judge on behalf of a female defendent in a child molesting case that if her client had killed the child she would be better off.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
2
MGTOW looks good doesn’t it
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
2
Everyone who seriously advocates for the falsely accused recognizes that rape laws had to be brought out of the dark ages when it wasn’t socially acceptable for women to have sex outside of marriage, etc. The greatest advocate for the falsely accused in recent times, KC Johnson, would agree with that, I believe. But we all also agree that the pendulum has swung so far the other way that it’s dangerous for innocent men and boys. And please, spare me the actuarial analysis about how false rape claims are “rare” so these cases aren’t worth discussing compared to the far “more important” issue, rape. That’s like saying we shouldn’t discuss one disease because another exists.
As for how rampant rape is, be careful here. The field is so politicized no one can honestly say that. Example from an article we cited this week: a university has FOUR reported rapes in a year. The sexual grievance industry says 90 percent of all rapes aren’t reported. That means the university ought to have 40 reported rapes. But the sexual grievance industry ALSO says one-in-four women in college are raped (they change that “one-in” to fit whatever they happen to be discussing), which means there should be 3,700 rapes on campus. Get it? WHICH IS IT — 40 OR 3,700? That’s a pretty big chasm, wouldn’t you say? What does this tell you about their credibility? Their reliability? See http://communityvoices.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/opinion/the-radical-middle/27667–one-in-one-thousand-eight-hundred-seventy-seven
You know what it tells me? The whole damn area is too politicized. Rape is no longer a crime, it’s the principal sacrament in the Church of the Perpetually Oppressed.
In any event, the problem with these rape reforms is that they have taken on a life of their own — every single one is touted as necessary so that women will “come forward” and report their actual rapes. The problem is, women don’t come forward, no matter what. Probably because underreporting is incredibly exaggerated, and because women choose not to report for other reasons — likely, they don’t want someone important to them knowing they’ve been sexually active. Yet, they keep coming up with reforms.
And here’s one even Manboobz should support: the most oppressive law in the rape field is Fed.R.Evid. 413 — and it was spearheaded by GOP senators, Bob Dole et al. To his credit, Mr. VAWA himself, VP Biden, actually opposed it. So win one for the progressives!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
2
Understanding The Rape Statistics
Excellent video from the angryharry website
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RliMu2JxVr0&feature=player_embedded
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
If law enforcement were to start charging ALL false rape accusers, the biggest effect it would have on society would be the Dis-Empowerment of the Gender-Raunch community. That is the real reason the American Gender-Raunch community keep a tight reign on their law enforcement misinformation Alliances, and protocol perversions. They get all their Empowerment from it!!
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
NWO wrote-Eventually as the law’s get more absurd a majority of men will be on the sexual offender list. When that happen’s, it’ll carry as much of a stigma as a fart in the wind.
It’s already happened. Being on that list means almost nothing today.
This so called “sex” offender list was originally intended for very rare cases of people who molested children and who were released from prison or on probation. It was basically for a handful of people who were considered so dangerous that they had to be watched. You see, once a person had served the sentence regardless of how bad the crime was, they had to be released and could not be held any longer by involuntary commitment in a mental institution. This list was not even intended for convicted rapists but really just for those rare cases of child molesters.
Today, the definition of “sex offender” has been so expanded that it is meaningless and most people on the list are there for trivial things or even things which were not even crimes a short time ago.
The first time I heard the term “stalking” was in the mid 90′s although there is a statute in the lawbooks. Before this time I had never even heard of a person being charged with the offence probably because it’s so rare. Legally it means that a person is shadowing another person looking for an opportunity to kill or cause serious bodily injury. Suddenly there was an explosion in the number of men being charged with stalking that it is meaningless today. If some man told me he was convicted of stalking I’d probably say to him, “what happened? Did you call some girl or send her flowers? I would never think that the guy had some intent to follow her and kill her.
Like or Dislike:
15 
1
OT: More depressions and suicides among men to be expected in the future as their role as provider is eroded, according to Emory University experts.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
From that infanticide link:
“The woman in the case can only be referred to as L.B. because she was 17 at the time of her first baby’s death in 1998.”
wow.
From another link, interesting origin of the infanticide defence, and an interesting part in bold:
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/947213–infanticide-defence-available-to-mothers-who-kill-court-rules
Like earlier legislation in Britain, Canada’s infanticide law, enacted in 1948, was a compromised by parliamentarians who knew that juries were often sympathetic to women on trial for the deaths of their children and unwilling to convict them of murder, particularly if it was punishable by execution, said Justice David Doherty, who wrote today’s judgment.
“In the few cases where juries did convict, judges balked at engaging in what was described as a ‘black cap farce,’ requiring judges to pronounce a death penalty knowing that the penalty was a monstrous overreaction to the crime and that it would never be carried out,” he said.
“This ‘solemn mockery’ was said to do nothing other than terrorize the mother on whom it was pronounced as she was probably the only person in the courtroom who did not know that the penalty would never be carried out,” Doherty wrote.
Thank God there is no more terrorizing of women anymore.
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
Pierce,
I read that article the other day. It was great. All men should read it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Skip my previous comment. I had copied a comment from an earlier article to reply at Spearhead and it got copied here by mistake.
I meant to copy this address to an article linked from Pierce’s site:
http://communityvoices.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/opinion/the-radical-middle/27667–one-in-one-thousand-eight-hundred-seventy-seven
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
The way things are going make me worry about the future. For the first time in… a while.
