What’s so terrible about rape? Rape is not as bad as it used to be!

  1. Rape consequences are not what they used to be:

    In our modern technological world with abortion, DNA testing and birth control, rape does no more lead to unavoidable offspring, uncertain paternity, and loss of all-important virginity.

  2. forcible rape-rape in the old fashioned senseRape prevalence is not what it used to be:

    Statistics show that forcible rape is on the decline (probably due to the availability of pornography).

  3. Rape is not what it used to be:

    Many of the modern 20 different types of rape are non-violent, not forcible and often even start out consensual, or are entirely consensual (were it not for the newly changed modern definition of "consent"). The utter linguistic and legal confusion in the watered down rape definition makes discussion of rape almost impossible. In spite of Vice president’s Biden’s claim (shared by feminists) that all rapes are the same, we still are not convinced that forcibly raping a 17 year old is exactly the same rape as consensual love making with the same 17 year old.

  4. Rape is over-rated.

    It is time to stop rape hysteria, to re-think the length of sentencing for rape, to stem the ever growing number of non-violent and even consensual types of rape, to reinstitute due process and constitutional rights for the accused.  Rape has ceased to be a special crime (see (1)), we should treat rape like any other crime. This is not "rape apology", it is down to earth "rape realism". Rape is bad. Rape is wrong. But we believe it is 100 times worse to be paralyzed for life or have large part of our body burned and scarred for life then to suffer a gentle consented-but-drunk-date-rape for half an hour.

 

Read with open mind. Read first, judge later. Question your moral convictions.

We were brought up with feminist credo, reinforced by politically correct colleges. It took us effort to overcome our brain washing. It required reading articles and books to see the mistakes, the misleading wrong logic, the cruel consequences of feminist and religious dogma. We were not born nor indoctrinated to be "anti-feminists" (a label we can accept), nor "rape apologists" or "misogynists" (labels that we will reject as unjustified).

We have been warned of the dangers of challenging the central tenet of feminist rape culture belief

We are afraid most people will read this with closed mind. Knee jerk reactions and inner convictions warp people’s logic so as to confirm their long held belief. We are attacking rape, the central tenet of feminism, even holier then harassment.

This is far worse then Galileo Galilei’s disrespect of some peripheral topic in the Bible regarding planetary motion. It is like doubting God’s existence.

We have been warned that this irreverent post might lead to vigilante persecution of the authors, with trumped-up false accusations, with Interpol hunting us down for our dangerous politically incorrect ideas.

We have an irrational and probably unwarranted trust that dissenting people could discuss this article on its merit and try to disprove it with arguments and logic. Unfortunately, logic can be very manipulative and confusing because of misleading and confusing terminology (see (3) above).

 

Men are violently averse to rape, even more so then women

We are very aware then most good men are extremely averse to rape,  "All men are rapists" is as unwarranted and unjust as saying "all women are gold digging cheating paternity fraudsters".

Men, as a class, loathe and detest rape more than women do.[…]

[President] Roosevelt declared without equivocation (and without explanation) that rape is a crime "even worse than murder" that deserves the death penalty.
That might strike modern readers as astonishing, but during the oral argument of the Kennedy v. Louisiana, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5262 (June 25, 2008), Justice Ginsburg offered an explanation. Ginsburg noted that the historical imposition of the death penalty in rape cases stems from a tradition "when a woman was regarded as as good as dead once she was raped; and the crime was thought to be an offense against her husband or her father as much as it was to her." Treating rape as akin to murder, and thus warranting the death penalty, did "no kindness to women" she noted.
The "legal" executions of men for rape, and the illegal lynchings for rape that President Theodore Roosevelt decried, were carried out almost exclusively by men. Against men. Indeed, as we relate on this site, the killings, the beatings, and virtually all the other physical atrocities perpetrated against men falsely accused of rape are carried out by men.   The False Rape Society: There is no ‘rape culture.’ Period.

This is probably why man-hating feminists use female superior verbal manipulation skills to ever expand the definitions of "rape" and "non-consent", to con women-loving good men into joining the lynch mob against consenting-but-drunk-girl-rapists, consenting-underage-girl-rapists, and, falsely-accused-but-presumed-guilty-rapists. From there it is only one step to lynch the mean "rape apologist" authors at Human-Stupidity.com.

[Roosevelt] also warned: "’The mob which lynches a negro charged with rape will in a little while lynch a white man suspected of crime.’

Roosevelt could have never imagined that nowadays US colleges and the US legal system itself lynch white or black men alike.

