Freddie deBoer at The Week argues in What progressives don’t want to talk about in the Rolling Stone scandal*:
A presumption of truth in every rape accusation is an impossible standard. And it’s doing real damage to the cause of fighting sexual assaults.
The first sentence in the quote above is so obvious that the need to argue it shows how far we have gone in the direction of rape hysteria. The second sentence has become conventional wisdom for conservatives, and this is another (less obvious) indicator of how foolish we have become in the discussion about rape.
deBoer warns his readers that mysterious and powerful forces are gathering to cause our society to stop taking rape seriously:
If the story turns out to be significantly fabricated (and the doubts expressed do not yet amount to proof that it was), then the costs could be considerable. With a committed group of rape denialists active in our culture, typically made up of “men’s rights activists” and conservative anti-feminists, the danger of this type of scandal lies in the potential for a false accusation to crowd out attention to rape writ large.
He doesn’t offer any examples of these allegedly pro-rape barbarians at the gate. I certainly haven’t seen any popular MRA or conservative anti-feminist bloggers arguing that we should look the other way when it comes to rape. Instead, what deBoer is no doubt reacting to are influential authors like Glenn Reynolds and his wife Dr. Helen who write passionately about the need for due process when handling accusations of rape. deBoer touches on the problem of due process when trying to explain why highly publicized false claims would take us backward when it comes to rape. High visibility false claims of robbery or murder don’t make him nervous like false claims of rape do, because unlike with rape he is perfectly comfortable with due process for those crimes:
The question is, why? Why would revelations that a particular high-profile accusation was false be so potentially damaging to efforts to oppose that crime in general? This logic does not extend to other crimes; no one believes that a false claim of robbery means that robbery doesn’t happen or only happens rarely. Why would sexual assault be any different? Why is our understanding of rape seen as so vulnerable to the corrosive power of false accusations?
If you want more proof that wanting due process is what now passes for being pro-rape, consider the feminist “progress” we have made in recent decades. There is an iconic image of a protest sign which sums the feminist perspective up. “Don’t get raped” is edited to read “Don’t Rape”. This is the change feminists are telling us they are trying to create. The first version of the text is a straw man version of our due process system of justice. Under due process with a presumption of innocence, the burden of proof when accusing someone of rape is high. Even with this high burden of proof, some cases are still fairly easy to prove. If a woman is physically attacked by a man she isn’t involved with, this is more than a simple “he said, she said” case. But other cases are less clear. “Don’t get raped” is a straw man for the good advice we used to give to women not only to avoid the trauma of being raped, but the pain of being raped and not being able to prove it in a court of law. Feminists hate this kind of advice because it discourages women from making risky choices, and discouraging women in any way is unbearable to feminists. Feminists conflate any and all attempts to advise women on how to protect themselves from rape as “Don’t get raped”. In the place of trying to help women avoid the horrific crime of rape, feminists offer instead the hysteria of “rape culture”, which is embodied in the feminist slogan “Don’t rape”.
If it does come down to the word of the accuser vs the word of the accused, how do you decide under due process? The answer is to try to first understand if sex happened, and then try to determine if the sex was consensual. Unfortunately human sexuality, especially female sexuality, tends to be by its very nature at least somewhat ambiguous. Assuming the sex act itself is sufficiently proved, the question becomes what was the nature of the sexual encounter. To answer this question juries naturally want to understand more about the context of the situation. Did the woman and the man jointly seek out a secluded space before the sex occurred? Did they have a sexual history, or were they in a relationship which appeared to be building up to sex? Did the woman’s observable actions before and after the incident tend to be consistent with consensual sex or rape? If a woman is accusing a man of rape in a context which closely mimics consensual sex, the presumption of innocence can be an insurmountable barrier. This doesn’t mean it wasn’t rape, but it does make it extremely difficult to prove. The presumption of innocence is the problem feminists have been working so hard to remove, and they have been surprisingly successful here. This success is precisely what deBoer fears is in jeopardy when feminists trumpet cases of rape which later turn out to be false.
This isn’t about either being anti-rape or anti-anti-rape (pro-rape?), it is about due process vs rape hysteria. The reason due process is so crucial is not because rape isn’t important, but because real rapists are monsters who merit harsh punishment. Before we decide to deliver a harsh sentence, we need to make sure we aren’t convicting an innocent man. Yet this is the very perspective the self styled moderate deBoer wants to label as pro-rape. The giveaway comes in his opening sentence (emphasis mine):
A presumption of truth in every rape accusation is an impossible standard.
He isn’t arguing for due process and the presumption of innocence, he is arguing that his fellow feminists should at times suspend their presumption of guilt and hear out the facts of the case. deBoer is arguing that rape hysteria is all well and good, but lets keep our heads about it. The piece isn’t a call to a presumption of innocence, but a call to be more clever when conducting witch hunts. Having defined the stakes, deBoer explains the mechanics of how excessive rape hysteria ultimately leads to harming the cause of rape hysteria.
The insistence that every rape accusation must be presumed to be true inevitably means that the credibility of those opposing rape will always be bound up with the least credible accusation. This, perversely, makes it harder for those people to speak out against rape, not easier. The notion that rape victims should be believed by default seems humane and understandable. But in practice it leads to a condition where all rape accusations must be true for any individual standard to be taken seriously. That’s an impossible standard, one no crime should ever have to meet.
deBoer’s problem is it isn’t possible to have a little less hysteria. His passionate plea for a kinder, gentler witch hunt won’t have any effect, because his audience surrendered themselves to emotion over logic and justice long ago. Once you unleash the mob you can’t steer it like a precision guided munition, all you can hope to do is stay out of its path. The mob is going to run its course, and eventually even those who weren’t initially paying close attention will come to understand the mania which has possessed the mob.