What will boys do to avoid persecution? (I said: persecution)
Many may join street gangs- then violence will increase. A failing economy will not help much.
Other boys might be attracted to organizations that specialize in societal disorder, spreading terror.
Many will be killed. Many will commit suicide. Many will be jailed and put into slavery.
I just hope I’m wrong.
Like or Dislike:
13 
0
There is so much injustice in this world…
But I hold the faith that the evil will be vanquished. Not by idleness but by a law of nature.
Lets not give into pessimism. Fear no evil. Just know it and speak against it.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
I make no secret of my agreement with Celine’s conclusion that West died when the German forces were defeated at Stalingrad.
a tale of two societies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlIQ8lPO1Sg
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
At this rate, the government will just give women the ‘right’ to kill any man that makes her feel “uncomfortable”, or (in her mind) poses a risk of raping her. This already happens, but it will finally be law.
And it will still not be enough for feminists.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
1
There is only one way to combat this trend – avoid women at all costs. Go MGTOW and eschew ALL contact with women. If a woman enters the room, leave.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
4
The next time I get called to jury duty I’m going EVEN if it’s a major inconvenience. And if I get a rape case I’m going to hold out on that jury till I get a not guilty verdict. I don’t care if the accused is Freddy fucking Krueger.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
1
I can’t decide if that’s the reason or if it just pisses them to see men going about having lots of sex without paying through the nose for it like they once did (before birth control). So they try and poison the well with draconian date rape laws.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
0
“makes me wonder what in the world happened. Where’s the proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Why does the accused have to show consent by a preponderance of the evidence? Why are these cases not discussed more in law journals? How could we have fallen to this point?”
Like this : ” I was actually very skeptical of a lot of the points made by this article, because a lot of the Federal Rules of Evidence for rape do make sense, including the rape shield laws, as Peter has pointed out”
It’s called incrementalism . When you have an unpopular idea, you chop it up and spoonfeed little chunks of it to people at a time, the tastiest portions first, so that they will swallow the really totalitarian bits later on.
That’s how people wake up in Nazi Germany with people carting your neighbors away wondering “How the HELL could this happen?” .It happened because you didn’t stand up when “reasonable reforms” that smelled a tad fishy were being made. It happened because of incrementalism.
“I really hope that this is only something that happens in Washington, or else it would really appear that the US is headed down a path that is only taken by oppressive societies like the Soviet Union.”
If it is, it won’t be for long. That’s how these things work. STAND UP AND OPPOSE IT. Our forefathers did not die so we could live in a place that makes Khmer Rouge-era Cambodia look like Disneyland for men.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
22
I think criminalization of heterosexuality as the eventual goal. The sexual revolution and disregard for propriety in woman was the bait.
You can’t imprison a bunch of men for drugs unless you let alot of drugs come into this country. So, with sex, you can’t crimalize alot of men until alot of men are having casual sex.
Just like when cupcake wants to marry you. She’s all sweet and hot in bed, then, once she has spent you dry calls the police and tells them what an abusive a-hole you are and wants you in jail.
The sexual revolution made it culturally OK for men seek sex from relative strangers. Then they criminalized casual sex.
Its a long con meant to destroy as many men as possible, with the goal of having 90% of men either imprisoned or guarding the prisoners.
What has been the result, the US is the worst police state in the world with the most repressive laws regarding personal freedom with the largest prison population per capita the world has ever known.
And despite all this talk of sexual freedom, 20% of US marriages are sexless. Most men are not having sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexless_marriage
It has always been a zero sum game. We know that is true because feminists say it is not true, so, therefore it must be true.
Feminist women are very simple to understand. They want money and power and want it now with no effort, responsiblity or accountability.
Just like all the tyrants before them.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
1
Interesting point. Never thought of that before.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Namea Nanka refers to a case of an eleven and a ten year old boy being convicted of attempted Rape. I find it curious that whereas (in the best interests of the children) ths State bends over backwards to treat any minor as innocent as the driven snow, in the next breath it is prosecuting them as if they are adults fully compos mentis, completely forgetting that the charged is a minor. As Avenger rightly said (if my memory serves me right) a child under the age of fourteen could not previously be charged with a crime. The State appears to me to be attemnpting to achieve two mutually contradictory positions, 1. (All) Children are Innocent, 2 (This) Child is Guilty. IMHO criminalising children is a form of child abuse (no matter what they have done).
By the way is Peter related by any chance to Chritopher? I think we should be told.;-)
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
Witnesses aren’t the most important form of corroboration. Physical injury is. Feminist fantasies about “he knows how to hit without leaving a bruise” aside, it is basically impossible to rape a woman without hurting her. Women are much more fragile than men. The supposed harm of rape is such that a woman was always assumed to want to resist, and if she didn’t it was evidence she wasn’t being harmed. If she didn’t report promptly, it was evidence she wasn’t harmed. You didn’t report because you were ashamed to? Sorry, not the law’s problem any more than a man who gets the shit beaten out of him and doesn’t report because he’s ashamed of the affront to his manhood. You didn’t resist because you were threatened with grave harm if you did? Again, not the law’s problem. Have we forgotten that both traditional mores, and feminists, say that the rape itself is grave harm? Don’t feminists constantly say that rape is the worst thing you can do to a woman? If that’s so, then it is surely better to suffer whatever she’s been threatened with to gain her compliance.
Like or Dislike:
15 
3
B!tches be crazy.