 

1) Rape consequences are not what they used to be

Rape was terrible: reproductive and social impact of rape

Why rape was as serious a crime as murder

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “What’s so terrible about rape? Rape is not as bad as it used to be!” »
What’s so terrible about rape? Rape is not as bad as it used…
» continues here »

Radical masculist manifesto: on equal terms with radical feminists

Radical masculism: a necessity to fight back against radical feminists on level playing field

Radical masculists are needed as the male self defense army against radical feminism’s onslaught

powerful feminists overpower meek chivalrous menA few scattered men’s rights activists  meekly voice protest against a few isolated examples of feminist injustice.,  Insufficient to  neutralize a 100 year long world wide concerted organized feminist press and policy drive has used lies, manipulation, repression, police power to ruthlessly roll back constitutional rights, the Magna Carta, due process. Feminism has changed the world into a medieval nightmare of laws stacked against men.

A level playing field is a concept about fairness, not that each player has an equal chance to succeed, but that they all play by the same set of rules Level Playing Field | Wikipedia

A radical masculist manifesto

We need radical masculists who, like radical feminists, are not shy to make preposterous demands

  1. Paternity fraud and birth control lies should be felonies.  Hard to prove? Invert the burden of proof:  "Men never lie about birth control".
  2. Drinking, smoking, overeating during pregnancy should be felony reckless endangerment of a fetus.
  3. Gender quotas in prison are urgently needed to get 51% female prisoners. We recommend stricter punishment for female felons and special mercy for male criminals. Gender is socially constructed: if there are 7 times more men in jail then women, then this clear gender discrimination needs to be remedied.
  4. Domestic violence against men is 98 % underreported (Tiger Woods – Bill Clinton): "Has a women ever slapped you, shoved you, thrown an object at you"?
  5. Raise men’s awareness of rape: "Have you ever said ‘Stop, I am tired", or "Not now" and the woman did not stop that exact second"? Then you are a rape victim! 3 out of 5 men have been raped and are not even aware that they were victims of a crime.
  6. An infant can not consent to eating unhealthy food. Feeding health damaging food to an overweight non-consenting infant thus is felony "child poisoning".
  7. Sexual innuendo, bantering should be protected free speech
  8. Disdainful female rejections and typical put-downs ("loser", "nerd", "small dick") create a hostile work environment and are harassment.
  9. Freedom to buy and sell sexual services should be a universal human right
  10. Like priests and psychologists, prostitutes should have the professional duty to keep their clients secret. Spilling the beans about infidelity destroys families and thus is bad for the children. The press should be held to the same secrecy standards, as it was common during President J. F. Kennedy and still is customary in France. .
  11. Find an equally offensive motto equivalent to the feminist war cry: "all men are rapists". "All women are gold diggers" is not good enough, gold digging is not a felony. Maybe "all women are bank robbers". Just re-define "bank robbery" like feminists re-defined "rape", "consent", "child", and "pedophilia".

If all this looks absurd, read below how women not only demanded but actually enacted similarly absurd laws to control, punish and financially exploit men.

Once feminists totally and terminally disavow and ban lunatics like Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanas, rescind all unjust anti-male laws, then radical masculism can be put on the back burner. Until then, the bad cop radical masculist is needed to support and inspire the good cop pussyfooted men’s rights movement.  You can not fight a rabid terrorist hate group with flower power or reasoned moderate argument alone. You need a counter-force using methods as forceful as the perpetrator. Another example of failure of peaceful moderation was Neville Chamberlain’s attempt to appease Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany

"Man’s rights activists": chivalrous, respectfully striving for equality and justice

Men are friendly lap-dogs who love women and don't want to hurt or imprison women. No match for rabid radical feminists attack dogsChivalrous men, who love women, deeply concerned with women’s well being, worried about justice, fairness, and honesty, desirous of equality and harmony, verbally voice concerns about inequalities.

  1. Men’s righters are a small group of scattered men who discuss issues and don’t do political activism.
  2. Men fighting for true equality (while the feminist side unabashedly wants perks, advantages, special protection)
  3. Men complaining about serious injustice and pain like prison terms, crippling financial family court verdicts, while feminist side cannot tolerate anything and whines about minute disturbances like objectifying gaze
  4. Men are scared to be called misogynist
  5. Men are chivalrous white knights who willingly yield to women. Willing to die in the Titanic letting women take life boats first.
  6. Men are forgiving towards women, hard against men. Many men have maimed or killed other men who unjustly were accused of rape

These men’s rights pussies are no match for feminists.