H/T Instapundit
I believe we are on the tail end of the Rape/Misogynist Salem Trials era. It may taper off for another five years, but I believe as more cultural and social changes come, they will converge to bring about the end of women as victims. Some of these include a variety of factors: More women being in the workforce in prominent positions (and being falsely accused by men and women); more alimony for women (both lesbian and hetero); more fathers as custodial parents; even less men in college/trades; increasing discreet (or openly encouraged) taping of sexual encounters; men with nothing to lose fighting back; increasing numbers of white men turning the tables on white women, using the same tactics “no, YOU are the “white privilege” you speak of”…etc etc.
So many factors such as these, are already giving push back to things like “Girl walking for 10 hours/cat-calling” that in the 90s or even 5 years ago would have been incapable of criticism. More women making good money, leading to changes in the single parent/divorced parent dynamic (slowly but surely), leading to more pissed off women paying alimony; men making up charges against their female bosses (who may have actually tried to have sex with them, consensually). All these things seem unrelated, but it’s a general tide that is changing as women become more prominent. Just look at liberal Amy Pascal being “outed” as a racist. Yes, it’s true liberals always have a double standard, but the internet world has changed the paradigm of reporting and special interests…for every hard core Return of Kings website, tearing down these libs and feminists etc, there are 10,000 comments on a Yahoo article where men (and/or whites, etc etc) are red pilling every day.
I think Elizabeth Warren (Fake Indian) running for the dems will be seen as the final chapter to the Victim Industry, as we will be told, ONE LAST TIME, how XYZ group should be given ABC by America because of INSERT HISTORY (real or not). Her failed candidacy will be, what my father described as when the 60s “really ended”…when I was five in 1975, and the last helicopter got the last person of the rooftop in Embassy in Vietnam. Warren’s desperate 2016 run will be that moment…we will hear “War on Women” so much it will be like hearing that the “Russians are about to bomb us” like I was hearing here and there growing up in the late 70s…no one actually believed that.
From Michael Brown to Mattress Rape Girl (to almost Hollywood slapstickish Gloria Allred popping up asking Cosby to set up a $100 mil “fund), to convicted murderer and child abuser Crystal Mangum (Duke), our culture has become such a Mel Brooksian caricature of itself that I think the end of the Salem Witch trials, where reason takes back over, is near. Perhaps too hopeful, but if anything, we’ve been so OVERexposed, it’s only helped.
Nailed it!
This entire Rape Hysteria nonsense dates back to the Salem Witch Trials and long before. My son is reading the Crucible in school (an obnoxious little play with 4th and 5th order intentionality throughout- Danforth knew Elizabeth knew that Abigale was lying because she slept with Danforth and wanted to get rid of his wife- which is a skill young girls have aplenty and young boys lag behind significantly but I digress).
The girls lied about the witchcraft. Why did they lie? Well because of SEX of course. Of course witches don’t lie. Of course those who cavort with Satan are trustworthy. In fact, you can read the entire play and replace “Witchcraft” with “Rape” and “Religion” with “Social Justice” and it is EXACTLY the same play. Nothing has changed in hundreds of years. We still have almost exactly the same hysterical, unfounded, baseless, wild accusations that change over time and grow like a malignant bacteria.
In the future we will look back on these hysterical lies and fake charges of witchcraft (rape) and view them the same way we viewed the hysterical children in the 1980’s lying about Satanic rituals and sexual abuse. The credibility of child witnesses has been forever relegated to where it should be- absent physical evidence there are not going to be charges. This appears to be the trajectory of “Rape Culture.” I think the SJW’s have gone a bridge to far this time. Women lie ALL THE TIME. Women SPECIALIZE in lying about “sex” and “rape” and people are finally waking up. God Willing.
If Bill Clinton is accused by Juanita Broderick he will be assumed innocent even if proven guilty. If Dalrock is accused by Jane X in Uzbekistan he will be convicted immediately. This is sjw justice.
As I learned in law school, our legal system is based upon the idea that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free, then to have 1 innocent man suffer. Apparently this idea finds its roots in the oppressive patriarchy. Feminists and SJWs seem to hate this idea.
I recall on twitter some idiot saying that its sometimes beneficial to be falsely accused of rape because then you become aware that rape exists. When confronted with the stupidity of this statement. The idiot replies with men inherently not knowing that rape exists and that this Jackie person was heroic for starting the dialog. Really? making false accusations of rape is heroic now?
Well, folks…..This whole rape hysteria thing is affecting young men in ways that women will pay for. Actual physical rape is a bad thing. I would have used to say that it’s horrible. But stupid mendacious feminists have diluted the shock value so much due to false equivalency. You know, just looking at a woman is rape. BOVINE EXCRETA! I’ve actually had to deal with women who were beaten and raped. When you look at one of those women, you know that their lives will never be the same. Infantile, mendacious feminists who are too ugly to attract someone formulate rape fantasies. Yeppers, it’s just that sick. But here’s a coming attraction, sports fans! Some moronic feminist will accuse the wrong guy. Yeah, his life is in the crapper. But, he decides to get wholesale revenge. We used to call it going postal. Nowadays, there are a lot of men who have been trained to be severely nasty. Lots of different ways. That’s what is coming. The thing about well trained folks is they’re never caught. They ain’t hormonally challenged young men who talk too much. You see, the government counts on people talking. Islamic fighters can’t keep their mouths shut. How about the guys who were trained to listen? Women have no idea just how perilous life can be.
The “rape denialism” of “conservative anti-feminists”. ROFL. This guy is either a bullshitter or lives on another planet.
