Blog Archive

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Another False Rape Claim -- When does it end?:

So a boy is on trial for rape in New Hampshire because he had consensual sexual relations of some sort with a girl going to the same high school as him.  Apparently he was enough older than her that technically what he did was a misdemeanor offense according to New Hampshire law, but misdemeanors do not equal rape and this guy isn't on trial for a misdemeanor offense.  Misdemeanors are the equivalent of parking tickets.  You would never go to court over them in the first place.

How do we know the sex was consensual?  Because she said it was.  Over and over.  To her friends.  To the school nurse.  To everyone she met.  In addition, she even texted him with agreeable, positive messages after the fact.  This isn't something you would ordinarily do to someone who just raped you.  So, by her own words and by recorded messages, she clearly, without any doubt, indubitably, positively had consensual sex with the guy.

So why is the guy on trial?  Because a few days after the 'rape,' she saw a post on facebook, presumably by the guy, that made fun of her or didn't treat the sex as seriously as she might have wished, became possessed with rage, and decided to get back at him for dissing her and thinking he could get away with it.  You see, it's rape because he didn't love her.  It was consensual when she thought it was the launching pad to a wonderful relationship and two kids and a white picket fence, but it spontaneously reverted to rape once she learned he just wasn't that into her.  Figuratively speaking, of course.

So here we are.  Our society has gone full circle.  Like it was in Victorian times, a guy can be put on trial for rape simply for having sex out of wedlock.  For the sin of 'shaming' a woman, the penalty is death (or in this case the lifelong equivalent, the guy's life is ruined if he's convicted of rape, the best job he'll ever get once he's released is gas pump attendant if he's lucky, he'll have to register as a sex offender and be treated like a leper for the rest of his life, and it's unlikely any other girls will date him for fear that he'll rape them too and for his general low status as a criminal convict.)

However, even though men are still being held to Victorian standards of morality, women aren't.  There is no penalty for adultery.  There is no penalty for abortion.  There is no penalty for women discarding men they're tired of.  It's all a one way street.  Sex is serious business if you're a guy.  If they ever come to dislike you at any point in the future it becomes rape and is punishable by jailing.  But if you're a woman, there is no social or legal repercussion to anything you do.  You can sleep around with any number of boys and it's still politically incorrect to label you a slut.  You can kill any number of babies and people will praise you as a champion of 'women's health issues.'  You can betray and abandon any number of people you've promised to love for life and all this proves is how strong and independent a woman you are.  You go girl!

I'm sure this all makes sense inside a woman's head, and in a democracy majority rules -- and the majority of any nation will always consist of women, since they live longer than men.  So men, by giving women the vote, have now created a legal process where all sexuality is policed such that it favors women and only women at all times and all circumstances.  There is literally nothing a woman can do wrong, and anything a boy does can and will be held against him in a court of law.

Anyone who has sex with a woman at this point is insane.  Even married women can claim to be raped and put you on trial at any time just on their word alone.  How can you prove that you didn't rape your wife on your 1,337th sexual encounter with her in year 12 of your marriage?  Do you have any witnesses?  Any documentation showing it wasn't rape?  Even Trump has been accused of raping his wife, because this one time he had sex with her she didn't feel it was as loving and emotionally sensitive as usual, according to her bitter testimony during a divorce proceeding.  You see, there's simply nothing you can do to be square with the law.  If at any time, even once, a girl thinks you weren't loving enough, it's rape.  Period.  The girl decides, and you just have to swallow her decision like a man, because what would you know about how she feels inside during the act?  It's up to her to interpret whether she felt raped or not, now isn't it?  You wouldn't know, no matter what she says or does at the time, what's really in her heart, and it's what's in her heart that matters in a court of law.

Perhaps if you video record every single instance of physical intimacy with a woman, such that you always have documented proof that she enjoyed and approved of the contact, you could show this tape during any subsequent rape trials she tries to throw at you.  When having sex or anything related to sex, be sure to keep your body cam on at all times, no matter what else you take off.  Of course, if you tape the girls in secret then that's another crime, so it's a crime to protect yourself from being accused of a crime, and if she refuses to let you tape her there's simply nothing left you can do to protect yourself at all.

Here is a fair way to determine if a rape occurred or not:  Did the girl willingly accompany the boy into a closed room without any chaperon?  If so, nothing that happens inside that black box is rape.  It's all consensual from there on.  Since there are no remaining witnesses, it's just one word against another, and it's ridiculous to convict anyone of anything based on a 50/50 guess.

The only way rape can possibly be proven is if there were witnesses as she was manhandled in public, or if there's clear signs of a break-in to a place a woman would normally feel was safe to be alone in, in which case her word alone (hopefully with some corroborating physical injuries) would be sufficient to prosecute whoever she fingered as the culprit.  Anything short of that is not rape because it does not cross the 'reasonable doubt' threshold that is mandated in criminal law.

Until rape prosecutions cease over all these Haven Monahans, it's simply a senseless risk for men to even approach or look at women anymore.  Anything can be taken to be harassment, emotional abuse, sexual assault, whatever.  Everything a man does is a crime according to women and according to courts that seriously prosecute men on the basis of whatever women say and nothing more than the fact that they've said it, even when it directly contradicts what they previously said about the exact same event.  Men should have no sexual relations with women, no relations with women whatsoever -- if they even known your name and face they could, for some spiteful reason or other, accuse you of rape all the same, so why take the risk?

All men, even married men, should go on strike until rape laws are revisited and re-balanced towards justice.  It is insane to prosecute anyone on just the sole word of an emotionally fickle woman.  If you want to police sex as hard as you did during the Victorian times (which I'm fine with, by the way), then you must use the exact same standards as the Victorians did concerning when a woman gave consent -- that was the moment she left the eyes of her chaperon with a man who wasn't her relative, period.  That was consent.  That was then all on her, not anyone else.  At this point, the woman was considered to have been disgraced and deflowered, no matter what actually happened, and no matter what either party had to say about the matter.  In addition, the two were required to marry to erase that disgrace, or else the woman was ruined for life as no suitors would ever pursue her again and the man was considered a scoundrel in all well-born circles, never let near another genteel woman again.

Victorian manners make sense.  Women are punished alongside the men.  There are clear and self evident common sense boundaries between consent and no consent.  There is no chance of an innocent person going to jail.  Today's system does not make sense.  It's basically, 'you can either live your whole life like a dog assiduously trying to make sure that no woman is ever unhappy with you, you can go to jail for a rape you never did, or you can abstain from women altogether -- better yet just turn gay and wash your hands of the whole shebang.'  Last I checked gay lovers didn't accuse you of rape every time you went past kissing with them.  Isn't it nice to only interact with other people who live earnest, upfront, and non-hysterical lives?  I can see why gay marriage is such a necessity these days.  It's not like anyone can afford to dare to approach a woman anymore.  Men take responsibility for their own consensual decisions.  Women think even that is a man's fault.  To hell with them.

No comments: