Men’s Rights & Feminist Abuse Reading List

I found most of these articles through reddit.com/r/MensRights/. Highly recommended! Please mark my articles for reddit, digg, delicious etc too if you like them!

Consensual sex, followed by rape, followed by consensual sex

Every man is in danger of getting rape accusations at all times. From long term girlfriends, wives, dates, or strangers. Feminists made the world a mine field for men.

Just in case you don’t get the gist of this: the women agreed to several sex acts, then was raped once, and then did a few more consensual sex acts. And of course all this without corraborating evidence like videotapes or witnesses.  No man can be safe, if he has a sex life. Except if he is gay.

Judge Lacava said after the consensual sex the pair had a shower together. While the woman was still in the shower Hronas made demands of her in a domineering voice. The woman became scared as Hronas’s voice and demeanour changed, the court heard. Judge Lacava said the rape was “spontaneous and opportunistic” but Hronas did not ask the victim’s consent. A jury found Hronas guilty of one count of rape. The court heard after the rape the pair engaged in further sex acts. http://www.smh.com.au/national/internet-date-led-to-sex-then-rape-20100730-10z4f.html

Poor Homeless Man’s inheritance confiscated to pay alimony for kid he did not father

The homeless man has his only chance in life to get money from an inheritance, but merciless feminists and a justice system slanted to help women at the expense of innocent men will destroy this guy’s chance at happiness and money.

Seventeen years later, in 2008, Tate asked the probate court to intercept tens of thousands of dollars Wilburn was about to inherit from his deceased mother, based on the 1991 support order. Wilburn’s family tracked down 22-year-old Alexis and asked her to take a DNA test, which excluded Wilburn as Alexis’ biological dad. Wilburn’s family hired an attorney, who filed a motion challening the support order. Alexis swore under oath that Wilburn never acted as her dad and she only saw him a few times in her life. The court denied the motion, ruling Wilburn should have challenged the order sooner, despite the fact that he was homeless and living under a bridge. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the order on the same grounds, and the California Supreme Court has now declined review. “This is totally unjust,” said Angelucci. “It is wrong to force a man person to pay child support for a child that is not his, especially when he never acted as the dad.” http://www.eworldwire.com/pressreleases/211794

Innocent prisoner freed after 27 years

Cleared and released, Green still has questions for rape victim who misidentified him

This story and more shocking press news follow here

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Men’s Rights & Feminist Abuse Reading List” »
Men’s Rights & Feminist Abuse Reading List » continues here »

Share

Rape Laws: dismantling of due process explained step by step

How all due process got dismantled in rape accusations. Feminst power at its best.

Feminism overrides the constitution! Amazing! Rules of due process, presumption of innocence, “innocent until proven guilty”,  are fundamental or constitutional law in most countries. Feminists managed to override  constitutional guarantees, as they managed to change thousand year old definitions of legal terms like “rape” and “child”  (see: Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes feminist Language Distortions’ universal acceptance ).

Highly recommended reading:
Domestic violence fairytales threaten constitutional protections
SPECIAL REPORT
Are Domestic Violence Policies Respecting
Our Fundamental Freedoms?

All the following content was shamelessly copied from falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/07/if-presumptively-innocent-are-given.html I could not say it any better, and shortening it is a pity.


  1. Prior to the great wave of rape reforms starting in the 1970s, rape advocates reported, with seemingly infinite invention, that women were too scared, too embarrassed, too certain of its futility to report their own rapes. The sexual grievance industry insisted that rape was underreported, and that reforms were needed to do justice to countless women who suffered in silence the brutal indignity of rape. So we kowtowed to the sexual grievance industry to solve “the problem.”
  2. First, we adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of corroboration, which de facto served to flip the old law on its head: now, women don’t need any corroboration of their claims, but men and boys are arrested based solely on even the far-fetched say-so of any woman or girl if they can’t produce corroborating evidence of their innocence.
    That wasn’t enough, they said. So we adopted rape shield laws that forbade almost any evidence of the accuser’s prior sexual history with persons other than the accused, a rule that resulted in innumerable innocent men and boys being sent to prison for alleged rapes that never occurred.
  3. That wasn’t enough, they said. So we adopted laws that eliminated the requirement of force, and innocent men and boys who misunderstood the acquiescence of a woman were sent to prison.
  4. That wasn’t enough, they said.  So we enacted laws that eliminated the mens rea requirement for rape.  Historically, in a rape prosecution, the guilty defendant must have had the intention to have intercourse with a woman without her consent.  Too stringent, said the sexual grievance industry, and the requirement was lightened or dropped altogether.
  5. That wasn’t enough, they said.  So we enacted laws (in the UK and a handful of US states) that legally forbade naming rape accusers. In the US, the news agencies and outlets have, by common consensus, agreed not to name rape accusers. The mere allegation of rape by the anonymous female, without any other evidence and no matter how far-fetched, invites a man’s name to be splashed all over the newspaper, TV, radio and Internet for the world to titillate at the details of his humiliation.
  6. That wasn’t enough, they said.  So we enacted laws that lengthened and even eliminated statutes of limitations for rape, and now, men are sometimes accused of and charged with alleged rapes that occurred 20, 30, 40 or more years after they supposedly occurred, effectively foreclosing the accused from mounting a meaningful defense because the evidence of their innocence has long disappeared.
    Wait, there is more! This article continues! That still was not enough. Keep reading and click here »
    Rape Laws: dismantling of due process explained step by step » continues here »

Share