This quote from the article and set out by Dalrock stood out:
“The insistence that every rape accusation must be presumed to be true inevitably means that the credibility of those opposing rape will always be bound up with the least credible accusation.”
Note what deBoer says there: “those opposing rape”. Just let the mindset of these people sink in for a minute. If, as deBoer says, there are people who oppose rape, then he’s suggesting there must be some people who DON’T oppose rape, or who are in favor of rape. Think about this. He’s actually saying there are people in favor of rape; those who advocate rape; those who want more rapes to happen. This man actually believes this. And he’s not alone, of course. Feminists believe this. They believe that MRAs and conservatives and antifeminists actually want people (i.e. women) to get raped.
You have to sit back and just marvel and recoil at these people. They’re truly sick, sick people.
“Hysteria is a force of nature.”
deBoer said:
“If [Jackie’s] story turns out to be significantly fabricated (and the doubts expressed do not yet amount to proof that it was),”
is one of his giveaways. He and his feminist friends are heavily invested in the truth of most, if not all, rape claims. They so, so badly wanted Jackie’s story to be true, even though it continues to disintegrate with each passing day. No one will ever believe her now, even in the increasingly unlikely event that she was assaulted in some way (and there’s just no evidence that she was).
I think deBoer just can’t come out and say that Jackie’s claims aren’t the best poster child for the cause of fighting campus sexual assaults, though he really, really wants to. He can’t say that publicly, of course, because then he’d be “off the reservation” and a “traitor to the Cause”.
@thedeti
“He’s actually saying there are people in favor of rape; those who advocate rape; those who want more rapes to happen. This man actually believes this.”
In fairness it is almost definitely the case that this is true.
Feminists of a certain stripe almost certainly secretly desire that rapes happen more often, if they didn’t they wouldn’t be seeking to categorize as many sexual encounters as possible as rape and proclaim those suffering it victims for life. Their gravy train will end if the hysteria ever does.
The irony being, if rape really was the problem they claimed it was, there would never be these frequent and repeated examples of lying because there would be enough real and sufficiently brutal cases that were never meaningfully in doubt and were reported to the police and prosecuted.
Plus no doubt you can find the odd pro-rape man, either utterly unhinged or a member of the Islamic State.
On a little more serious note:
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2014/12/students-produce-video-thanking-jackie
SJW garrison of UVA is right now experiencing the sad fate of German 6th Army in Stalingrad.
Only few weeks ago they were the tip of the spear of the Human Progress To Utopia. Today they are just a miserable ragtag bunch, attacked by facts and logic from all directions and, following orders to “defend the post or die trying” and struggling to keep their antirapeculture flag up and waving until the promised reinforcements arrive. And general Winter, the oldest and cruelest enemy of all hysterical emotions, has only yet begun to tighten his grip…
easttexas:
regarding revenge: I really think it’s just going to be targets of false accusations filing defamation lawsuits. And they should. People falsely accused of rape should make sure they sue those making the claims, and prosecute the claims to the fullest extent of the law. It’s often forgotten, but one of the first false rape claims was that involving Tawana Brawley, a black high school student who claimed at least 4 white men raped her, used feces to write racial epithets on her body, and left her in a dumpster. (This is the case Al Sharpton made his bones on.) Among the men she accused was a white cop, and a white assistant DA named Steven Pagones. The false claims caused him to be investigated. Pagones’ wife divorced him. He sued Brawley, Sharpton and Brawley’s other “handlers”, and got a judgment for about $200,000 against Sharpton.
Then of course there’s the Duke Lacrosse players, who sued former Durham DA Mike Nifong and others. IN addition to his other problems, Nifong was disbarred. And, I believe the former players all got hefty settlements. You just couldn’t ask for a better defamation claim — a provably false allegation of rape, widely publicized, garnering national and worldwide media attention for months. A publicity hungry district attorney hoping to cash in on the notoriety and willing to ignore exonerative evidence and refuse to produce and turn it over to the defendants. Media outlets running with an outlandish, far fetched story laced with racism, white privilege, sexual violence, and elitism. This was one of those where an editor should have said somewhere, “This damn well better be true and it better be right, or we are going to get hoisted on our petards, and if I get run up a flagpole, you all will be too.”
The problem with Progressive madness is, that it is… well… progressive.
To offset the shame from this Virginian FALSE rape fiasco, feminists need to come up with an even bigger and more fantastic TRUE campus rape story. Which will be, of course, even easier to debunk as hoax. Especially if they get hysterically impatient and launch it before this one is sufficiently forgotten.
Snake eats its own tail.
When talking about why false rape accusations are bad, people always jump to the “it makes it harder to stop real rape” and never “because innocent men have their lives destroyed.” People will not take the problem seriously unless you make a compelling argument for how it could be harmful to women. It’s a subtle form of white-knighting. I’d like to hear people start saying that false rape accusations are bad because getting innocent men imprisoned is bad, and if you make a false accusation you will be punished for perjury, obstruction of justice, falsifying a police report, and whatever else they can throw at you, because it’s not okay to do that to an innocent man, end of story.
A bit off-topic, but I just read a brilliant “red pill” short story by Ian Fleming. One of his James Bond short stories, “A Quantum of Solace,” in the book, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. (Nothing like the film of the same title.)
“A Quantum of Solace” is barely even a James Bond story. Bond is a guest in the home of the Governor of Nassau (the British colony in the Caribbean.) The Governor relates a story to Bond, and Bond listens. That’s it.
The Governor’s story is about a Beta male in the British colonial service who, still a virgin in his 20s, marries the first woman who shows interest in him. A beautiful air hostess. He pedestalizes her, yet she has an affair with an Alpha, who dumps her. Then the Beta gets his revenge.
