On Friday, January 6, The United States Justice Department announced it is revising a decades-old definition of rape to expand the kinds of offences that constitute the crime and for the first time, include men as victims.
The official statement from the Justice Department said the crime of rape will be defined as:
Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.
This is being cheered as a great improvement on the 80 year old definition which previously identified only vaginal penetration as an instance of this crime. Carol Tracy, the executive director of the Women’s Law Project, which has been pushing for the definition change said, “We are very pleased that the FBI has agreed to revise its definition used in data collection so it more accurately reflects what the public understands to be rape”
In fact, mainstream as well as explicitly feminist blogs and journals have been applauding this change – and in most cases, taking pains to point out that men sexually violated will now be correctly counted as victims of the crime of rape. Sex forced onto a man by a woman in any instance other than penetration of his body by an object is not included in the new definition. This exclusion is not because forced sexual contact by women on men doesn’t occur, it quite obviously does. The argument that physical arousal in a male rape victim equates to consent is standard from ideologues, but the same argument, if taken seriously can negate the claims of most female rape victims. Physical arousal in men and in women is an involuntary response, outside the control of conscious choice.
The claim that the new definition of rape’s inclusion of male victims is a ruse. Mainstream and feminist commentators have persistently ignored the legal disenfranchisement of men. Those few men willing to stand up in complaint have been taunted, belittled, and censored. Suddenly this community is cheering for recognition of men as potential victims of rape? Hardly. In fact – taken outside the persistent anti-male climate fostered by organized feminism, in the larger framework of American politics, does anybody believe for a second that a change in law is for the benefit of individual citizens, whether they’re male or not? So, if the inclusion of males as potential victims is not the real goal, then what is?
The new definition also includes instances in which a victim is incapable of giving consent because of mental or physical incapacity, such as intoxication. Physical resistance is not required to demonstrate lack of consent. This is where the power of a new definition for rape is expressed. Consent is no longer consent. Voluntary participation in sex is no longer voluntary.
incapable of giving consent because of mental or physical incapacity, such as intoxication.
If a woman has a few drinks and operates a motor vehicle, she’s committed an offence, but if she has a few drinks and spreads her legs, well, then she’s a victim. How about men? If a man has sex while he’s drunk, is he a rape victim because being drunk, he was unable to render informed consent?
Don’t hold your breath.
Under the new definition, every woman participating in a sexual encounter with a man in a social setting which included consumption of alcohol is now deemed a rape victim. Are you a woman who has had a drink before having consensual sex? If so, you are now legally empowered to destroy the life of the man you slept with. Most adults drink socially, and now, for men, every woman with a drink in her hand is armed with a metaphorical gun, pointed at his head. It is the power to destroy his life, his career, his family, tear his children away from him, strip him of his savings, his home, deny him the ability to earn a living or to travel, and in many cases, to actually kill him by proxy.
In states and counties which pursue no drop prosecution – which is where a prosecutor pursues charges and conviction regardless of the will of the alleged victim, this ability to destroy doesn’t even hang on the whim of the offended women, it’s in the hands of a state employee building a career based on notches in their briefcase.
Don’t worry though, ladies, the district attorney is surely only acting in your best interests, and if your husband or boyfriend is jailed or career-terminated, you can just get another one. Men are replaceable commodities, after all. Your son, if you have one, might get chewed up in this system, but hey, who cares, right. You can just crank out another one. It’s not like men are really human beings deserving rights.
Is that too sarcastic and cynical?
I’m still addressing this to female readers, so please consider how a legal invalidation of your choice or consent in a sexual encounter gives you the power of a rape victim if you decided to spread your legs. If the man you slept with also drank before getting naked and horizontal – why are you legally a victim and him an offender? If a man drinks and has sex, wouldn’t it be logical to consider him a victim of rape?
The standard argument is that due to “patriarchy” society puts men into a position of power in relations between men and women, and therefore they’re always the offender, while women are always the victim. However, this item of mythology falls apart with the slightest examination. Men die earlier than women, commit suicide at 4 times the rate of women, are sentence more severely than women, and continue to die on the job a 13 times the rate of women. What patriarchy is anybody talking about?
The facile follow up argument that “patriarchy hurts men too,” is so ethically and intellectually bankrupt that it’s proponents should wear a visible tattoo identifying them as mentally defective. If alcohol renders a woman unable to exercise adult volition in a sexual act, then women are not adults. They should be stripped of the right to vote, to own property, to receive an education, to go into debt or to be taken seriously in a courtroom. Except this abdication of adulthood seems only to operate when personal accountability is at stake, but never when advantage or personal enfranchisement is in operation.
If offenses like operating a motor vehicle while impaired are violations of the law - even when the drunk driver is female – then what magic is it that makes driving an offence and sex a form of victimization? This comparison is obvious. Even a public anaesthetized by years of reality TV and fast food can spot this blatant double standard. So why are feminists who’ve been arguing for years that their movement is one in pursuit of equality silent on this issue? Well, it is because they have put their mouths into advocating for it because the metaphorical gun this legal redefinition puts in every woman’s hand, pointed at every man’s head, is what they really want.
A woman willing to have sex with you after a drink is as dangerous as a violent predator in a culture without laws.
125 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
Stu:
Jean Valjean:
Charbroil:
Peegies:
Doug1:
Even a married woman could claim her husband raped her if she had a drink. This claim of rape will be a more powerful play to “get it all” in a divorce than claiming abuse. Watch out you married men out there.
If the wife wants to patch things up by have a couple of drinks and a little romance latter, watch out. This could be your one way ticket to jail and her free ride for life.
You’re in jail; she has the house, the car, and the kids. The guy she was having an affair with will move in after things have blown over. You think a week is too soon?
This is way better than the restrain order scam or making up a false allegation. It just the law. And you broke it. What’s a woman to do? Poor thing. Pffft.
You guys are one hell of a paranoid bunch. Why the hell would you marry a woman when you think she’d actually pull something like crying “RAPE!!!” on you? I don’t know, I was under the impression that you only marry people you trust.
You guys do have a knack for melodrama, making marriage sound like a tragedy that will /surely/ end in divorce and jail time, haha.
As long as you going to rely on name calling, allow me the same courtesy. Are you really this fucking stupid? I mean, really, does anyone think that their spouse will do them wrong when they are getting married? Does that stop those wrongs from happening? The person you marry and trust, well, it always turns out that way, doesn’t it?
Also, how does this have anything to do with potential abuse of a set of laws? Stupid, Rene. Mouth breathing, tongue biting when you write stupid.
I don’t know where I “called names”, but okay :V I’m sure there are spouses who turn out to be different than you thought they were. But you must be /incredibly/ bad at judging character if you marry someone who turns out to be a person who’d try to jail you and ruin your life.