Like or Dislike:
15 
1
As Avenger rightly said (if my memory serves me right) a child under the age of fourteen could not previously be charged with a crime
I meant that he couldn’t be charged with rape but I’m sure he’d be charged with assault or something like that. However, I don’t know what punishment they got if found guilty. There were borstals(youth prisons or called reform schools in the US) but I’m pretty certain you have to be 17 to be sent to one and under 21 or maybe even 23(?) The idea was to keep them separate from older criminals. As far as the under 14 who was charged with assault(not rape) I don’t know what happened. Probably got caned or something provided a judge issued the order and it was approved by the home secretary. More likely just sent the kid to a psychiatrist(yes even back then that did this)These things were so rare that you’ll have to find some legal historian to tell you what they did 40 years ago.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Firepower is absolutely right on this.
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
I stick by what I wrote Avenger. Rape is just one crime and there was a legal age of responsibilty, which I seem to recall was fourteen or maybe it was thirteen. As you rightly say there was Borstal, but that was for teenagers. I suppose younger children might have been taken into care, if it was felt that their crime was really caused by the irreponsibilty or inability of their parents.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
OT.
Gents. Another one.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362671/Jail-drunken-teenager-falsely-accused-war-heroes-rape.html
My comment.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
1
My comment.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
1
Folks mistakenly believe feminism has female leadership, when in fact that may have been the case with equality feminism 25 years ago.
New American gender-Raunch feminism, which has incorporated “sexual preferences politics” has many homosexual males as the constructionists behind the curtain. homosexual males can “construct” the agitation propaganda, then send out Their lesbian-Raunch mules to carry the message into society, while the homosexual male constructionist stays comfortably in the dark, behind the curtain where he can remain blameless.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
I wonder how much abuse you men here are going to take before you complete one of these.
http://www.peternolan.com/LinkClick.aspx?link=Certificate+of+Sovereignty.pdf&tabid=538&mid=1230
And then back it up with one of these.
http://www.peternolan.com/LinkClick.aspx?link=PN_Affidavit_Intent_Claim_of_Right.pdf&tabid=538&mid=1230
Pretty much I am betting. As you can see. I did this 18 months ago. September 2009. I have not had a single issue with a single ‘authority’ trying to ‘abuse’ me other than stealing my house which I am going to get back. But still people want ‘more proof’.
Well. Just wait another few years then before you bother to do anything. You deserve to be thrown in jail for a false rape allegation if you do not know how to lawfully rebut it. And I am pretty disgusted that men allow this to continue to happen to their fellow men despite the fact the remedy has been in front of you for some time now.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Agreed. I’d like to add that many (most?) women who do not seem to have the word feminist tattooed on their forehead also fall into the camp of wanting essentially the same things for free.
“Diamonds are a girl’s best friend” “A man’s best friend is his dog.”
Like or Dislike:
11 
0
Aharon March 3, 2011 at 11:13
“Oh and btw, would you believe the USG report stated that human sexuality is a learned behavior and not defined by sexual gender? Ever hear that one before?”
Read Caesar’s ‘Conquest of Gaul’. In the opening chapter he describes how shamlessly the warriors proposition each other when the are in love. It turns out that this is typical of many ancient warrior societies. It can also explain why women got brutally raped when the took a city or territory.
I think it just proves that men will fuck anything.
Like or Dislike:
1 
14
OT.
for those of you who actually want to read the lies of a family law lawyer and then what the Attorney General has to say about the Magna Carta….click here.
http://www.peternolan.com/Forums/tabid/420/forumid/36/threadid/678/scope/posts/Default.aspx
And if you live in Australia you can feel free to contact Justin Dowd and ask him why he chose to be such a scumbag criminal.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
TomJW wrote:
Unfortunately, I do not have time to read the book. I don’t agree with such a broad general statement about men as a group or gender willing to fuck anything. Perhaps some men in some contexts will fuck anything yet the stated behavior of the Gaul warriors shamelessly having sex with men (and raping women at the opportunity) is not a valid scientific study that can be applied to understanding human sexuality.
Today, probably less than 1%(?) of the male population are potential rapists. Feminists would say all men are at least potential rapists if not actual rapists. They also say consensual intercourse fucking is rape. More bogus claims about men.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
I believe the females of our country, in the 1960′s, ever vigilant of those women who” like men”, I mean are in the “thrall of men”, I mean “mesmerized by demon men”…..all synonyms to our femists. Like the guy who forced by force of the magical powers of internet pursuation, “caused” non-pedo women to abuse their own children and film it.
These women decided that they couldn’t trust hetero women to protect women so they put bull dykes as the leader of their movement.
I think we should return the favor and put the worst woman hating gay guys as our leaders. Turn about is fair play, and I don’t even care to be fair, I’m in it to win it.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
Avenger at 17;17.
Thanks for explaining the term”Mickey”. When someone mentioned it years ago, I thought it meant mixing stronger alcohol with lower grade or giving a double shot. So I Google it in Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Finn_(drugs)
Quote
“The Chicago restaurant poisonings
On June 22, 1918, four people were arrested and over one hundred waiters taken into custody over the apparent widespread practice of poisoning by waiters in Chicago. Guests who tipped poorly were given “Mickey Finn powder” in their food or drinks.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Chemical analysis showed that it contained antimony and potassium tartrate[10]“
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
@evilwhitemalempire
I don’t know if that’s the best idea…
Perhaps if I were on a jury duty in Washington for a case where they tried to set some sort of Guilty Till Proven Innocent bullshit, I’d choose to persist in applying the Innocent till proven Guilty precedent in my assessment of the case, even if it would lead to a hung jury. I suspect that there are actually a great deal of people who would do this (and a great deal who’d be fine with sending an innocent person to prison).
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
So… according to feminists rape in this country is apparently at epidemic proportions. And we need to make laws to bring all of these rape victims out of the woodwork and into the public light. Which is strange, since, as a woman who knows a lot of other women, I know of *one* woman who has been raped in her life, and *one* woman who was supposedly raped in her life (she claims to have been raped, and if it is true then I’m sorry for it, but I think her claim was false. However, she never pressed charges against the “rapist” so no man had to go through a trial to prove himself in her case.) You would think that with rape being such a prominent act, every woman in the country would know dozens of rape victims. Strange how that’s not the case, huh?
And poor feminists. When they look at a man they apparently first see “Potential Rapist” and then see “Man” second. And must view every act of sex with the fear that the barbarian before her might turn against her and have sex with her without her express written consent. They must be on high alert at all times. No wonder they’re all so edgy and emotionally sensitive (angry).
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
3
Katie,
Good post. There is more a culture of false-rape reporting now than there ever was in America a culture of rape. Perhaps one of the most extreme feminist claims is that one in four college women get raped. Huh? The actual number is well less than 1% even granting excess leeway to favor the claims of feminists.
Technically, the most recent revisions to domestic violence definitions driven by feminists and supported by alpha-males in government makes all of us guilty of DV since it now includes really abstract and broad emotional abuse inclusions.
America and the West are now too dangerous for men to commit to having intimate relationships.
Like or Dislike:
14 
1
Is it that big a deal?
this can easily be avoided by just not having intercourse.
Like or Dislike:
3 
9
Thank you for your well-spoken contribution, Katie.
I’ve known one woman who was raped (her alleged rapist was tried and convicted.) another woman claimed she was raped, even though she never went to the cops. and a couple more women who said they were molested as children. Women used to have a tendency to confide deep dark secrets in me, so if a lot of women I’ve known were raped, I probably would have heard about it.
On the other hand, I was molested and abused by a woman as a child and i know lots of men who have been raped/molested.
And the manosphere has exhaustively pointed out that official “rape statistics” are dubious at best. Rape hysteria is the tactic used to justify the enslavement of men and the expansion of the police state.
Like or Dislike:
12 
1
Far too many women wear emotional Burkhas. Anything you say to them whether in jest or otherwise is interpreted as abusive. I may not be able to see the face of my Muslim neighbour but at least I can happily talk to her; the same cannot be said of the scantily clad western woman. Rape is much like the Arabian Phoenix; a bird much talked of but little seen (Herodotus).
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
False analogy: any chick wearing ANY kind of burka acting like a cunt is immediately beaten into submission by 200 males – mainly her very own family.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
@ Sammy
Yes it is a big deal and no you can’t avoid it by just not having intercourse:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362671/Jail-drunken-teenager-falsely-accused-war-heroes-rape.html?ITO=1490
Like or Dislike:
10 
0
The “Mother-May-I” approach to sexual relations should be quite obvious to those knowing even a tiny bit about Game as a compliance test (one of several types of sh!t tests) seeking a demonstration of lower value (DLV) from men. Just one more bit of evidence supporting the thesis that feminisim is, was, and always will be, one ginormous sh!t test. If you would prefer not to fail sh!t tests, you might consider learning a bit more about this.
Sammy- I was going to post ~the same thing Single Dad did. It’s a really important point. Merely avoiding women or minding your own business does not insulate you from the possibility of a false accusation.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
Katie. I know ONE woman who was raped many tyimes and I have given my word not to reveal any details. However. That she was traumatised is as obvious as the nose on my face.
REAL rape is a serious crime because when I met the ONLY woman I know who had really suffered this she had clearly paid a very high price for this crime. However. As I said. I know ONE woman whom I believe is genuine in being raped. Like you eh? I do not believe any of this story about how many women have been ‘rayped’.
I simply do not believe what western women say any more. None of it.
I was talking to a new ‘prospective fav#5′ this week. I was just explaining my experience with women and how I feel about them.
Her comment was ‘most women I know are complete witches now’. She commented that she was astonished that I would be prepared to invest my time and effort in her to create a friendship despite what I have been through.
She has commented that most men she meets are ‘not nice’ and that she has never met a man like me. She has outright said on a number of occasions she simply does not believe what I have told her. She can not read english but I have pointed her to my web sites and explained what is there. She confessed that she had totally believed that men like me would be treated well by women. She is shocked to the core how badly I have been treated. She is shocked to the core that western women claim I hate ALL women. As she said recently “I rather like the way you hate on me.”
Her most endearing feature to me is how she is so vocal about how she sees women treating men so terribly now. Her comment was that she has seen so many men who really wanted a wife and children and were treated so badly, and so many divorced men treated so badly, it is no surprise to her men are refusing to marry. She is in the position.
“I can see women are hating on men. I just don’t understand why they would do that. I quite like men.”
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
The law of diminishing returns comes to mind, where as soon as targets are met and the threat of funding being cut off looms, the bar is lowered.
Similar to Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s campaign where the legal alcohol limit steadily lowers in order to justify their existence. Last I heard in Canada, the drunk driving ‘crisis’ is well under hand, so MADD has switched tactics to go into fundraising, ribbon campaigns, and going after marijuana use.
Hard to get rid of these parasites.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
P.A. Nolan-”She is shocked to the core how badly I have been treated. She is shocked to the core that western women claim I hate ALL women. As she said recently “I rather like the way you hate on me.”
The best relationship I ever had in my life was with a woman who grew up in an abusive (non-sexual) household. Basically her four brothers ganged up on her for her entire childhood and her mother never did anything about it. Of course no one should experience physical abuse or rape. But due to her unfortunate experiences, she did not get the ‘gina tingles over the thought of dating bad boys. She was grateful and appreciative of “provider” males, which i was at the time. And was pretty consistent about standing up for the perspective of good men.
Eventually we grew apart for various reasons but I still have respect for her. It is nice to know that a few women know a good man when they see them.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Opus-the legal age of responsibility was 7. If you were under this age you could not be charged with ANY crime. If you took a shotgun and killed 3 people you still could not be held not even as a juvenile and it would just be put down as an accident.
An under 14 yo could be charged with a crime, just not rape. Of course the way these things were handled for minor criminals were diferent from the adult system.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Feminists WANT War between the sexes. Not equality, or even privilege so much, but they want the sexes in a perpetual state of animosity. Its crucial to their world view. No ‘ism’ can exist without an enemy. Feminism can not exist with out “aggressive males”. Female privilege would have no reason to exist in the first place if “men” didn’t make it necessary with all of their “evil”.
If feminism succeeds in passing these draconian measures in this country then I say that a molotov cocktail needs to be thrown into a courthouse near you. Infact, lets make it a dozen of them. There will be no need to keep the “law” around when all it is good for is to continue to serve femifascists and their demonic interests.
If they want animosity and conflict, we shall give it to them.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Atlas ~ With the way women are by nature – chatty and willing to confide in close friends about almost anything – if 1 in 4 college women had been raped, every woman on campus would know about it. However, since the term “rape” is being applied to broader and broader actions these days, it’s not unbelievable for feminists to think that many woman *have* been “raped.” They very probably are simply using a much broader definition of the term. Or, you know, are flat out lying. I personally believe the latter.
Herbal Essence ~ You bring up an interesting point about male rape/molestation. 1.) Where are the feminists crying out against the abhorrence of raping men? 2.) It wouldn’t be difficult to convince me that *more* men are raped/molested by women than women are by men. Why? Because a man already feels physically stronger than a woman, only the crazies need to reinforce the idea of that strength through rape. But women *always* feel weaker than men, so it seems like they would feel the need to find some way to exert power, authority, strength over a man/boy by raping or molesting him to give herself a false sense of power that isn’t really there. Of course, this is my own personal belief on the matter, not backed up by anything but my own thoughts. But I wonder if there is anyone out there who would agree/have other thoughts on the matter.
And, it is exactly what you say – hysteria. Yes, rape (true rape) is a horrible, heinous crime that must be punished swiftly and severely, and rooted out. But it is *not* as rampant as feminists want us to believe, so I feel like we should take a step in another direction to focus on other issues in this society. Rooting out rape is a cause that needs supporters, but there are many other causes to focus on as well. Let’s give way to this hysteria and move on as a country! Rape isn’t the end all be all of social injustice. The sooner feminists realize that, the better.
P.A.N. ~ I’m sorry you’ve been so abused by women in your life. If I was in your position, I’m sure I would be just as cautious about them. And, though they are few and far between, there *are* still good women in this country. Just as you, and many on this site, feel lost in a sea of unattractive, angry feminists, these few good women feel lost in that same sea and struggle with how they can be noticed by good men when they are constantly surrounded and silenced by bad women.
Deep down, women like bad boys, as HE said, because they *want* to be submissive, they simply can’t see it or vocalize it. But these woman want the bad boy types who live a little dangerously, tell them what to do, are rough around the edges, demand attention and respect. Because these woman *want* to be led. They want a man to take the lead and be dominate. But in this society of “equality” among the sexes, it is completely taboo to admit out loud that you want to be submissive, so instead you simply call it “liking bad boys.” When, in essence, it’s nothing but wanting to be dominated.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
Theory:
The radfems (usually dykes) want to drive a wedge between men and women because:
1) Increase in government power = maintains their status quo
2) More opportunities for carpet munchers. Abused by your husband? Come to the lesbian-run DV shelters for ‘counselling’ and ‘comfort’.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
0
My solution for dealing with false rape claims:
1) Allow only rape claims within 24 to 48 hours, while the DNA evidence is still fresh for forensic investigation. After this time period, no rape claims will be entertained. What happened in your childhood, or at the party last week, are irrelevant.
2) No cloak of anonymity for women for accuse any men of rape. Not even for underaged girls. Your name, face and age will be shown in all mainstream media. If this deters you from reporting a rape that had really occurred – that’s your problem.
3) Women who have been found to be lying about being raped during police investigation will be thrown into jail for at least a couple of years, even if it is a first-time offence. No parole, go straight to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
I think the three simple steps outlined above are far more reasonable than say, the Islamic laws. Stoning, honor killing, mandatory 4 witnesses to the rape etc.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
1
Watch the dumb twats dick themselves even deeper.
Twatty twats be stoopud.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
3
@SingleDad
WOW!
Physical contact isn’t even necessary to be accused.
and ill have to deal with women on some type of level, even if its superficial.
I guess i have to be extremely A-sexual in my personality around women.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
While rape shield laws may seem fair and a good idea in theory, in practice they have a somewhat more pernicious effect. In principle, it may seem fair that a woman’s sexual history should not matter in a rape case. Even if a woman has slept with 100 men, that should not make any difference if she didn’t agree to have sex with the man being charged.