A bunch of friendly lap-dogs against an organized army of vicious man hating feminist attack dogs that fight unfair. No match.

Radical feminists successfully annul constitutional rights, due process, free speech

Feminist are powerful, ruthless, deadly like dangerous murderous dogsWomen (51% of the population) fighting as a cohesive group, led by extremist man hating radical feminists. These don’t just spout lunatic fringe theories.

Rather they successfully manipulate and brainwash women and men world wide to get sexist biased man-hating laws enacted in all nations. They garner support of the UN and the mainstream press. Radical feminist success is mind boggling.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Radical masculist manifesto: on equal terms with radical feminists” »
Radical masculist manifesto: on equal terms with radical feminists
» continues here »

To justify our moral judgments, we invent victims even if there are none

We have always been baffled about "victimization".  The teenage sexuality, child porn, irrational drug prohibition witch hunts are based on victimization theories. These victimization theories are so outlandish, they make the medieval "theory that witches cause hail storm" look like sound science.

First come our preconceived moral judgments. Then we find justifications and victims.

In deciding what other people shouldn’t do, people don’t necessarily start with some principle and go from there. It could have been that moral reasoning was not unlike mathematics-start with a few axioms, and see what follows from them. If people did that, then their moral reasoning would be consistent. Everything follows from the assumptions. But they don’t, or at least, not always.2 

All quotes from:
Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind * (Robert Kurzban)
(p. 188 ff | Kindle Loc. 2322-64)

  1. first comes a moral judgment, like "promiscuity is bad", "creeps who possess child porn photos need to be punished", "having sex with adolescents is disgusting" (or "smoking marijuana is bad"). Some of these judgments stem from evolutionary mental modules hard-wired into our minds. Or course, our culture plays a role here too, especially in how we justify our moralistic feelings
  2. After the fact, after we already decided that sex with nubile adolescent women is heinous, our mental "press secretary" has to come up with socially acceptable justifications  for punishing people for apparently victimless crime.  So our mind is made in ways that it finds justifications for our moral judgments. It comes up with logical reasons. It invents victims that need to be protected

Tiger Woods, hypocrisy, moral condemnation of promiscuity: where are the victims of a billionaire’s secret dalliances? Tiger Woods: why can’t he have open marriage and have fun?

For things like sex-which many people want to do-people are very happy to apply moral principles. They think that decisions about what is right and what is wrong, what should be permitted and what should be banned and punished, should derive from principles. In this case, the principle is freedom or liberty: People ought to be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn’t hurt others.

[…] But that’s not the way people make all moral judgments, and by moral judgments here I don’t mean how people decide what they themselves should do-what their conscience tells them. I mean how people decide what other people ought not to do, what other people should be punished for.1 […]

People seem to judge acts first, and search for justifications and victims afterwards, which strongly suggests that one coherent set of principles isn’t driving moral judgments.

Human-Stupidity suspects that our modern manipulative language distortion stems from such attempts to justify moralistic interference.

Who are you calling a victim?

One way you can tell people make their moral judgments based on nonconscious intuitions is that they can’t explain their own moral judgments, as we’ve seen with Jon Haidt’s work on "moral dumbfounding." People will say that incest is wrong without being able to give any justification for it. Incest is just wrong.

Kurzban is a scientist. He will not argue if incest is right or wrong, He is analyzing the functioning  of the human mind.  He notices that people are totally convinced of the immorality of incestual relationships and can not explain why it is immoral. Even the incestual couple is adult and infertile, it still is wrong.

Many modules seem to cause people to find certain things wrong and to work to prevent others from doing them.Often, people can’t actually tell you the real reason behind those judgments, any more than they can tell you why they think they’re among the best drivers in the country.

Our moral convictions make us find logical explanations and victims at all cost.

We’ve been studying moral intuitions in my lab as well. Peter DeScioli, Skye Gilbert, and I have done some work looking not at moral justifications, but rather intuitions about victimhood. You might think that when people make moral judgments, they first determine if there’s anyone who is a victim-anyone made worse off by the act in question-and use that when they’re making their moral judgment. But we think that for at least some offenses, it’s the other way around.

Researchers got rid of all potential victims from scenarios. If there absolutely can not be a victim, we find a victim anyway

We presented people with a set of "victimless" offenses-things like urinating on a tombstone, burning a flag, cloning a human being, and so on-and asked our subjects if the act was wrong or not. After that, we asked if anyone was harmed by the action. What we found was that almost anyone who said an act was wrong also indicated a victim. But the victims included entities like "humanity," "society," "the American people," "friends of the deceased," "the clone," and so on.