I first read “A Quantum of Solace” decades ago, but now that I reread it, I see it has all the red pill themes and insights, showing that Fleming knew much about male/female dynamics.
Sabrina Rubin Erdely lied in an interview with Smerconish:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2014/12/13/smr-soave-121314.cnn.html
Quote from Erdely: “I talked to all of her [Jackie’s] friends; all the people that she confided in …”. In fact, Erdely never talked with any of the three who came to Jackie that night.
Apologies to Dalrock for continuing the off-topic irrelevance, but I have to agree about Fleming.
See also, the films of Stanley Kubrick. Every single film, by Stanley Kubrick, I mean. That brother knew what was going on.
I’m starting to wonder if feminist believing men are so eager to rape women is actually just projection.
The “ah ha” moment came reading an article (sorry, can’t remember the link), where someone had said a fraternity had set up a “rape room,” so members could have a private place to take a woman and rape her during the party. Huh? A group of men planned this?
Pornography consumed by men is notably devoid of rape fantasies. In fact, it’s notably devoid of violent sexual fantasies period. Bondage and S&M are such a small segment of men’s pornography that you can make the case that it’s an abberrant fetish for men.
On the other hand, rape fantasizes–violent rape fantasies–are so common in women’s pornography that it’s fair to say they are the bread-and-butter of women’s sexual fantasies. A fraternity “rape room” would fit right in with the story lines of most women’s porn novels (such as “50 Shades”).
I can’t imagine a group of men sitting around discussing plans on how to rape women. If for no other reason than 95% of them would be disgusted by the idea of violently raping a woman.
Maybe we should point out to women that “50 Shades of Grey” (1) isn’t reality and (2) inaccuratly portrays how men think about sex.
@new anon
I’m starting to wonder how many feminists actually physically masturbated while reading the original Rolling Stone’s “Rape on Campus” story.
@Andrew Brooks
Um rape happens to both sexes (unless you think a 9 year old boy is capable of giving consent). Saying the greatest danger of false accusations is that people no longer take accusations seriously is just the Boy Who Cried Wolf parable. Quite sensible in my mind, as I would not like to live in a future in which predators are allowed to roam free due to a glut of truly stupid and baseless accusations.
Bondage and S&M are such a small segment of men’s pornography that you can make the case that it’s an abberrant fetish for men. — yep, and most of BDSM that men enjoy is of the female dominant variety.
Back on topic, I think what that the author is hinting at is America’s two-tiered system of justice. The Duke Lacrosse team came from affluence. Bethesda, MD, where several of them were from, is one of the richest suburbs in America. Though they represented a major scalp for Nifong, and the Duke Faculty, and various other SJW types, they weren’t, say, a lad born to a single mom, the first member of his family to attend college. They couldn’t just be railroaded on a presumption of guilt as they author seems to desire, and as a couple of Magnum’s other victims were (she’d filed several assault charges against the men in her life before she finally graduated to murder).
UVA had the same problem. The Fraternity members were going to get their day in court, and would receive due process no matter how shrill the SJW/Vandals/President played it. The story was so preposterous it was going to blow up. Period.
But as the author notes, lower-income white and especially African-American men can still have their lives destroyed without a thought to the veracity of allegations, as they have essentially no recourse in the judicial system. And that, he seems to be saying, is who they should target. For now.
Very telling.
MV :- “The problem with Progressive madness is, that it is… well… progressive.”
Permanent revolution! Make self-criticism!
“One cannot make a revolution with white gloves”. Uncle Joe Stalin
Omelettes, eggs. Proper Witch-Finder General procedure absolutely requires that more and more increasingly abominable witchy naughtiness is descried by those who are sufficiently enlightened to make that call. And if the witch drowns, well that is the only sure way of establishing that they were not such a bad witch after all.
This nonsense isn’t about to stop. Until it starts impacting the de-facto aristocracy’s sons.
No Governor Phipps around these days.
Every rape accusation must be taken seriously!
Unless, of course, White English girls in Rotherham accuse Pakistani men. Can’t give any credence to their stories. Wouldn’t want to be racist, after all.
And lets leave Roman Polanski alone. Drugging and sodomizing a 13 year old girl who is yelling no isn’t “rape rape” – Oprah said so and all of Hollywood agrees. How *dare* those white knight Swiss try to arrest him! Someone should explain to them about the red pill and all that.
And as we approach the 100th anniversary of the martyrdom of saint Leo Frank, try to forget about the sodomized and mutilated corpse of 14 year old Mary Phagan. The ADL doesn’t want you to remember her. Anyhow, the filthy shiksa wanted it – just look at how they all read 50 Shades of Grey.
Yes siree, feminism is the only thing wrong with the West these days, so lets show some respect for the bold, fearless truth tellers of the Dark Enlightenment.
About porn, the predominant theme for male audiences is the willingness and the enjoyment of the woman/women. Plays to the predominant fantasy that most men have about having someone like that in their own lives. So it’s not at all surprising that rape and bondage fantasies are just a small slice of what’s out there for men. Because unwilling women just do *not* turn most men on, think about it, many men have to deal with unwilling wives in their own marriages. Every man knows about unwilling women, why would a normal man want one of those? Oh no, ladies, a man wants a woman who wants him back and is very willing to make it happen, and most porn for men is based on that premise.
We know that many women project their thoughts and desires on men. Or they imitate men and think that should make themselves attractive to men. So women who like emotional porn tend to fantasize about being dominated, then they think most men want to rape, that’s just projection on their part.
About Fleming: definite red pill through all of his writing. I read that story long before I really understood what it was all about.