But while this may seem fair in theory and principle, in practice things are not that cut-and-dried. The problem is that in most rape cases, especially he said/she said cases, the physical evidence of what really happened is often minimal or inconclusive. In cases like this, the jury is likely to make up its mind based on circumstantial evidence and a character assessment of the accused and the accuser.
Suppose you have a rape trial where the prosecution says “Do you really expect this court to believe that Miss X agreed to have sex with you just seconds after meeting you?”. Then suppose the prosecution has evidence that Miss X has previously agreed to have sex with men just seconds after meeting them. Well, they cannot use it, as it is sexual history. And because the prosecution has not specifically raised the accuser’s sexual history as evidence, the defense has no grounds to bring it in as evidence.
The problem is that by suppressing the accuser’s sexual history, there is a strong likelihood that a jury may convict an innocent man based on a belief that a typical woman would be unlikely to agree to sex with a man under the given circumstances. Yet this ignores the possibility that a more promiscuous both might, and perhaps in fact did, agree to have sex with the man in just those circumstances.
The argument for rape shield laws was always that they are necessary to prevent unscrupulous defense lawyers from smearing genuine rape victims as sluts in an effort to get their clients off the hook. But the flip side is that suppressing a woman’s sexual history effectively allows the prosecution to construct a mythology of the woman’s sexual innocence in order to convict an innocent man in the absence of other evidence. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Of course, none of this would matter quite so much if an accused man could only be convicted through overwhelming corroborative evidence. But when an accused man can be convicted based largely on a woman’s allegation, and the jury is prevented from knowing any unsavory aspects of the woman’s character, well this creates problems, to say the least.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Sadly the adversarial system used in Anglo-American Courts of Law is not any guarantee that justice and truth will prevail. I (and every other Trial-Lawyer will say the same) have successfully defended people who were clearly guilty as charged, and have unsuccessfully defended people who were clearly innocent.
Where Rape is concerned I merely follow Blackstone in regarding a woman’s character as relevant. If it is not now relevant it is because they are now all skanks, but if that is the case then (Rape being an offence against Chastity) there would no longer be any justification for the continuation of Rape as a Crime separate from Battery.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Katie. This is not a very accurate statement. My ex was a pain in the arse and emotionally abusive, sure. But I am well biug enough to put up with her shit. What I AM exposing are the court cases in Dublin and Sydney and the crimes committed by my ex with the willing participation of ALL women around my ex in condoning these crimes.
I have talked to THOUSANDS of women. Guess what? They might say ‘sorry’ but they are not sorry at all. I was suicidal for a month over the process of dis-owning my former children. But I have talked to men who are suicidal for years. I’ve talk to three men who said they put the gun in their mouth and simply could not pull the trigger.
So don’t feel ‘sorry’ for me. Stand beside me and call women the liars and hypocrites they have chosen to be. You can get full details of the crimes committed against me as well as the book written through me to defuse this whole situation here. To date only ONE woman is helping me. And she is a woman whos OWN DAUGHTER refuses to let her see her grandchild so she knows ALL ABOUT what bitches women can be in using children as a weapon. I told her what she should do is smack her daughter one across the face, take the grand child away as the daughter is obviously not a fit parent and then see if the cops want to assault an elderly grandmother. She laughed at that one. But really. When YOUR OWN DAUGHTER will abuse you by not allowing you to see your grandchild? This is what women have come to.
Why will NO OTHER WOMEN criticise these bitches Katie? You wimminz are more than happy to hate on me and I have not actually committed ANY crime. Indeed. Women hate on me for working to save the lives of tens of thousand of men a year. I really do find western women disgusting. I have no hesitation in saying that. If it costs me work or money? I hold my head up pointing out I am trying to save mens lives and those trying to ruin my business or slander me are working FOR the deaths of those men.
http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/australia/Forums/tabid/82/forumid/39/threadid/45/scope/posts/Default.aspx
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
You are still committed to your ignorance aren’t you. The remedy is to rescind consent to be governed. The rape legislation only applies to THEIR trademark and NOT to a human being. But you and most men here refuse to educate yourselves on the law.
“Ignorance of the law is not excuse.”
Legislation is NOT law. It can be ignored. I have proven this. But men like to wallow in their stupidity and ignorance and ‘propose solutions’ out of that marsh of stupidity and ignorance they like to live in.
And they wonder why they get f***ed over.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
You know, I just had a thought. Men should welcome laws making rape a presumed crime. That way, any man could accuse any woman of a crime and ruin her life just as easily as a woman could ruin his. The woman would then be forced to find some way of proving that she didn’t rape him. If enough men did this, we might possibly be able to turn the tides (though, of course, feminists’ reaction would probably be just to bar men from claiming that they’ve been raped).
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
28
I was under the impression that feminists were united in their opposition to shared custody laws. I take it that you completely support the work of guys like Glenn Sacks?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
0
Who do you imagine that you can fool here with your nonsense? MRA are not in the dark about the depth and manipulations of feminists as propagated by the mass media, schools, feminist organizations, and government. The anti-male Family Courts have been molded into what they are by feminists with their allies in government. So have the criminal courts with the bias against men with the false-rape and domestic violence accusations. Figuratively speaking, the idea of feminists is that the children are the mothers property and fathers at best are extra help ie take out the garbage, drive the kids to school, etc especially financial. It is because of feminists collaborating with government that fathers have been so screwed over. Feminists are not men’s natural allies, you are the ultimate enemy of men.