I see extreme, irrational paranoia in the comments I replied to. A demonization of marriage and women in marriages that’s just completely ridiculous.
If Ms Houten doesn’t know any men who have been defrauded and alienated from their children, then I suggest that she confront her agoraphobia and actually go out into the world and look around. There is no excuse for such willful ignorance.
Of course, it is entirely possible that male pain is invisible to her. This makes her utterly typical of most western women today. She is so saturated with feminist myths of Patriarchal Privilege that she is blind to the reality all around her.
Ms Houten, at least you haven’t pretended to show any concern for men – which is a popular tactic to engage the AVFM crowd. Your sneering indifference has been noted. Now move along and stop wasting our time.
Eh, I can’t seem to be able to reply to andybob so I’ll have to reply to you again Paul, sorry. First of all andybob, that’s /Mr/ Houten for you, not Ms. Such a shame that your “typical western woman” is a man.
Second, nice baseless assumptions and ad hominems there. I really don’t know where you got the idea that I don’t believe men “have been defrauded and alienated from their children”. Oh sorry, I forgot that everyone who doesn’t completely agree with /everything/ you MRAs say /must/ be a man hater. How silly of me!
If we could stack them on top of eachother, it wouldn’t take long before we were able to make a Tower of Ignorance, with the amount of stupid ignorant bricks that has come to the site lately. The universities, and every other higher learning place, that form and burns these bricks and spew them out in the hundreds of thousands, must have turned into immense echo chambers of stupidity, rather than education. They are starting to sound more and more like the exact same voice, with the exact same reasons for speaking up, for every single day that goes by.
No, correction, actually they sound like characters made up by a feminist on an acid trip, trying to make him or herself a female friendly radio play version of the Clone Wars.
You sound very pleased with your “Aha” moment. Your claim to being a man does not alter my reply, except to insert “supplicating apologist” for “woman”. We are well-aquainted with your women-can-do-no-wrong atthitude here.
Statistical reality indicates that you will eventually have the scales ripped from your eyes. When that happens, remember this website and find your way back. Lots of us used to be blind., too.
Hey Pual Rene is a homosexual dutch male, feminist he trolls my group Facts not feminism on deviantart. You know that scum video from Sweden he thinks nothing but people having fun. In all he claims to be for men’s right but is lying through his slaver teeth. Just figured you’d like to know.
“You guys do have a knack for melodrama…”
When men stand up for themselves, they’re shamed and humiliated for being “melodramatic”.
When women stand up for themselves, they’re lauded for being brave and heroic “fighters” You go grrls! WOOOEEeee!
Very nice observation, I don’t disagree. Just a shame that you missed the point of my reply :B
@Rene
You are a fucking dumbass,aren’t you?
Nobody walks up and tells you they plan on scamming you. The women who clean you out,deny you access to your children and ruin your life in divorce may not even know it’s possible when they get married.
After they decide to leave the marriage,however, there is an entire industry of greedy lawyers, crooked counselors and assholes looking to make a buck who will advise them exactly how to do it, and convince them the husband deserves it,if she doesn’t already believe it.
This is because accusing you of domestic violence,rape, or child abuse/molestation, GUARANTEES them your shit,your kids, and a steady income of money from the state.
You don’t know anybody who’d lie for money? Really? You don’t know anybody who would take money that somebody is dangling in front of their face?
Aha. Here we have the equivalent of a southern bigot telling Blacks that they are paranoid. LMAO. Just because you tried a strap on does not mean you know what it is like to have a dick.
Aww, do you have a hard time believing that a man can disagree with your opinion? I like how everyone here assumes I’m a woman, just because I have a different opinion. Very interesting.
Also interesting how you compare women to “southern bigots” and men to blacks. I know coming up with good comparisons can be hard, but this has got to be one of the most inaccurate and unintentionally hilarious comparisons I’ve ever heard.
“Also interesting how you compare women to “southern bigots” and men to blacks.”
I thought you just said you weren’t a woman. He was comparing you to a southern bigot. If you aren’t a woman, I’m not sure where you’re getting “women” from, but it wouldn’t be accurate even if you were a woman.
Well, if you are a man, you’re not much of one, Rene.
How is the comparison invalid? In the days of slavery, whites got much lighter sentences for crimes than blacks, to the point where a white person could commit a more severe crime than a black person, and the black person would get a far more severe punishment. Sound familiar? Oh yeah, that’s how the justice system treats men and women nowadays. Punish the man severely, treat the woman with kid gloves.
As well, feminism, is the gendered equivalent of the KKK. It is based on the hatred, blame, and demonizing of men, just under a nice little false veil of “equality”. Don’t believe me. http://www.manwomanmyth.com . I think you should listen to Einstein. “Condemnation without investigation is the height of true ignorance.”
I’m not a woman, but he /thought/ I’m a woman, which is why I got put into the southern bigot category. It’s not rocket science, Mr. Red Bones! You guys seem to have a really hard time accepting that people with different opinions aren’t women, it’s just hilarious.
Also, about your other reply: you also seem to have missed the point of my comment. But no, I have never seen someone who’d lie for money, though I’m sure they exist. What I /certainly/ have never seen though is couples trying to get each other in /jail/ through such destructive accusations as rape when in a divorce.
The dudes I replied to were grossly exaggerating and being irrationally paranoid. If you marry someone, you can never be sure it won’t lead to divorce. However, you can make sure that you won’t marry a person who would try to ruin your life and give you a trip to prison only because they want a divorce .
“I’m not a woman, but he /thought/ I’m a woman, which is why I got put into the southern bigot category. It’s not rocket science, Mr. Red Bones! ”
I’m sorry. I didn’t realize I was talking to a soothsayer.
If you can read minds how come you haven’t claimed that James Randi money yet,bud?
“But no, I have never seen someone who’d lie for money, though I’m sure they exist. What I /certainly/ have never seen though is couples trying to get each other in /jail/ through such destructive accusations as rape when in a divorce.”
Really? Why don’t you go talk to a male divorce lawyer and ask him about it to determine whether or not what these men are saying is true before unilaterally dismissing it as paranoid?
Everybody lies in divorce proceedings. Anybody involved in handling them will tell you that.If that’s the only thing you’re having trouble with,and you’re willing to listen to the truth, you can find it out for yourself.
It’s not at all controversial.
@ xtrnl
I’m sorry that not believing that marriage is such a hopeless situation makes me unable to reach your man-standards, xtrnl.