Now, of course it’s possible to argue that somehow these entities really are worse off as a result of the actions. So in a follow-up, we changed the scenarios to get rid of these potential victims. We had a story in which someone urinated on the tombstone of someone with no living family or friends, or a scientist cloned a human being, but the clone was never alive, so couldn’t ever have suffered, felt pain, or worried that she was a clone.
Doesn’t seem to matter. People still judged the acts wrong, and, when they did, they searched for a victim. If the clone wasn’t ever alive, fine, the clone wasn’t the victim: the scientist (somehow) was. If the dead person had no family or friends, "society" was worse off.
People seem to judge acts first, and search for justifications and victims afterwards, which strongly suggests that one coherent set of principles isn’t driving moral judgments.

Here is the explanation for the amazing theories of victimization with child porn, about consensual sex with adolescents being exactly the same as violently raping the same adolescent. These theories actually have become law and terrorize men with long jail sentences.  

OBS: Dr. Kurzban is not responsible for conclusions Human-Stupidity draws from his work.

Immoral judgments aren’t driven by a set of consciously accessible general principles that are applied to particular cases.

 

Evolutionary psychologist Robert Kurzban explains
how we gain reproductive advantage by moral condemnation of promiscuity and interfering in other people’s sex life

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “To justify our moral judgments, we invent victims even if there are none” »
To justify our moral judgments, we invent victims even if there ar…
» continues here »

Not guilty verdict in Jörg Kachelmann (false?) rape accusation trial

The Mannheim District Court acquitted Jörg Kachelmann from the rape charge due to lack of evidence – but there is no peace in sight: Kachelmann’s defending lawyer, Schwenn, harshly criticized the court, women’s rights activists also criticize the trial and Alice Schwarzer demands respect for the moderator’s ex-girlfriend.

The verdict is not yet final, the criminal investigation department will decide whether to appeal the verdict within the week (Der Spiegel)

Die Zeit speaks of a second-class acquittal, saying the 5th criminal division of Mannheim’s District Court […]

‘spared no efforts in trying to support the accusation of rape made by the (moderator’s) ex-girlfriend. However, it failed to do so, on the contrary, the further into the case hearing, the suspicious facts dissipated. And finally, after hearing all witnesses and questioning all experts, the judge only had one option: an acquittal.’

The verdict is "Not guilty" for Jörg Kachelmann

If in doubt, decide for the accused. Jörg Kachelmann was acquitted of the charges of having raped his ex-girl friend. According to the Mannheim court, there was not enough evidence to convict. It was not proven that the 52 year old Kachelmann had threatened the woman with a knife and raped her, in February 2010, after a relationship argument.

Presiding judge Michael Seidling said, the judgment is not based on the court being convinced of Kachelmann’s innocence, nor convinced of a false rape accusation by the accuser. A man could not be convicted by mere suspicion. That suspicion was diminished during the trial, but not totally disproved.

Kachelmann will be indemnified for his time in jail, and the court cost will be paid by the government.

Finally, the international press starts reporting. But no major details

The German press report in great detail. Even rainbow press Bild.de has valuable information

Kachelmann ACQUITTED of rape charge

Kachelmann pensive, his lawyer smiling
Court: in dubio pro reo – star lawyer criticized

The Mannheim District Court has acquitted Jörg Kachelmann of the rape charges placed against him by his ex-girlfriend. It was, however an acquittal due to want of evidence, and this was clearly reflected in the verdict summary: “Today’s acquittal is not based on the fact that the court is convinced of Mr Kachelmann’s innocence and, conversely, of the joint plaintiff having made a false accusation. However, after recording the evidence there is reasonable doubt about Mr Kachelmann’s guilt. He is hence to be acquitted in accordance with the ‘in dubio pro reo’ principle.“ […]

The court also said that the suspicious facts had “lost in strength, but not disappeared” during the trial. […]

Kachelmann is to be indemnified for the time he was held in remand. The legal cost will be borne by the state. The 52-eyar old seemed petrified before the verdict was announced. […]

The victims‘ support organisation Weißer Ring now fear that victims will chose not to report a rape, said its spokesman.

Depite the acquittal, Kachelmann will not return to the ARD. “As long as the case has not been closed and verdict is not final, we see no reason to decide on this” an ARD spokesperson said.