Men’s sacrifice for women and children is far greater than women’s have ever been for children or men. Chattel? Keep drinking that feminist witch’s brew cool-aid. BTW, women and government needs us far more than we need you. Each day more men wake up that reality. Each day more men are MGTOW, ghosting, and saying no to marriage and dating. Possibly you are secretly happy with that as ‘gender separation’ is the goal of many of your kind.
Feminism is not about ‘equality’ as it is about supremacy. Enjoy your feminist moment’s glory time in the sun as the night that follows will be a cold dark one. Your words here mean nothing since the real-world political and legal actions of feminists speak much louder and clearer. The actions of men and MRA do more to express concern for children than you and your feminists sisters anywhere.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
26
Apparently you don’t live in Michigan. The fact that you haven’t met them is not proof that they do not exist.
http://www.glennsacks.com/enewsletters/enews_11_28_06.htm
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
0
Sophia,
You are either a typical feminist moron or you are here to try and ‘manipulate’ some men with your misinformation bs who are as yet relatively uninformed about the depths of feminist-driven law and the results that are anti-male.
Your attempting to play the fair decent poster acknowledging that both genders can treat kids like property is fooling no one except maybe yourself. Everyday more and more men are becoming aware of how misandrist America and the west have become because of feminists like you.
You have never met a feminist opposed to the presumption of joint custody? What planet are you on?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
26
Actually, it isn’t. “Uniform” means consistent, as opposed to “unanimous” or “universal.” In addition, as you say, anecdotes on the web are worse than meaningless. People can say anything they want. For example, I am 9 feet tall and a stunning shade of chartreuse. That statement will actually be more believable to some of the men here than your claims.
The perception of consistent historic animosity toward men on the part of feminists will not be changed by a few anonymous assertions on the web. Susan Brownmiller did verifyably say that all men were guilty of using rape to keep all women in a state of fear, and well known feminists have verifyably stated that they believe all heterosexual sex is rape.
The psychological wedge which has been driven between men and women by the ideology you so fervently defend is not going to be dispersed by argument. It will take publicly verifiable action by visible feminists working on behalf of men to women’s detriment to convince men that feminists are not out to gain as many advantages for women as they can while doing as much harm to men as they can – exhibit A: Harriet Harman.
Unlike most feminists, I have no need at all to defend the term MRA. You can stereotype the group all you like, but we are such a diverse group that when you make generalizations of the same sort that seem to bother you so much, I simply ignore them because they do not apply.
Let’s get back to the original topic. Can you provide any evidence of feminists showing any active concern about innocent men being falsely accused? And, no, anecdotes don’t count. I provided you a web link to some real evidence, anything less than the same will be considered an admission of defeat.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
0
Sophia,
The biased judgment of the Family and Criminal Courts speaks volumes of the anti-male reality that exists. Feminist inspired laws and government programs are anti-male and pro-female. Earlier you wrote: “the nonsense you’re in the habit of buying is not what I’m saying here.” Do you imagine readers of The Spearhead are so gullible and uninformed that you can post here trying to white wash feminism and mislead the men? Forty-five years of feminist inspired authoritarianism has been the most instrumental tool or weapon in restructuring and breaking western societies.
For the record of any other potential readers, my research studies in gender and sexual politics are vast and go to the actual source materials unlike feminism which pumps out propaganda facts, numbers, and claims ‘pulled out of thin air’.
No feminist conspiracy? This site isn’t the mainstream mass media and neither is it a politically-correct freshman university classroom. You are in the wrong place if you imagine that we are going to buy into your song. Go drink your own feminist cool-aid.
Men: MGTOW, boycott chivalry and marriage, and stop protecting and providing to women.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
1
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
27
I read a similar post to yours written by a feminist trying to convince men that the best way for them to continue having a good relationship with their kids is to give even more of their remaining money to their ex-wife ‘since if she is happy then the kids will be happy and that fathers should avoid father’s groups.
No, not everyone agrees false accusations are bad. Some feminist have stated that a man wrongly sent to prison on a false-rape charge can still learn from the experience. I don’t think you are capable of an objective and honest conversation. Zed asked a simple thing of you: “Can you provide any evidence of feminists showing any active concern about innocent men being falsely accused?” You ignored his request. The outcome of feminism is indeed ugly and comic for western civilization. Do you envision a rising matriarchy from the ashes of western civilization?
Devout feminist are only a fraction of women (and men) though sure women being women they do not hesitate to take advantage of the extra special privileges society provides them. Most women do want a man to provide and protect them and his sperm, etc. Currently, you have the big stick of Orwellian government on your side since feminism is a tool to increase government’s control over people. When government runs of of money who is going to provide for it? Feminists, like you, do illustrate many of the points we are making. That was a cute paranoid line about trying to control access to abortion and birth control. You forgot to mention how feminist try (and do!) control access to a man’s wallet and liberty for those men foolish enough to get a woman pregnant, marry, or simply live with her. You should hear yourself blabbering on and on with your saying crazy shit…
Critical mass needed for the men’s movement? That can mean so many things and it is not needed in the usual way. MGTOW, ghosting, marriage strike and now dating strike, men moving out of America, etc are hurting this country more and more. Most women will not enjoy living in a country with many tens of millions of men who feel alienated, oppressed, and discriminated against. Meanwhile conservative demographic groups and movements continue to grow in America. Feminist and liberal women often don’t have many or any kids by choice and by rejection from men. So many interesting things are happening: the US real debt short and long term is $75 trillion and social service promises are about $50 trillion, progressive politics as pushed by feminism is collapsing what is left of the US economy. 60%+ of the USG operating revenue comes from the sale of international bonds which will cease. When the US loses world reserve currency status inflation here will go very high, jobs will evaporate. Climates are changing with natural resources being stretched to snapping. America is just currently floating along on some hot air which will evaporate at some point.