The feminists have been moving the goalposts without much resistance for many years. Only now with Gamergate and rape hysteria are they getting bumped back hard. So we’re seeing the desperate attempts to reframe, reframe, reframe. But their frame is cracked and can no longer be made square again for those who have the eyes to see.
Come on, toothpaste, get back in the tube!
“Feminists of a certain stripe almost certainly secretly desire that rapes happen more often, if they didn’t they wouldn’t be seeking to categorize as many sexual encounters as possible as rape and proclaim those suffering it victims for life”
I don’t want to think the worst of people, but when someone says we shouldnt give women tips* about how to avoid being attacked, it’s hard not to draw the obvious conclusion.
*when you go back to your car after shopping, don’t sit there and look at your stuff. That makes you a target. I read that recently.
And lets leave Roman Polanski alone. Drugging and sodomizing a 13 year old girl who is yelling no isn’t “rape rape” – Oprah said so
Whoopi Goldberg that would be.
Only now with Gamergate and rape hysteria are they getting bumped back hard.
Re-evaluate their position they will?
50 Shades of Shite
Quote from Erdely: “I talked to all of her [Jackie’s] friends; all the people that she confided in …”. In fact, Erdely never talked with any of the three who came to Jackie that night.
Qualify as a lie this does?
Dalrock,
As you know, I have expressed great respect and appreciation for your wisdom and moral clarity. However, your focus on due process is dead wrong. There is something far more sinister afoot. They are working to eliminate the concept of mens rea. I’ve brought this up here before. In criminal law, there are nearly always two facets of any crime; actus reus, a guilty act, and mens rea, a guilty mind. The feminist view that a woman’s negative feelings towards a man overrule his benign (or even noble) intentions is evident not only in their approach to rape, but also in the concepts of “street harassment”, “workplace sexual harassment”, and even “rape culture” itself. Non-criminal behavior is to be treated as criminal whenever a woman desires it. A fair and impartial trial of a man for rape under feminists’ “yes means yes” standard, or under their previous attempts against mens rea, “the reasonable woman” standard or “consent as an affirmative defense” or any of the other iterations we’ve seen still results in 100% conviction. Due process, such as it is, will be satisfied. The codified crime consists of nothing more than being accused. The one thing the accused can never prove is that he has not been accused.
Random Angeleno says:
Yes. Feminists insist that men rape women to gain control of or dominance over women. This illustrates Feminism projecting female sexuality onto men. It is women who see sex as a means of control. Men see sex as sex.
“The codified crime consists of nothing more than being accused. The one thing the accused can never prove is that he has not been accused.”
Oh dearie me, are we going back to the old rule so soon? Jethart justice? And I thought we were all modern and enlightened and stuff.
As long as the accused is not actually bound and gagged in the dock, he ought to raise his unbaptized right hand (or left, if a Cessford Kerr, it’s the sword-hand that counts.The same custom that gave rise to the red hand on the flag of the Ulster Ua Néill, albeit with a dramatic, personalized “just-so” story involving a particular tribal chief told to children to explain it).
He should declare to the gallery ” I look to the support of my family in this matter, now hang me as ye will, laddie …” (to the “judge”; and his kin, the accuser’s kin, and so on).
Civilization 0 – Feminists 1 (till the return leg).
Should be a blast, for the likes of me.
One of my contra-anarcho-libertarian arguments involves this subject. One part is “I own my own body”. So, you can rent it out?
Why is rape more serious than say, stealing cable? If the going price for a whore is $500, and someone steals $500 worth of cable, is that NOT an equivalent loss, and therefore an equivalent crime?
If not, then sex is somehow special and privileged. And you don’t “own” your body in the sense that you would consider it a mere property violation like someone trespassing and maybe damaging your lawn.
But to the point. If there was a chaperoned encounter where there was no question of an encounter, and sex happened, it would be rape. Note that the feminists (or even those who simply are worried) do not with to reintroduce the concept of chaperones, maybe a friend who would go on the same date, maybe stay a bit away, but to keep things cool.
The implication is that the woman is specifically looking to hook up. The rejection which is called “rape” is only because the particular person at some point didn’t meet some standard, but some other man would. And the rejection happened rather late in the process, perhaps after going into a secluded area.
Also an introduction like “Hi, I’m Janet and this is my purity ring that I plan on giving my husband on our wedding night where he can have my virginity” makes things clearer.
We need a hook-up ring, but I’m not sure what it would signify.
Women can be in charge of their sexuality. However, like civilization, Fathers and Husbands do a better job. In the traditional ceremony, the Father accompanies the bride down the aisle to the waiting to-be-in-a-moment husband.
Way back when (when the rape-shield laws, the first iteration of this was passed), the assumption was virgin – marriage – mother. Now it is alpha-seeking hookups – approaching expiration – grab a gamma.
Also, we have the DUI, we need the HUI – hookup while intoxicated. Making having sex with a BAC over 0.08 illegal would eliminate most questioned cases. “Too drunk to know that I’m too drunk not to do something incredibly stupid”.
Were I on a jury, I’d have to take the cultural context into consideration.
“going price for a whore is $500, and someone steals $500 worth of cable, is that NOT an equivalent loss, and therefore an equivalent crime? “
I’d sincerely hope that your encounter with a call-girl wouldn’t also entail a massive train-wreck, power-outage for several blocks, elevator failure, and hospital life-support equipment flatlining.
Or maybe you really are that good. She should revoke the fees.