So you think the comparison is accurate? You think men are a small minority? You think men are unable to reach high political and economical positions due to discrimination? You think men can’t vote or get the same pay as women? Hell, are men /slaves/ and not allowed to make their own, independent decisions? For a comparison to be accurate, it has to be accurate in more than one aspect. Men are not discriminated against like African Americans have been in the past (and still are), don’t be ridiculous.
And your point became invalid the moment you compared feminism to the KKK. Thanks for playing, better luck next time!
“I’m sorry. I didn’t realize I was talking to a soothsayer.”
Sorry, I didn’t realize I was talking to someone who is unable to read the conversation before replying
I’m very sorry bud, but if you’re going around telling men to be “careful” because if their wife had a drink and you have sex with her, she could lie about being raped once she wants to divorce you, then you are paranoid. You are demonizing marriage and only the women in marriage. If you married someone who you need to be “careful” around because they may “lie about being raped”, you’re doing the marriage thing wrong. I didn’t say nobody lies, I said that it’s possible to avoid marrying someone who’d lie about being /raped/. The paranoia is grossly exaggerated in general though.
” Men are not discriminated against like African Americans have been in the past (and still are), don’t be ridiculous.”
Actually,in a way we are. In our society, there are no “whites only” spaces anymore. “Women Only” spaces do still exist.This is despite the fact that women are able to enter men’s locker rooms while they are changing in order to interview them if they want to.
Explain that one.
“And your point became invalid the moment you compared feminism to the KKK. Thanks for playing, better luck next time!”
There’s no difference between any of the supremacist movements in my mind.
“I’m very sorry bud, but if you’re going around telling men to be “careful” because if their wife had a drink and you have sex with her, she could lie about being raped once she wants to divorce you, then you are paranoid. ”
And if you are unwilling to read the literature on the subject or talk to one single expert before giving us your “enlightened opinion”, then you are an admitted ignorant ass fool.
You don’t even have a fucking clue and you’re sarcastically mocking the people with the document on a flash drive or their computer that says “Yes, your wife can accuse you of rape if she’s had one drink and you will go to jail for it,and she will get all your belongings.”.
We’re being asked to believe you over our “lying eyes”.
Fuck you, you snide little shit. You’re not even pretending like you know something about the subject,you’re just slandering various posters like a 12 year old girl.
Hahaha, you guys are all so /angry/. I guess I just lack the irrational victim complex that one needs to fit in here. What a shame :c
Red Bones, you still don’t seem to understand that I’m mostly mocking the people who actually marry a woman they don’t know well enough and don’t trust enough to be certain that she won’t lie about being raped in an attempt to jail you and ruin your life.
But oh well, go ahead, marry a woman and be paranoid throughout for the rest of your life. I’m sure /that/ will turn out to be a happy, successful marriage!
LOL, Rene has a dick and still doesn’t know what it is like to have a dick.
I feel your pain, Rene. I’m accused of being a man when I post on women’s sites. They just can’t believe a woman would EVER say anything negative about another woman.
My Dad used to say “They call you paranoid until it turns out you were right. THEN they say “You were VERY astute”.
My son was the victim of a false rape accusation after I pissed off my sister in law. She had tried other things to break up my marriage before. There was nothing else she could say or do to me, personally, but harm my child.
It was truly The Perfect Crime.
At one point, I offered to divorce her brother if she would drop the case against my son. The prosecutor threatened to prosecute her instead if she tried to back out. The prosecutor knew all along it was a lie, but prosecuting a male for rape is much more lucrative than prosecuting a mother and daughter for making false rape accusations (I’d given her names and addresses of others she’d falsely accused, but it was rape shielded).
The only reason I didn’t divorce my husband was on the advice of a falsely accused man, who told me “Your son will always feel it was his fault if you do”.
Truth is stranger than fiction, and no paranoid on earth could have EVER foreseen something like that happening.
Like the song says: “If you ain’t scared, you ain’t right”.
I’m actually really sorry to hear that, that’s a tragic story. What happened in the end? Was it possible for your lawyer to successfully use your story against that of your sister-in-law?
What puzzles me is that people here seem to be twisting my words and end up missing my point. It’s sad that this happened to your son and your family, but I never actually said that no one is ever falsely accused of rape. It seems like just having a different opinion on one little fact here immediately gives people the idea that you must disagree with /every/ opinion they have :\
What happened in the end?
Ten days before the hearing (juveniles aren’t allowed trials) the family up and moved out of state to avoid testifying.
I thought you had the right to face your accuser in a court of law, but apparently not. My son was offered an Alford plea (not admitting guilt, but considered guilty) for no jail time and a C (minor) felony. The plea was offered because the prosecutor “admitted” it was a weak case – the accuser was virginally intact, waited two years to “disclose” during a tantrum when she wasn’t allowed to attend a party, and my son had passed multiple polygraphs and had no legal history.
He refused and insisted on his hearing. His attorney was not allowed to question or interview the accuser beforehand. (We were told we would have to pay the attorney and prosecutor & her assistant to fly out of state to interview her. His attorney & the prosecutor joked about us paying for their ski vacation.)
We couldn’t afford that, but he refused to plead guilty.
A few days before the hearing ( we lived 1,500 miles away, btw, so neither we, nor the accusers lived in that state) we got a frantic call from his attorney saying the accuser had been admitted to a mental hospital, he was facing 6 years in prison if he didn’t accept the plea. “Who are they gonna believe? YOU? Or that Poooooooor little girl in a mental hospital?”
He accepted the plea for no jail time, then was jailed anyway after passing another polygraph saying he didn’t do it. It was a trap. If you accept an “I’m not guilty plea” then pass a polygraph saying you aren’t guilty you go to jail for being dangerous and in denial.
After jail came three years of brutal “sex offender therapy” where you are forced to confess. It where I learned first hand the definition of “skull fuck”. He would have confessed to the Lindburgh kidnapping or shooting Kennedy to avoid prison, but it’s not that simple.
You have to pass a polygraph saying you did it. You have to outline what you did, blow by blow. His accuser had spent years in sex abuse therapy from prior accusations and claimed EVERY sex act know to man…my son had limited experience as a 16 year old and could not describe anal or oral (both versions) sex in explicit detail. He had to describe how he was able to keep everyone in the house (parents, two siblings and two grandparents) from knowing what was going on. Oh, did I say she claimed he used a knife? It’s why she didn’t “disclose” for two years…
Long and short of it, he survived. He was finally released from therapy after a court hearing where I was forced to say “He asked me to believe he is guilty, so I do” – they were going to send him to prison for “Not taking responsibility of making his mother believe he is guilty”.
He will be thirty years old this year. This started four days before his 16th birthday, and he sucessfully petitioned to get off the registry just two months ago.
He ran into his Aunt at an airport when he was 23. She started crying and asking him to “just let it go! Let’s be a family again!”.