Keep dreaming if you believe some authoritarian matriarchy is going to rule over America and the world. Not gonna happen.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
0
“I don’t know much about Glenn Sacks. I do know that there is a lively industry of essentially con artists who take advantage of emotional men going through divorces.”
Sounds like you’re describing the sexual grievance industry, fomenting rape hysteria among naive college women.
I have to chuckle at your comment above because Mr. Sacks is not a con-man.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
25
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
26
Nice trolling, Sophia. Why are you derailing the topic to custody issues when the present article is about rape and the shifting of the burden of proof to the defendant in a rape case situation?
Furthermore, if you truly are an attorney, you wouldn’t casually say “I’m a feminist and I think shifting the burden to the defendant to prove consent is wrong. ” Any attorney worth their salt would be horrified at any ruling that shifts the situation from the state having to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, to the state that just presumes one of the elements is there and the defendant has to prove otherwise. This is true regardless if the crime is rape, murder, or jaywalking.
As an attorney, this should be deeply upsetting to you, regardless of what your feminist ideologies tell you, just like how real feminist attorneys who were horrified at the implications of United States v. Morrison set aside their ideologies to support the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn parts of VAWA. The fact that it isn’t upsetting to you, along with your derailing the discussion to custody issues and indirectly calling out Glenn Sacks (of all people!) as a con man indicates that you are simply here on bad faith and not here to legitimately address the points raised by the article and the discussion.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
24
“You are seriously fucking awesome. The proposed change is allegedly the work of an evil feminist conspiracy to hold down the menz. A feminist says “hey, I think that’s a bad idea!” and you can’t comprehend why my status as a feminist might be relevant to the discussion. ”
So because an anonymous contributor on an internet forum says ‘hey, I’m a feminist and I oppose X’, that apparently carries more weight than the accumulated real-world evidence that feminists typically support X and other positions harmful to men.
I could just as easily post a comment saying ‘I am a conservative and I oppose capital punishment and am pro-choice’. Or ‘I am a Tea Partier and I oppose birtherism and don’t think Obama is a Muslim’. Would this carry any more weight with you?
Of course, your whole purpose here is to post deliberately disingenuous nonsense in a condescending manner in order to get a reaction, so you can enjoy winding us up.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
0
Sophia,
And this is why you are a troll, even if you did not intend to be one. Your only statement on topic before you acknowledged the issues with the burden shift was
before you go off the rails to talk about custody and only later backtrack to address the issue at hand. In view of what should be an atrocity to any attorney, you come off as an apologist as if you were just saying “yeah yeah, BUT HEY LOOK AT THIS.”
I understand your wish to mount a defense to feminism in view of the article, but first and foremost as an attorney, you should have been much more concerned with the burden shift, which is an attack on free society, instead of firstly and instantly trying to mount a defense to feminism and going off topic to prove your point. Especially given the forum you are in, it should have only been secondary to you if the article attributes the shift in burden to feminism, judges sniffing glue, white male patriarchy or Pazuzu the God of Air. The ruling against free society should have been your absolute first concern, not your defense to feminism.
How can you be an attorney and not understand this? Essentially, you have flunked the Michael Dukakis death penalty question, only even worse than Dukakis did.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
0 
26
Troll Sophia needs to make a run to the local store to buy some batteries since hers have obviously gone dry.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
23 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
29
Sophia, since you are an ‘earnest feminist’, I was thinking that for International Women’s Day I should get you a copy of Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
1
Chris,
You are one messed-up miserable puppy dog.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
1
.
And this is precisely why our site exists. Chris, for your sake, I hope you never get hit with a false rape accusation. But with your attitude, you likely will. See you in the news.
Idiot.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
1
I found this article searching for information on false rape accusation. My 17 year old son is sitting in jail right now because of rape charges, and I’m hoping to find some way to help him, so he doesn’t have to go to prison. What I’m finding is so scary. What is wrong with our society? What will it take to get these ridiculous laws changed?!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Off topic:
This is what some shithead had to say about us:
http://bonald.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/patriarchists-should-shun-the-spearhead/#comment-1868
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
In 2015, Kay Hymawitch will pen another masterpiece, touting the women as the Master Gender, while shaming the men for being the Masturbating Gender.
Fine then women can become the Childless Gender.
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
Gentlemen, I’ve tried to keep my comments here limited to the fathering point. Perhaps plant a seed in a reader that will help him get to spend more time with his kids and less time reading The Spearhead.
There is the crux of the matter. You are trying to derail us and you got busted. Yes feminists are scared and EVERYONE knows it.
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
Chris,
May your ass end up in a cell with Bubba and he thinks you’re cute and has his way with you then we’ll see what your attitude is then.
Like or Dislike:
12 
0
The simple truth is that if a woman threatens to falsely accuse you of rape, it’s best to kill her before she can tell anyone else. It’s easier to get out of a murder charge when you are guilty then it is to get out of a rape charge when you are innocent.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
FINALLY! Someone that doesn’t think all men are “out to get women.” It disgusts me- even more than the crime of rape- that these psycho women are getting away with their lies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 4 trackbacks }