Tam the Bam,
I’m afraid we are not acquainted. I’m sure that whatever the fuck you’re talking about is quite hilarious or that you’re an illiterate moron, one or the other. The definitions of rape in force in every Western jurisdiction punish a man who honestly, but unreasonably, believed his partner was consenting. The feminist definition now codified on university campuses in California, (coming soon to New Hampshire, and New Jersey, and then everywhere, and then to criminal codes) punishes a man who was saint-like in the measures he went to in order to ascertain that his partner consented, and God-like in his knowledge of his partner’s mind. Yes, being accused is the new crime. I don’t think there is anything funny about this.
@srsly: “… being accused is the new crime.”
What’s old becomes new again? What’s new once was old?
Consider the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (condensed), from around 1500 B.C.E.
“Potiphar makes Joseph the head of his household, but Potiphar’s wife, furious at Joseph for resisting her attempts to seduce him, accuses him falsely of attempted rape. …”
“Because of the Egyptian location wherein the scene is staged, it is not impossible to detect in this biblical tale also a more recent echo of the very old Egyptian fable of the two brothers Bata and Anpu.”
Jackie is just the newest iteration of an old, old tale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potiphar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tale_of_Two_Brothers
“I’m sure that whatever the fuck you’re talking about is quite hilarious or that you’re an illiterate moron, one or the other”
Make your mind up dear.
I was being completely serious, and was merely retailing facts. That way of doing things has only just faded over the horizon round here. That exact lack of due process stuff was how it was done down the hill, and all the way out to the Bongate, and is now being dragged back kicking and screaming by feminists, who don’t appreciate warnings from history. They leave us no choice. Due to their limitless ignorance. A common affliction.
Fortunately, ignorance can be cured. Unlike stupidity.
RichardP
Those are very interesting stories, but it is my understanding that in those times, a charge of rape required resistance from the woman. What the men in those stories were accused of was fundamentally different from what one need be accused of today. If you can’t prove you were never present, and she says she feels bad, you are guilty. It isn’t relevant that she willingly participated or that she hardly stopped screaming her pleasure to inhale. Hardly is good enough. If there was a moment in which it was not unambiguous that she was communicating her continued consent, then you are guilty. If you claim that there was not such a moment, then you are lying (she had to inhale sometime).
Tam the Bam,
I still have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about. You could try to be less artful and more precise.
@srsly: “… in those times, a charge of rape required resistance from the woman.”
Potiphar’s wife desired Joseph and asked him to take her. Numerous times. He refused her advances. Her response was to charge “rape”.
Jackie desire her guy. He refused her. Her response was to charge “rape”.
3500 years separate those two events, yet the female behavior was basically the same in both instances. That was my point. But I think you know that, in spite of your response to me.
RichardP
Yes, I understand that. My point is that Jackie didn’t need to lie. Her “rapists” could be equally as guilty without doing anything wrong. Potiphar’s wife had to claim that specific events had occurred. Events which, if true, would lead any sensible person to conclude that she had been wronged.
God save us from the crazy women that desire us.
Claire Kaplan, program director of Gender Violence and Social Change, said in a Facebook post that the students involved told her “the scene about whether or not to go to the hospital never happened, and that when they wanted to take her to the police, she didn’t want to go.”
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/12/14/rape_story_falls_apart_124953.html)
Hell hath no fury like a feminist low-level-aparatchik thrown under the bus for the sake of Greater Cause.
‘I’m starting to wonder if feminist believing men are so eager to rape women is actually just projection.’
More than likely…once you dig deep into the sexual deviousness of some of these feminists…you see how far the abyss goes.
And people still wonder why virgins are preferred.
Just for fun:
Cynthia Granville Speaks for Onion’s Damaged Women (2011)
The reason due process is so crucial is not because rape isn’t important, but because real rapists are monsters who merit harsh punishment. Before we decide to deliver a harsh sentence, we need to make sure we aren’t convicting an innocent man.
You might find Megan McArdle’s take You Can’t Just Accuse People of Rape which reaches this conclusion:
The idea that the stronger the punishment the more proof people will demand is now being discussed in the mainstream, albeit only a little.
Yep. A mangina doubling down. He goes to a Big-10 school, and sees tons of pretty undergrads in tight yoga pants every day, who are not available to him. Jail the athletes, jocks, and wealthy international undergrad students, so that Freddie might get laid (he still won’t, as women will not settle for men below their attraction cutoff, if those are the only ones available).
I looked at a couple of his photos, and that’s probably not the case. He looks like he gets what he wants and when.
Once they redefined rape, I became pro-rape.
The Dawn of The Dead Hamsters: Lauren Stark from UVA SJW garrison
“As an activist at UVa, I don’t see myself or my fellow activists as part of anything so limited as an “anti-rape” movement. If anything, we are part of an anti-“white supremacist capitalist heteropatriarchy movement” (credit to bell hooks for that phrase) and we are marching together against systems of oppression much broader than a single story or issue, however troubling.”
If feeling masochistic, read the rest of her dreck in the comment zone here:
Meanwhile, another storm seems to be a’brewin in Alabama.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2872314/Teary-assistant-principal-falsely-accused-having-sex-teenage-student-forced-sell-home-couldn-t-work-revealed-turned-allegations-surfaced.html
Unless this young false accuser turns out to be true or black, our menstrual overlords will get a chance to further clarify their position:
“We should automatically believe FEMALE claims of being raped by a MALE.”
TFH:
Since you bothered…
Yes, I think everyone in the world knows that American Indians are only called that because of an initial misnomer; however, as you probably are aware, Native Americans in the US prefer the word “Indian”, and it is used uniformly, without protest in all federal government functions, such as the Bureau of Indians Affairs, “Indian Education”, and even the reservations and lands surrounding are called, by Indians and non-Indians alike, “Indian Country”.
