Feminist rape hysteria re-defines and extends rape definitions with manipulative language, abolishes due process, and infantilizes women whose enthusiastic consent is frequently invalid. The goal is to convict as many men as possible, for the most flimsy and unproven accusations, even if the alleged crime stems from the 1970’ies. False rape revenge accusations are always to be believed and to be taken at face value, liars almost never punished.
Britain’s Spiked-Online is one of the few sites opposing the rape hysteria. We recommend clicking on the links to read the following articles in their entirety, also Barbara Hewson‘s writings.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 declared that consent must be ‘active, not passive’; in rape cases, consent is now taken to mean agreement rather than the absence of a refusal. So if a woman goes along with sex, but doesn’t make it explicitly clear that she is actively consenting to it, it can be deemed to be rape. The government has even moved towards ensuring that no agreement can be taken as consent if it is given under the influence of alcohol. 
It is very courageous for Barbara Hewson to out herself as a *child sex apologist. She draws a lot of negativity, unfortunately, very few people agree with her.
Among all the bad press, here a few positive voices
[Hanson] made light of what she regards as trivial sexual touching of young people by adults, saying that making an issue of it distracts people from really serious abuse, such as rape. Her view is that there are qualitatively different forms of sex abuse and they shouldn’t be lumped together.
Positive reactions to Barbara Hewson’s proposals are rare. Who dares to favor "child abuse", teenage sexuality, to protect "dirty old men"?
scientists have found that men DO NOT prefer maximally fertile women.
An interesting suggestion how to implement age of consent laws
Ok, fix specific age at 12 or 13, the normal age of puberty (though apparently it is shifting). Make consent completely impossible below this age. From 13 to 18, when the person is legally a minor, give parents authority to demand any relationship stop, without making that relationship automatically illegal. Then, from 13 to 15, impose a maximum age difference of 7 years (beyond which consent is assumed to have been obtained through coercion), where a high burden of proof is needed to make consent valid. Between 3 and 7 years of age difference, decide on a case by case basis (to see if consent was obtained through coercion) and below 3 years of age difference, make it legal. How’s that for specificity? permalink
Judgy Bitch has very refreshing strong opinions:
Lower age of consent! Such a daring proposal by prominent barrister Barbara Hewson exposes her to death and rape threats by the vicious political correctness and sexual panic crowd of today and subjects her to fierce criticism. In today’s lunacy of ever expanding sex crimes, ever rising age of consent3, a rare voice of reason gets drowned out quickly by the ruling powerful moral panic mongers, led by feminists.
Human-Stupidity wonders where she got the courage to voice such taboo opinions. We encourage all to read Barbara Hewson’s original article and to promote and encourage her views. One such rare positive blog is the antifeminist.
- Barbara Hewson also said aged of consent should be lowered to 13
- She described Operation Yewtree arrests as a ‘grotesque spectacle’
- Claimed disgraced Stuart Hall’s crimes were ‘low level misdemeanors’
- NSPCC said her ‘outdated and simply ill-informed’ views ‘beggars belief’
- Dr Brooke Magnanti, formerly know as prostitute Belle de Jour is also fairly negative, in spite of her positive experience with older men she titles her article Making sex legal at 13 is pure lunacy
Ironically I became very aware of this reality as a second-year student at university, dating someone twice my age. In our case, the problem was not that he took advantage of me – far from it – but rather that the age difference meant our expectations and hopes for dating were very different. To me, he was a cool, smart guy with his own flat and car. Score! What it took me much longer to see is that he was losing out by getting involved with someone who expected casual dating, not a potential long term partner. Not too long after we split, he married…someone his own age. (We’re still friends by the way. At least he saved me from having to ever date any 18-year-old boys.)
introduce a strict statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions;
Barbara Hewson has the courage to make such suggestions in today’s sex hysterical climate. Unfortunately, she is alone, against the hysterical masses, the mainstream press and loud feminists and so called child protection agencies.
the most remarkable facet of the Savile scandal is how adult complainants are invited to act like children. Hence we have witnessed the strange spectacle of mature adults calling a children’s charity to complain about the distant past.
The acute problems of proof which stale allegations entail also generates a demand that criminal courts should afford accusers therapy, by giving them ‘a voice’. This function is far removed from the courts’ traditional role, in which the state must prove defendants guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Constitutional rights to due process have been abolished for men.
What this infantilising of adult complainants ultimately requires is that we re-model our criminal-justice system on child-welfare courts. These courts (as I have written in spiked previously) have for some decades now applied a model of therapeutic jurisprudence, in which ‘the best interests of the child’ are paramount.
It is depressing, but true, that many reforms introduced in the name of child protection involve sweeping attacks on fundamental Anglo-American legal rights and safeguards, such as the presumption of innocence. This has ominous consequences for the rule of law, as US judge Arthur Christean pointed out: ‘Therapeutic jurisprudence marks a major and in many ways a truly radical shift in the historic function of courts of law and the basic purpose for which they have been established under our form of government. It also marks a fundamental shift in judges’ loyalty away from principles of due process and toward particular social policies. These policies are less concerned with judicial impartiality and fair hearings and more concerned with achieving particular results…’
The therapeutic model has certain analogies with a Soviet-style conception of justice, which emphasizes outcomes over processes. Yewtree is destroying the rule of law
Courageous words for a famous lawyer