He told he he already had. That was the first time I saw him break down and cry over the ordeal. “I thought she was crazy. I thought she really believed it happened! I could live with THAT…but…
She knew all along! why! Why did she ruin MY life?”
When he petitioned for removal from the registry…we were told she was “strongly opposed”.
@Rene
“But oh well, go ahead, marry a woman and be paranoid throughout for the rest of your life. I’m sure /that/ will turn out to be a happy, successful marriage!”
You do realize that most of us here wouldn’t advise any man to get married,don’t you? I’m not going to “marry a woman and be paranoid throughout for the rest of my life”,I’m not going to marry a woman at all.
“Red Bones, you still don’t seem to understand that I’m mostly mocking the people who actually marry a woman they don’t know well enough and don’t trust enough to be certain that she won’t lie about being raped in an attempt to jail you and ruin your life.”
Please, all-knowing swami, tell us all exactly how to recognize a person who may lie in court if told they may receive a substantial sum of money for it.
I am eager to hear your obviously very well-informed dissertation on this subject.
Better yet, why don’t you show us all how it’s done? Go for it. You find that girl who won’t lie for about half a million dollars (all told) that she doesn’t have to work for and you hold her tight for the rest of your life. If it doesn’t work out, you go ahead and come back here and lick up all the bullshit you spewed all over the place.
EDIT: Awww. Is Rene already banned? That’s too bad. I was looking forward to hearing how to spot somebody who’d lie for money.
Maybe it’s their distinctive plumage?
Or some particular mannerism?
Or the color of their skin,perhaps? Pretty sticky territory there,wot? Our buddy Rene would have a hard time not being discriminating while describing in graphic detail how we should discriminate against women to determine which ones might abuse the laws for personal profit.
“He will be thirty years old this year. This started four days before his 16th birthday, and he sucessfully petitioned to get off the registry just two months ago.
He ran into his Aunt at an airport when he was 23. She started crying and asking him to “just let it go! Let’s be a family again!”.
He told he he already had. That was the first time I saw him break down and cry over the ordeal. “I thought she was crazy. I thought she really believed it happened! I could live with THAT…but…
She knew all along! why! Why did she ruin MY life?”
When he petitioned for removal from the registry…we were told she was “strongly opposed”.”
Absolutely heartbreaking.
I hope some day the MRM is able to get justice for your son,or at least able to stop this from happening to other people’s sons.
It saddens me to think men like your son have all the evils of the world put on their shoulders while people like Mary Daly enjoy accolades for promoting mass murder.
And that some people,like Rene,would claim it is your son’s fault when something like this happens to him.
Thank you, Mr. Bones.
During the argument with my sister in law I threatened to report her for child molesting.
I was banned from participating in my son’s defense because I insisted that was why she made the accusation.
The prosecutor told the Judge I was “revictimizing the victim”, that I was “trashing the victim” and threatened me with civil court prosecution if I did not stop saying it.
When I hear people asking how Sandusky got away with it all those years it’s like a hot poker through my heart.
I googled that prosecutor’s name recently. In 2007 there was a family of a murder victim complaining that she had been rude toward them when they insisted she press charges against the girlfriend who murdered him. He had applied for a restraining order that was never delivered, was frequently the victim of her physical abuse, and was stabbed while trying to get his cars keys from her – she didn’t drive, and was taking their daughter.
She was never prosecuted. One article pictures a facebook page she made to memorialize him with the words “fuck you”.
Two years later is another article where she caused the death of another boyfriend by grabbing the steering wheel and crashing the car.
My sister in law is mentally ill. Bi polar, border line personality or factitious disorder, munchaussens – who knows I can only guess. She’s out of my life, I don’t care anymore.
It’s those in the legal system profitting from crazies that need outting, but those are some very wealthy, well connected and powerful people.
That’s not paranoia talking, either.
Rene Houton: to address your question— Don’t women only marry men they trust rather than men who will beat them and cheat on them?
There are a few key issues that you are failing to recognize.
First is that the law is on women’s side. She’s allowed and even empowered to fuck a man over. To take his property, to take his children, to extort him for decades and to use false accusations to facilitate these things. This is seen as a net “good” in our society.
Men, for their part, are told that women are good and loving and are never allowed to see the dark and corrupt side of women let alone mention it publicly. Failed marriages are almost universally believed to be the fault of men. When a woman divorces she is being liberated. When a man divorces he is abandoning his wife and kids.
So when a man marries a woman he does trust her and is encouraged to ignore all of her behavior that might lead him to think she is untrustworthy.
The same cannot be said of women. Men are regarded with suspicion at every turn and ONLY men must prove their worthiness to be a husband and father. These things are considered rights for women.
I hope this answers your question.
Paranoia is an unfounded distrust of others, sometimes reaching delusional proportions. I learned to distrust women based on experience and I see reality quite clearly. Jaded is a much better description.
I married someone I loved and trusted. It didn’t prevent her from putting a knife in my back. As the saying goes, it takes two to get married but only one to get a divorce.
“And your point became invalid the moment you compared feminism to the KKK.”
Had you done your fucking homework, you’d have known that the pioneers of feminism in America were members of the KKK.
Do some more homework before you continue your hit and run trolling.
It seems to me that the definition of rape in 2012 is the following: rape is whatever a woman wants it to be.
It is disturbing that there is no safe way for a man to have sex with a woman without fear of imprisonment. This misandric society expects men to be psychics who are expected to read the minds of women and predict whether or not she will press phony chargers against him.
I remember several women I dated in the past who flipped out on me because I always wanted their consent before I initiated intimate contact. They said, “It isn’t romantic and it ruins the mood. Just go for it!”
These women didn’t understand things from a male perspective. The scary part is that women have pressed raped charges against men, even if the women gave consent or didn’t say “no.”
Sexual contact between men and women is increasingly becoming more of a lose-lose situation for men. Knowing a woman can ruin my life after we have sex is always in the back of my mind, and I am not willing to take any chances.
It must be clear now that men are not being represented in power in any meaningful way. Elected male representatives represent only their female constituents. So do elected female representatives. There is no democracy in the West for men – our vote only decides who gets to represent women’s interests.
Maybe it’s time we started insisting on men electing only men representatives, and women electing theirs, with no new law without 60% support.
Only when men are elected by men, and thrown out of office by men, will they understand they are there to represent male interests.
We understand the concept of interest groups having the right to represent themselves with an elected delegate in every other context, but seem to be blind to the idea that we have legitimate interests as men. Until we accept the necessity of having our own representation, we will continue to be treated like every other unrepresented people in history.