Anthropologists even refer to peoples such as my wife as, “AmerIndian” (which basically means, Natives from Latin America, to include her Incan ancestors). It’s essentially a way of tagging Indigenous peoples like her and my children, as being “of and related to” the same “Natives” of the “Americas”. Native has of course been questioned, as some scientific/anthropological evidence has developed indicating there may have been “Whites” in N. American, well pre-Columbian.
I also know, as matter of getting cute with you, that my Grandfather preferred to be called “Indian” 🙂 [shall I follow this with a “wink”?). lol. In some ways, it’s like Hispanic and Latino, in some ways not. I prefer “Hispanic” for myself, but others who are more “Indian” (meaning, Indigenous….meaning, “Brown”, prefer Latino).
Yawn. Schools out. Sorry, couldn’t resist. 🙂
TFH, enrique432
Let’s just call her “Squaw Wannabe” 🙂
It is my understanding that the terms “Latina” and “Latino” are reserved for those Hispanics who have a parent or grandparent who was born in Spain.
Feminism is not about equality. It’s about power and control. YmY will succeed because it works for both conservatives and liberals. YmY will eventually be enshrined within VAWA. Eventually, an accusation of rape will result in a man’s immediate imprisonment. Don’t think it can happen? Thanks to VAWA, you can be thrown out of your home and imprisoned right now on a mere accusation. Think about how little false evidence is needed to make an accusation stick for a lifetime.
What makes VAWA and YmY so beautiful to women is that, once the rights to due process and presumption of innocence are entirely removed (which is pretty much where we are at now), any accusation will almost automatically result in highly negative actions taken against the accused. The accused name is published, resulting in near instant social isolation, job loss and/or suspension with no evidence of a crime whatsoever. The mere accusation alone is enough to destroy most men. The media is largely exempt from reporting unproven, defamatory accusations, which allows the fascist, liberal media to destroy those that don’t play their game at will.
Title IX, VAWA and now YmY are all designed to transfer power from men to women. This fact can’t get any more obvious than it is right now. Thanks to the cowardly conservative and liberal white knights that support them, feminists have and will continue to be wildly successful in their efforts. Anyone that believes otherwise is in for a rude awakening. The UVA rape hoax is but a speed bump for these folks. Notice that no negative actions have been taken against those that perpetrated and administered the hoax? Know why? For the same reason that criminals are now being held out as heroes in other recent, major news stories. Up is the new down. Left is the new right. Wrong is the new right.
Too many men today view modern women with warm memories of their traditional grandmothers or are bamboozled by what they’re brainwashed with in every form of media. Conversely, as each year passes, it becomes more and more clear that modern women are heartless, ruthless, deeply narcissistic and cut-throat. Women are men’s enemies and competitors now. It’s long past time men wake up to these new realities.
For men’s sake, I hope they take up the feminist war plan. Should a women not have prior, provable, affirmative consent, start reporting women for sexual assault. Fight fire with fire. Get things to the point that everyone is accusing everyone of sexual assault and the universities have to be shut down. It’s not like our modern educational institutions are doing anything positive for society – so no great loss there.
Once they redefined rape, I became pro-rape.
Put me in the pro-“rape” camp for married couples.
“…If anything, we are part of an anti-“white supremacist capitalist heteropatriarchy movement”
Heteropatriarchy? As opposed to what? Homopatriarchy? Does that even make sense? Homomatriarchy? Still doesn’t make sense. Nothing these feminists say or even imply seems to make sense. Reading the writings of such people is like looking up at the world from the bottom of a cesspool with the idea that all the rules and properties that make up a cesspool should be applied to the whole world.
Feminism is not about equality.
There is no such thing as equality between the sexes. It’s just not possible, not even in the eyes of the law. That’s one reason why patriarchy is a much better system than any other known so far. It’s a fairer shake than what we have now.
I think you’re both right and wrong. Interesting.
If we study historical trends, we’ll see that the sexes had their closest run at equality during the patriarchal periods. Women were forced (more or less) to be (outwardly) chaste and at least not embarrass their husbands/fathers by fucking the neighbor in full view of the public. In return, they were entitled to a minimum level of subsistence.
What we have now does not benefit the broad masses — regardless of sex. It does benefit a few very wealthy families at the top of the pyramid a great deal, however. Interesting to note that those families are, defacto, patriarchal, while the rest of us get to wallow in the matriarchal mire.
Boxer
Rick says:
This is the modern-day lynch mob. Pitchforks and torches are no longer required. It is a much more insidious process that is no less damaging. Good luck ever finding a job again because Google will turn up a mug shot or smear story.
Deboer’s shtick is to be a sort of leftist concern troll (that is, a concern troll to leftists). You’ll find him straddling the line in attempting to criticize leftists while signalling just enough to remain part of the in-group. It’s hard to tell whether his claims to really believe in leftist “social justice” tripe are heartfelt, or just a ruse for social/careerist purposes.
Of course, professing belief in leftism while criticizing it on the grounds that its arguments are illogical, irrational, and made in bad faith, is itself a category error, since leftism disavows logic, reason, and good faith. The very idea of “justice”, a venerable concept in European civilization that goes back to Socrates and the Ancient Greeks, has under leftist stewardship become nothing but a laugh line.
Meanwhile, another storm seems to be a’brewin in Alabama.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2872314/Teary-assistant-principal-falsely-accused-having-sex-teenage-student-forced-sell-home-couldn-t-work-revealed-turned-allegations-surfaced.html
Sad story. On a different note, she kind of has the eyes of a lunatic.
@hoellenhund2
Well, everyone looks like a lunatic on a mugshot. I’ll give her a benefit of a doubt. For now.