The joint plaintiff is considering appealing against the verdict. […]

Chief Judge Michael Seidling said: “We are convinced of having made the correct decision from a judicial point of view. But we are not satisfied by it. We are releasing the accused and the joint plaintiff with a potentially permanent suspicion; him of being a potential rapist, and her of being a potentially vengeful liar. (…)” […]

[Feminist} Alice Schwarzer: One must continue respecting the potential victim. Maybe she said the truth, maybe she did not. One can not know. Bild.de

Justice  has NOT been done yet

Justice has not been done yet.  A strange accusation ruined the life of a successful prominent man. In typical fashion, as it exists only in rape accusations, he was jailed for 4 months, on the mere accusation of a single woman, with not a shred of proof.  His girl friend of over 10 years was allegedly raped exactly on the day she allegedly found out he was unfaithful and they split, after an argument. 

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Not guilty verdict in Jörg Kachelmann (false?) rape accusation trial” »
Not guilty verdict in Jörg Kachelmann (false?) rape accusatio…
» continues here »

Kachelmann trial: Jörg Kachelmann’s court verdict May 31. Not guilty?

The verdict in the Jörg Kachelmann rape trial in Germany will be out on May 31. Human Stupidity plans to report as soon as possible.

132 days in jail, 43 days in court, starting September 6, 10 expert witnesses, several ex-girlfriends as witnesses. Only vague circumstantial evidence. No proof. Jörg Kachelmann rape trial without evidence but with clear prosecutor misconduct, victim’s lies.  Unfortumately, the public was excluded from major parts of the trial, thus nobody really knows all the relevant details of the case.

The world press reported the beginning of the trial and then just shut up and ignored it. Certainly they will report on the verdict.The German press reports in detail about Kachelmann.

The prosecution demands 4 years and 3 months, the defense wants an acquittal.

Human-Stupidity Analysis

All this messy court case, career destruction, jail time, ruinous cost for defense and expert witnesses is due only to

  1. removal of due process from our court system in rape and child abuse accusations.
  2. the lie that "all men are rapists". If it were not for the feminine myth that all men are rapists, the burden of proof would be really high to think that such a man would, out of a sudden, violently rape a woman at knife point:  A famous, well known, civilized and non-violent man that has a dozen girl friends and millions of female fans he could pick sex partners from.

German press reports about the Kachelmann rape case.

  1. Joerg Kachelmann | Die Zeit

  2. Topic Kachelmann | Der Spiegel

  3. Bild.de, about Kachelmann: the rainbow press paper hired arch-feminist Alice Schwarzer and tends to be anti-Kachelmann.

Teenage sexuality: The immense complexity of local laws, state lines and international travel

Every country and state has ever changing sex laws with different ages of consent, and Romeo and Juliet (age gap) exemptions. The consequences of travel across state and international borders are of extreme complexity so a team of local experts and international law experts should be consulted. 

Age of consent by state in USA

Near state lines, adolescents need to carry GPS to make sure they are in the right state. When one partner is between 16 and 18 years old, then the location is of primordial importance. If you are an adolescent and think you can go to a more liberal neighboring state to engage in erotic and sexual activity, think twice: US federal law makes it a felony to cross state lines with the intent to have sex with an under 18 year old adolescent.

But, even if you cross between 2 states with age of consent of 16, with intent to have sex with your 17 year old lover, you still run afoul of federal law!? Certainly, if you travel to Europe to have legal sex with a 15 or 16 year old, as a US resident you are committing a felony by US law. If a non-resident European in the US receives his Green card (residency), his hitherto legal relationship in Europe suddenly becomes a felony in the US. Sex law attorneys have a golden future!

Case study: Vermont

Vermont: Age of Consent: 16 Age gap Provision: Yes*

Lewd or Lascivious Conduct with a Child:
No person shall willfully or lewdly commit and lewd or lascivious act upon or with the body, or any part or member thereof, of a child under the age of 16 years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passion, or sexual desires, of such person. This section shall not apply if the actor is less than 19 years of age, the child is at least 15 years of age, and the contact is consensual.
Adolescent Sexual Behavior and the Law

Legal today, but felony after next birthday

Analyzing Vermont law, one can see

  • If she is 14, he is 18. They have to wait. Not even a lewd act with the body. No touching!
  • On her 15th birthday, they can have sex.
  • Careful! on his 19th birthday, at midnight, what they legally did before, becomes a felony again.
  • After she turns16, they can go back to having sex.

Easy, is it not? just put this into grade school curriculum. It is a good training for reading comprehension of legal codes.

While in Florida

If you are 23 and have a 16 year old girlfriend, beware of your 24th birthday. You will become a criminal!