Having men vote only for candidates of their own gender, & having women vote only for candidates of their own gender? I never thought of that before. Assuming a rule like that could be implemented, I suppose it would encourage more women to run for office, as well as encourage each gender to look out for its own interests (which women already do, but men need to learn to do). I wouldn’t hold my breath, though.
Here’s a pet theory that I’ve been chewing over for a few days:
Psychology, as a science, has only one true field where anything like proper experiments can be tried repeatedly. That field is marketing.
It is the only body of evidence in psychology where things have been repeatedly tried to manipulate people (into buying things) where there can be anything like a verifiable result (which is sales).
Any marketing course will tell you that the main consumer in a Western society is that animal known colloquially as “the housewife”.
Politicians in recent decades have been turning to marketing guru’s on how to get the more votes, and the only people the marketing guys really know how to manipulate are housewifes. Hence the concentration on “feminine” issues.
The best thing that men could do to counter this trend in politics is take more interest and control of the family budget.
Stopping spending on discretionary items will have a deeper effect on the politicians in the long run. Also, stopping spending on companies with misandric messages will also make a telling point.
Therein lies the problem as well as the answer.
Women organized themselves and got themselves elected, so to speak. Male and female politicians both stumble over themselves to pander to women voters or to pass laws however unConstitutional to appease their female (majority) voters.
Women already have an organized FTSU. During my son’s hearing there was an organized bunch of women who showed up specifically to “advocate” for the accuser. I’m talking about 8 – 10 women. They exaggeratedly passed a large box of kleenex among themselves, waving it in the air disruptively, wagging it overhead so those farest away could confirm they already had one. Once the “show” got started they began openly sobbing and waving their kleenex’s like flags at the UN.
It was incredibly theatrical, but very effective. The Judge certainly got the message.
From “The Crucible”:
ABIGAIL: I want to open myself! [They turn to her, startled. She is enraptured, as though in a pearly light.] I want the light of God, I want the sweet love of Jesus! I danced for the Devil; I saw him; I wrote in his book; I go back to Jesus; I kiss His hand. I saw Sarah Good with the Devil! I saw Goody Osburn with the Devil! I saw Bridget Bishop with the Devil!
[As she is speaking, Betty is rising from the bed, a fever in her eyes, and picks up the chant – the chant is echoed in the distant music of the dance in the forest – there is wind in the trees.]
BETTY[, staring too]: I saw George Jacobs with the Devil! I saw Goody Howe with the Devil!
PARRIS: She speaks! [He rushes to embrace Betty.] She speaks!
HALE: Glory to God! It is broken, they are free!
A kindly gentleman from Tennessee sent me The Crucible to read during my son’s travails. He also sent a copy of The Winslow Boy.
I was also given Dale Carnegie’s How To Stop worrying And Start Living, and Viktor Frankel’s Man’s Search For Meaning.
I truly think I would have died if not for those last two books. They were my survival manuals.
Frankel’s book is a masterpiece, and a book every living man should read.
Hey John, I’ve got an idea. I love the articles on this site. Yours are always awesome!
I’m reading disabled, I have dyslexia, so I use a text to speech program to listen to the articles on this site. There are a lot of people like me, and there are a lot of people that simply don’t like to read, hence the success of You-Tube.
I think it would be cool if someone would volunteer to record You-Tube reads of these articles. I think it would be fine to just show the site logo with a link for the image for the video.
I think this would also help to draw attention to the site from people that wouldn’t find it through other ways.
If someone wants to do this, they can even send me the audio file and I’ll go through the trouble of making the video.
It is a great idea that would also benefit the idea of reaching a lot more people. If someone wants to produce the audio tracks, and can make them of good quality, we will be happy as hell to host them here all dayh long.
I told Paul this before: we really need T-shirts with Japanese Hirigana or Katagana symbols spelling out the grass-eating boys.
I would buy 12!!! It is the ultimate MGTOW garment.
Why, Paul??? Why are these not commercially available right now?????
[Sorry I'm hyperventilating. Long day.]
Try hollywoodloser.com.
We have three different types of shirts now. I just got some overdue orders sent out.Our online store should be launching pretty soon.Doing all this stuff takes a lot of time and effort.
All respect, brother, we need help a lot more than we need ideas.
Sounds like the grass eaters of Japan really get it!
Agreed! Grass eaters are going to be the new Japanese export..
Hells yeah! I better become a vegetarian too, being a carnivore is just too dangerous these days.
My mother and the older of my two sisters got men drunk in order to get pregnant and force the young men concerned into marriages. My mother saw it as the only way to escape her rapist father. My sister was afraid of being left on the shelf.
Both events were rapes by today’s standards and both involve extraordinary power and control motivations.
My sister openly brags about what she did. Clearly nobody has ever suggested to her, or my mother for that matter, that what they did was wrong.
In my case I was raped by an aunt at age seven and by my partner of twelve months just over a decade ago(still have the scars around my scrotum from that one). However references to my experiences have been met with violence more than once, ridicule, laughter, claims of dishonesty on my part and even accusations that I’m really a rapist myself.
Were you ever able to find people willing to listen?
Right here.
Me too!!!
Looks like right here too: http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/heresy-rape-statistics-and-getting-away-from-the-poles/ The good girls who try to create Good Men as a “Project’ deserve some serious credit for being far more honest than their bigoted sisters. Of course, the comments need to be read as an antidote for equating feminists to MRA’s.
I’m so sorry gwallan. I regret that we live in a society in which there is a plethora of sympathy for women, and virtually none for men. I’ve actually coined a term to describe this phenomenon. I call it “the monopoly of sympathy.”
This is what prompted me to join the movement. It’s not right that people have endless sympathy and concern for female victims of sexual violence (or violence in general), and little or none for male victims of the same crimes. A moral human being should respond with compassion to any other human being who has been mistreated, regardless of their gender.
“Most adults drink socially, and now, for men, every woman with a drink in her hand is armed with a metaphorical gun, pointed at his head.”
So are “Ladies Night” bartenders culpable for crimes of rape too? If a bartender continues to serve drinks to a drunk after he’s had his limit and the drunk drives off and kills someone, the bartender is culpable. Why wouldn’t he be just as culpable under law for a woman who got so drunk she was legally unable to give consent to sex and was “raped,” according to that new definition?
Night clubs and restaurants all across America advertise, “Ladies Free B4 10:00 p.m., Men $20,” or something similar. Of course, that’s sexist discrimination against men, but owners of such establishments are quick to point out, that it really brings the women in and that’s what guys want. “The women get in for free so they can get free drinks – bought for them by men,” said one night club employee, when asked how “Ladies Night” works.
And now such freeloading women (who sponge drinks off men) can get an extra bonus by falsely accusing the man of rape after they choose to have sex with him. Nice racket!