“Oh no, ladies, a man wants a woman who wants him back and is very willing to make it happen, and most porn for men is based on that premise.”
I love that comment, Angeleno.
The challenge with proving rape is distinguishing consensual sex from non-concensual sex Duh.
The challenge is sex, con sensual sex, ca involve a lot of persuasion, i.e. Seduction. And someone who is deduced into sayig yes can change their mind in the light of day. Which makes deduction an awful lot like a normal, high pressure sales situation.
Now society decided to handle that problem by writing laws which created a 3 day “cooling off” period during which a person could legally change their mind and rescind the perfectly legal contract they’d signed. Funny thing is, most people think this is a perfectly reasonable solution. The problem with allowing such a retroactive decision with regards to sex is the fact that the “product cannot be give back nor the money returned. Also, feminists have convinced all white Knights through such shows as Law & Order SUVA that regret sex is as evil and heinous as forcible rape, which it is not – at least not as far as I can tell.
Perhaps the solution would be to make regret sex a civil wrong (a tort) and not a felony, thus making the remedy require all men who initiate sex with a woman who later (no more than 3 days) changes her mind subject to an amount of damages enough to make her “whole”, is how the law describes it. I would suggest the going rate on the street for whatever services she rendered which she now, in a cooler, less hormonal frame of mind,regrets. Say $100 for straight sex, $25-$50 for a blow job, and anything kinky to be decided by a judge with person experience in that area of the law.
After all, is she had sex with the guy and regrets it, she deserves something for her troubles! Doesn’t she?
enrique432 says: December 14, 2014 at 12:17 pm
TFH & Enrique, everyone is wrong. Our “Indians” came from Siberia. They are native-Siberians and I always refer to them as such. (Of course everyone came from Africa anyway.)
Well, everyone looks like a lunatic on a mugshot.
No.
One does not have to be a Christian to think that ‘Out of Africa’ is merely political correctness.
@hoellenhund2
I stand corrected (no pun intended).
Just a correction for most of you on the BDSM stuff:
MOST BDSM porn is male-dominant.Women are spanked, tied-up, ‘tortured’ (in various ways such as tickling, etc).Women serve their “Masters” or “Sirs” or “Doms”, many of them with quite open sexual arousal as any red-piller would tell you.
Now one could argue that “the bottom ” is really in control because (she and yes, it’s usually a she, not a he) has a ‘safeword’ or otherway of stopping the play. And while it can be somewhat related to “domestic discipline”, the typical ‘scene’ is merely that: a form of play. But I can assure you that most women in ‘the scene’.love to at least play at being submissive.
I think where some of you are getting confused is because this blog occasionally links to such blogs and tumblrs as the “Worship your wife” stuff and there have been extensive discussions here and at other “red pill” places about cuckold porn and such.
But anyone who has ever attended a party (unless its a femdom-only party or something like that) or joined a group (natch) or read any of the literature(there have been serious studies of the demographics of the S&M ‘scene’) , or even did a google search for the terms ‘female dominant’ or ‘male dominant’ ( I have done all of this ) can verify it is mostly male dominant/female submissive with other orientations such as female/female/ and female/male trailing by a quite significant margin and male/male stuff ‘taking up the rear’ (deliberate pun) so to speak.
That being said, yes, even among S&M porn downright rape fantasy from a MALE point of view is rare. Dominants get off on the power they possess over their female ‘slaves’ or ‘subs’ (there is technically a difference in allegience expressed and owed to those terms) and the usually quite obvious arousal because of this sexual power they elicit. Few people want to see traumatized , scared or sickened women trembling as they beg /scream to not be forced to have sex. Even among us ‘freaks’ – we want to be wanted.
@Clarence in Baltimore,
According to the book “A Billion Wicked Thoughts,” the percentage of men who are into BDSM/violent-set/rape-fantasies of any kind is so small–in the low single digits percentage wise–that it can be said to be an aberration for men.
The book was a study of what men downloaded and watched on their own–when nobody was watching. And what they watched turned out to be overwhelmingly mundane. Plain old fashioned sex between one man and one woman.
What women chose to consume, on the other hand, turned out to be dominated by rape fantasies. It was so dominant that the female rape fantasy could be called THE most common sexual fantasy for women–by a huge margin.
You can’t paint all men as being into things like BDSM simply because a small percentage are into it That would be like saying because a small percentage of men are gay (between 2 & 10 percent, depending on the study), that ALL men deep down want o have sex with other men. They don’t.
On the other hand, rape fantasizes–violent rape fantasies–are so common in women’s pornography that it’s fair to say they are the bread-and-butter of women’s sexual fantasies. A fraternity “rape room” would fit right in with the story lines of most women’s porn novels (such as “50 Shades”).
I can’t imagine a group of men sitting around discussing plans on how to rape women. If for no other reason than 95% of them would be disgusted by the idea of violently raping a woman.
Except that the rapes depicted in these novels isn’t technically rape. Yes, the resistance she pretends to put up is broken down and the sexual act is rough, the man is sexually attractive and she doesn’t regret the whole affair later.
Pingback: “Marital Rape” is a Toxic Poison in the Minds of Rebellious Wives | younggodlywomen
There was a great SNL skit a few years ago with Tom Brady. It parodied an old corporate training film and was titled “How to avoid charges of sexual harrassment.”
In the skit Brady blatantly comes on to women in the office, at one point grabbing a breast. The women flutter and swoon.
Then an omega screws up his courage to compliment a woman and ask her out. She grimaces and dials security. You know that guy gets fired.
The skit ends with this advice to men to avoid charges of sexual harrassment:
Be handsome
Be attractive
Don’t be unattractive
Brilliant.