I’ve noticed in CA, when clubs stop offering “Ladies Nights” freebies to women, that women stop showing up.
I feel sorry for such women (not really). They’re so obviously helpless, they’re little more than invalids, functioning at a social level somewhere akin to that of a maggot. :-/
I like how you think. Since being “drunk” is not a criteria, then any drink served by a bartender to a woman who later has sex who then claims to be raped is culpable. IMO
So are “Ladies Night” bartenders culpable for crimes of rape too?
This reminds me of something. The recent episode of Mobbed involved a large group of people “mobbing” a girl with an elaborate dance and song in order to convince her to go on a date with a very insecure young man. They admitted openly that they were manipulating her so that instead of rejecting him, she would accept him. I imagine feminists would be an uproar about this, and that if she had sex with him they would deem it rape.
“They admitted openly that they were manipulating her so that instead of rejecting him, she would accept him. I imagine feminists would be in an uproar about this, and that if she had sex with him they would deem it rape.”
Yep!
How about a guy who rents a Jaguar, saves up and gives that knock out looking babe an expensive night out. Maybe he even lies and tells her he’s a doctor, or some other professional. She’s so thrilled that she has sex with him, then finds out a few days later he’s just an apprentice plumber. Can she make a claim of rape too? I wouldn’t be surprised, given the direction this new law is heading.
Witch-Hunting Males has long been a feminist pattern in society, especially on college campuses, and now feminist man-haters been given great new power to “Witch-Hunt Males” with a vengeance.
Yes, some feminists think using Game and lying to get laid constitute rape.
That’s amusing, however, because if that’s true, then it’s also rape when women wear make-up to appear more attractive than they actually are.
Similarly, if a guy’s advance is considered sexual harassment, then a woman dressing provocatively should also be considred sexual harassment.
Back in the early 1970s, the first version of OSHA became law. As a worker who’s made a career in the trades, I’d be the last to say that OSHA laws haven’t done a significant amount (over the years) to make the work place safer. However, in the early days, there were some pretty ridiculous things that critics had a field day criticizing, i.e. “Cowboy after OSHA.” http://tinyurl.com/7y9upee
The time is long overdue for a lampooning of feminist laws, titled “Woman After Feminism,” or ‘Women After Feminist Laws,” or some such title, IMO. I can’t draw, but invite those who can to have at it. Maybe a good beginning would be to take that symbol of the symbol for woman, with the clinched fist in the middle http://tinyurl.com/7kwedqk and put trainer wheels on it so all those liberated female babies don’t fall over, when they’re doing everything better than a man. Maybe just show that symbol with crutches holding it up, and label the crutches VAWA, etc. You get the idea.
They don’t even have to have had a drink……they just have to say they did. Remember, they don’t have to report it in the next hour. So you can’t even prove that she had not had a drink…even if she didn’t.
The only way that any man is safe from this law is not have sex, under any circumstances. But even then…..they can say you did.
Totally fucked. I have the solution. Chop your dick off…..the hospital records will show what date you were rendered dickless….that way if any woman claims to have had sex with you……you’ll have the one and only piece of evidence that can prove she’s lying.
Come to think of it she’ll just change her story and say you used a strap on………….nup……you’re all fucked.
Once discovered he has no dick she will change her story and state that he used a dildoe. Guilty!
Btw, if I’m not mistaken, I believe the law here in Oz says that oral penetration…with any body part…..not just genitals…is sexual assault……if without consent…..combine the drink law….and kissing a woman who has had even one drink…..is sexual assault……even if she initiated the kiss. You’re next new years eve kiss could see you on the sex offenders register after a spell in jail getting your ass reamed.
Just another piece of good news. Since it’s considered DV to deprive your partner of sex……if you’re a man that is…..then if you’re partner likes a drink….you can either go the DV way and deny sex…….or give her the sex she wants and be rapist.
Hang on….it gets worse. All these DV laws apply to intimate partners…..not just wives and defacto. An intimate partner is defined as a woman who you have had intimate relations with……it doesn’t say when. You’re ex girlfriend from 10 years ago that you’re still friendly with and mix in the same social circle with could demand sex from you…..and charge you with DV for not providing. Ridiculous yes….but not ruled out.
I got more. The law here in Oz doesn’t even define what is intoxicated. Any amount of alcohol will do….and it doesn’t define how long before that alcohol was consumed. So technically if a woman has ever had a drink in her life…..she’s intoxicated…….forever.
What men need is men’s land…..a seperatist movement. But we can’t even fund our own men’s gym, or men’s anything. Men’s shed is letting women join now. After years of feminists trying to shut them down and demonize them, they have wheeled in the trojan horse……can’t beat them……join them…..and slowly turn them into sewing classes where men wear pink ribbons part time….and white ribbons the rest of the time……walk on eggshells and have sexual harassment claims made against them for looking at the organisers of the next slut walk that are using their shed to make their signs.
Well the endgame for this is that all sex is rape and the only way to avoid punishment is if the woman in question is willing to hide that fact from the authorities.
It’s all coming together now.
As long as it is done in increments no one will raise much of fuss but I’m sure those that end up repeatedly raped in prison for giving in to their horny SO/wife/girlfriend while she was drunk will wonder, “how did it come to this?”.
Anyone who has been paying attention to the nature and scale of mass atrocities that have happened in this century alone should not be overly surprised with what sort of callous brutality humanity is capable.
Aww, man, this is taking misandry to a whole new level.
I mean, have you ever tried to say no to a woman who wants to fuck because she is drunk???
There is absolutely no limit to the shaming and hysterical fits she will throw at you for not participating in her proposal. She will cry and whine to no ends, which is later followed up by dragging girlfriends into the whole thing, who will then proceed with the shaming and call you all sorts of things for ‘not being there for her’. All in the name of the Holy Drama that seems to be the general rule with drunken women. And the more vicious shaming usually starts off with telling you that you must be gay, since even fat and ugly women think so highly of themselves, that being gay must be the ONLY reason for denying having sex with them. Trust me on this one. I’ve seen it so many times that it’s The Rule.
Now imagine that happening in a crowded room, as she serves that bogus accusation up with a loud shrill voice that can’t possibly escape everyone’s attention, and she will have succesfully SHAMED you into compliance. And you won’t even be able to raise a rape accusation later, because noone believes a man claiming rape by a woman.
Looks like they just upgraded the term ‘staying away from women’ to ‘running for the nearest door’, whenever approached by an intoxicated female. This is going to effectively destroy any social life for men, if they choose to go for a night on the town, that’s for sure.
Thanks, JtO. I sincerely hope that will not be the case in my country, but I’m not holding my breath. Almost all the other shit has found it’s way here, one way or the other.
I have been there with that one.
It was like “how dare you not want me”.
I have a vaj. I am a princess.
All the while with makeup streaming, liquor and cigarette infused breath. Not to mention that almighty vaj that hadn’t seen even a towelette in twenty four hours. Yuck.
It is abuse if you do not fuck her. It is rape if you do.
Maybe what guys will have to do is declare themselves gay…even if they aren’t.
By the way, has anyone noticed that collectively the feminists claim to support gay men, but individually they hate them and consider it the best insult to launch at a straight man. I seem to be noticing more feminists on sites rubbishing gay men too.
I think the gay guys got totally suckered by befriending the feminist movement….and I think they are starting to wake up too.
“Maybe what guys will have to do is declare themselves gay…even if they aren’t.”
I actually ended up doing that, and got the other band members in on the deal, at the time I was playing with my band. It made things a hell of a lot easier on more than one occasion for everybody. Only problem was that if you later chose to go with another woman and met one of those others, the screaming and yelling would start off a cat fight instead. Our drummer would then start to take bets from people on who won. It was a great time.
Feminists often accuse straight men of being gay. It’s the worst insult they can think of. Their gay-baiting tactics offended me long before I identified as an MRA. Feminists hate us because (apart from the extreme flamers) we identify with, and as, men. As such, we are perceived as belonging to the enemy. Gay guys tend to be very skilled at calling arsehats out on their bullshit – and feminists are the biggest arsehats in recorded history.
Mr JTO’s article highlights the contorted logic required to accept the ammended rape definitions. How could it be anything other than ethically grotesque – an insult to decency and common sense – when the executive director of the ‘Women’s Law Project’ is, “very pleased”, with it. I’m sure she is. I’m equally sure she is quite chummy with the Hubsistas.
It really saddens me that heterosexual men, like my twin brother, must negotiate this minefield just to seek something as fundamental as an active sex life. He seems to have been going his own way for a while now. On one hand, I’m relieved he is out of ‘harms way’, but on the other hand, I am enraged at what these evil harridans have left him with. Like every guy here, he deserves better.
I remember what Mr JTO said long ago about feminism having no end game. They are far from finished. They will continue to tinker away with their “Plans’ and “Projects’ until the whole of humanity is dragged down to their level of spiteful misery. We must never give in to them. They have no idea how hard I am prepared to fight for myself, and all my brothers.
lol… how do you prove you’re gay?
Celibacy is still a choice.
Getting laid is not vital to any man. The feminist apes operate under the idiotic assumption that all men young and old, owe it to themselves to chase tail and score as many times as possible.
The whole thing is a damn cliche!
Who the fuck said it was mandatory for all young men to have sex? If they can’t tempt you with sex, they have no power over you, period!!
that’s a stark and effective way to put it, *every* man needs to be aware of this..
This could have an interesting turn of events though. If men become too careful when sleeping with women who had a drink, sooner or later women will find it hard to get laid without staying sober. This new variation of the law can in fact end up being restrictive to women too, some will obviously start to think “this is getting insane, I just want to have a good time, now when I drink my boyfriend doesn’t want to sleep with me”. It could be an interesting twist that men slowly stop offering a drink to women just because of that law, except to show that they’re only interested in remaining friends. Then it will get even more confusing for women if they see that the guy they like doesn’t offer a drink “Does it mean he’s not interested in me? Or that he wants to sleep with me?” The same action could mean both end of the spectrum. I’m sure, or at least I hope (forgive the optimism) there are plenty of women out there who will find this quite silly. Typical delusions that you can control human nature by passing more and more laws, it always, sooner or later back fires. I’m curious to see what happens with that one… But another nail on passion’s coffin unfortunately. Once again in an attempt to control unlikely events, they make it ridiculously complicated for everyone else…
Can I interest anyone in a Jaded Lady?
1.0 fl. oz. of Gin
1.0 fl. oz. of Blue Curacao
1.0 fl. oz. of Advocaat
1.5 fl. oz. of Orange Juice
1 Man “On Ice”
“Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
Many boys are rape stimulating their testicles, many girls and women are rape stimulating clitoris and women rapist are the one who tend to commit rape in this way, what I see here is an attempt mist that women tend to stimulate their victims so will appears rape is when you have penetration (male rapist) does the new definition include penetration with object? yes, but what female rapist use object more that male rapist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCpr3hr0K30&feature=channel_video_title
“incapable of giving consent because of mental or physical incapacity, such as intoxication.”
Never forget. feminist is the crazy notion that women should be treated like oversize children.
You can’t enjoy civil rights destined for adulthood and at the same time being level like a children incompetence of right and wrong doing, women are looking for one night stand in ladies nights, so we assume here women thanks to feminist have it more easy if their feeling are hurts (forget the facts this shit and logic is about feelings for the fems).
If you are don’t take responsibility like a adult you can’t enjoy rights like a adult.
They can enjoy the rights of an adult and the responsiblity of a child at the same time though. They have been doing it for years and now they are increasing it.
Another solid article from JTO.
Where is non-consensual cunnilingus in “or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”? Did I miss this or is this another glaring hole in the new definition of rape?
“Where is non-consensual cunnilingus in “or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”? Did I miss this or is this another glaring hole in the new definition of rape?”
Something tells me the lesbos pushing for this sex-hating new rape definition would consider that a “good rape”.
Oh,by the way, feminists are absolutely right, these new rape laws would seriously reduce the amount of male rape victims, if female rapists were wont to penetrate their victims’ anuses with their vagina, but since that’s physically impossible, I guess they’ll just continue to get away with forcible envelopment of their victims penises while they’re passed out,physically restrained, or drugged with Viagra and such,like they’ve always done.
This law changes nothing for male rape victims who were raped by women. Just the way feminists prefer it.
They love rape. As long as it’s them raping people.
I believe that they love rape. Period. It’s such a wonderful idea that gets such great mileage. Permanent victim status.
Also, it gives them the godlike power to tinker around with others’ lives.
It occurs to me that there’d be zero male on female rapes if women were sequestered away from men in some sort of a secure facility somewhere.
The reason feminists didn’t implement that idea is because it would limit women’s choices. Can’t have that. Better to make men have to get 16 different forms of authorization signed in triplicate before they can have sex, cause that’s different somehow.
Yes, the crime worse than death.
Interestingly some lesbians have written impassioned papers about how (feminist) rape crisis centers ignore/deny female-female rape. It’s ironically hilarious to see feminist women getting a taste of the same kind of medicine that men always have to swallow. Of course these same lesbian writers remain totally silent about the rape of males by females.
I’ve told women I’m gay a few time, on occasion if they’re particularly stupid or drunk they’ll take it as a challenge to “convert” me – and in those cases I’ll manipulate them into publicly embarassing themselves so that they have no choice except to go away.
None of the standard tactics of shaming and manipulation women commonly employ on men are effective unless you care about their opinions.
“None of the standard tactics of shaming and manipulation women commonly employ on men are effective unless you care about their opinions.”
This is highly situation dependent. In shame cultures/subcultures, public shaming can literally lead to total dehumanization followed by murder. Female predators who use these tactics know full well that they enjoy a huge risk/reward ratio because shame is socially sanctioned in all cultures (more or less) and is an external force they can commonly abuse to their advantage. Therefore, it’s very important to force the shammer to pay a very high price for using this (female favored) WMD for the wrong reasons…as RegisterHer already does so well.
And even less affective if you actually enjoy rejecting them.
Dr. M.L. King Jr once referred to “tokenism” wherein the occasional black person would be appointed to political office, but the overall system would remain racist. I see a parallel here; on the surface, a redef. of rape would seem to be male-inclusive, but more is going on than meets the eye.
“incapable of giving consent because of mental or physical incapacity, such as intoxication.”
Hmmmm….very interesting. Well, in that case! Hi, my name is J3DIforce1…and I am a victim of rape!
Mental incapacity…….all feminists in other words.
Hi, my name is Kimski, and I am a victim of rape.
Hi, my name is Bombay, and I am a victim of sexual assault when I was 4 by my sister’s female friend.
And people wonder why I don’t drink, aside from the fact that my Dad was an alcoholic and that my brother died of liver failure due to his drinking over a year ago.
But you can just say you drink…..comon…..come in from the cold…..be a victim….it feels so good.
Stu here….surviver of hundreds of rapes……how many drinks was that again……one will do….make that thousands.
For years in Australia there’s been an extremely effective programme here that dissuades drink driving. The line that never changes is this:
“If you drink and drive you’re a bloody idiot.”
Yeah, well how about this revision under the circumstances:
If you drink and bonk you’re a fuckwit.”
Call me a cab mate, I’m off home for a wank.
Cool.
No need to ever buy a woman a drink.
Men can save a bundle of cash!
After all ‘empowered’ women can buy their own drinks right?……………..as they watch the guy/s they were hanging out with making an exit for personal safety.
Guys just have to be calm in making the exit, no drama, just leave and cover their asses on the way by telling someone like perhaps the bartender or a trusted friend exactly why they’re leaving so there’s no chance of uncorroborated vicious blowback from the vindictive jilted bitches taking hold.
Wow! This is really going to fuck women’s shit up big time!
No more drinks bought for them!
Plus at the first sign of them buying their own alcohol the man/men are out the door!
Another plus is it may go some way to encouraging many women to stop being empty headed binge drinking sluts – at least whilst around men.
Feminists ALWAYS end up hurting women in their zeal to restrict men such is their retarded cult.
Hmmmmmmm……….What to do with the extra saved cash?
Maybe spend it on a few aVFM t shirts and other MRA paraphenalia?
BTW I love the idea of an anti-feminst cartoon strip.
If only I could draw and wasn’t already so busy………but for some other guy with some spare time and artistic flare………….hint hint.
Oi !
Bloody well heard that I did aye.
http://www.artistryagainstmisandry.com/ has some of that guys cartoons.
More to be added to be sure to be sure as eggs and femmos are clowns in heat.
Thanks Dr F,
I hadn’t realized we had a cartoonist on board doing MRA cartoons.
Keep up the good work.
We can use this as a conversation starter with blue pill men. Let’s say he’s telling you about hanging out with the ladies partying Friday night. You can say, Careful Bro. The Fed’s changed the law. If you score with a girl that’s had just one drink, you’ve raped her in the eyes of the law. How fuck up is that?”
Most blue pill men don’t want to listen to what red pill men have to say. But I think they will listen to this. This interferes with their pussy supply and could put them in jail. Something like this could wake the sleeping giant.
“If a man has sex while he’s drunk, is he a rape victim because being drunk, he was unable to render informed consent?” My answer is “yes”, but the current laws says “no”. As pointed out in this article, when the gender is reversed the laws says “yes” and this is a male-bias.
However, there is a loophole in this law: Mammary intercourse, footjob, etc. Is non-consensual sexual acts like these counts as rape? If it is, then is the unwilling partner regardless of sex is the victim?
Thank you so much JTO for covering this little snippet that flew right under the mainstream radar. 99.99% of men in the US have no idea this just happened and what it means for them.
The test case would be if a woman sat on an inebriated man’s face and forced her labia minora and clitoris into his mouth. By US legal definition this would now be rape.
Get a good lawyer friend, you’re going to need it to argue that one. Some genders are more equal than others!
Well you could probably hand this out to the conniving bitch but it would not be enough for the gender panderers.
http://i.imgur.com/pxAmT.jpg
@ Rene Houton
C-ya
Entering a Men’s Rights forum and lecturing about marriage (in a sanctimonious, self-righteous tone) when you have no idea what you’re talking about,…
…is like reading Math for Dummies and thinking you’re a bonafide expert on calculus.
It just goes to show how long the education and awareness campaign might go on. Those that think they know are the most annoying.
@Rene Houten
I get where you are coming from even if it is poorly stated.
And I agree with you that we should all be responsible for our own choices. We should thoroughly vet a prospective wife and gauge her character and beliefs. Most men aren’t given the tools let along permission to be critical about a woman in this way. The most common word to describe a man who does this is “misogynist”.
In an equal world both sexes would do this and would have no one else to blame but themselves should things not work out.
But this is not an equal world.
For starters males are socialized to believe that women are naturally good and that aberrant behavior on the part of women is acceptable.
Secondly, the law does not protect both sexes equally. Women’s accusations of abuse are taken more seriously than men’s. This gives women more power in the relationship.
Third is that the divorce industry is designed to privilege women and the welfare industry rewards women for kicking the father out of her children’s lives.
Lastly, for all the obligations that men have towards women, there are no corresponding or reciprocal obligations that women have towards men. How can any man and woman be in an equal partnership when only the male is required to have an obligation or duty towards his spouse?
All of these give women a great deal of power over a man and as we know “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Even if we pick the best woman that doesn’t mean at the end of a marriage she wont’ be angry enough to retaliate. After 7 years the human body replaces every single cell. Do you think after a 10 year marriage we are the same as when we first married? Then there are unscrupulous lawyers that will convince a woman to fight dirty by making false accusations and the courts will tolerate this behavior.
What you call “paranoia” is in fact a discussion between men on how not to get fucked over. We are essentially teaching each other how to recognize bad women and protect ourselves from them.
And that is exactly what you are asking us to do.