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Teenage sexuality: The immense complexity of local laws, state lines and international travel” »
Teenage sexuality: The immense complexity of local laws, state lin…
» continues here »

Yes means No! Forcibly raping a 17 year old is the same rape as consensual love making.

“Yes” means “No”

You have a girl friend under the local age of consent, and you (unwisely) want to have sex with her. Don’t bother to ask for her consent to sex.  Just ravish her violently, no matter how much she resists. It makes no difference if she consents or not. Her “yes” means “no”, her consent is invalid. Either way, if she consents or not, you are raping her. And all rapes are the same.

This is not my fault. I am not making this up. This is our modern law and modern logic.

“No” means “No”, too.

Minors under 18 (or 16) years of age can not consent to sex.  If s/he says “Yes”, it means “No”. If she says “No”, it means “No”, too.

A underage girl’s consent it totally irrelevant

  1. On the way home 3 young men drag 15 year old Maria into an abandoned lot, 2 men hold her down and one rapes her violently, against her protests and screams.
  2. 15 year old Maria begs her boyfriend to make love to her and they have a great love-making session.
What is the difference between (1) and (2)?

Both (1) and (2) are exactly the same: non-consensual rape!. If she consented or fought back makes no difference!

I am really sorry, forgive me.

I am not insensitive to rape victims.

Maria, if you think that forcible rape and love making are not the same, you are mistaken! You are too young to understand the wisdom of the elders, that know that these are the same.

I am sorry,it is not my fault. I did not make this up. I swear.  On the contrary, I dare to challenge conventional wisdom and write against this insanity.

There are cases where a 15 or 17 year old girl begs a judge not to jail her boyfriend and common law husband, father, financial supporter and caretaker of her baby. But, the laws are there to protect her (?from what??), and thus she is left a penniless single mother with a jailed boyfriend in prison.

We fail to see how this serves the well being of the child, which is of extreme importance to the law.

All rapes are the same

We just learned, from Vice President Biden “Rape is rape is rape” : all types of rape are the same.  British Kenneth Clarke said  that “some “rapes” are less serious then others” but was forced to recant.  Clarke explicitly stated that a 17 year old boy making love with his 15 year old girl friend is not the same as dragging someone into the bushes. A media outcry corrected him and recanted. So it is the consensus, that both are the same.

Feminist manipulative language made sure that almost every sex act is a potential rape. And now it is clarified that all rapes are the same.

“I love you, please make love to me” = “NOOO, don’t touch me, leave me alone”
lovey-dovey-feeling =

(is equal to)

 rape-ducks

Offensive to forcible rape victims

"Yes" means "No"

You have a girl friend under the local age of consent, and you (unwisely) want to have sex with her. Don’t bother to ask for her consent to sex.  Just ravish her violently, no matter how much she resists. It makes no difference if she consents or not. Her "yes" means "no", her consent is invalid. Either way, if she consents or not, you are raping her. And all rapes are the same.

This is not my fault. I am not making this up. This is our modern law and modern logic. 

"No" means "No", too.

Minors under 18 (or 16) years of age can not consent to sex.  If s/he says "Yes", it means "No". If she says "No", it means "No", too.

A underage girl’s consent it totally irrelevant

  1. On the way home 3 young men drag 15 year old Maria into an abandoned lot, 2 men hold her down and one rapes her violently, against her protests and screams.
  2. 15 year old Maria begs her boyfriend to make love to her and they have a great love-making session.
What is the difference between (1) and (2)?

Both (1) and (2) are exactly the same: non-consensual rape!. If she consented or fought back makes no difference!

I am really sorry, forgive me.

I am not insensitive to rape victims.

Maria, if you think that forcible rape and love making are not the same, you are mistaken! You are too young to understand the wisdom of the elders, that know that these are the same.

I am sorry,it is not my fault. I did not make this up. I swear.  On the contrary, I dare to challenge conventional wisdom and write against this insanity.

There are cases where a 15 or 17 year old girl begs a judge not to jail her boyfriend and common law husband, father, financial supporter and caretaker of her baby. But, the laws are there to protect her (?from what??), and thus she is left a penniless single mother with a jailed boyfriend in prison. 

We fail to see how this serves the well being of the child, which is of extreme importance to the law.

All rapes are the same

We just learned, from Vice President Biden "Rape is rape is rape" : all types of rape are the same.  British Kenneth Clarke said  that "some "rapes" are less serious then others" but was forced to recant.  Clarke explicitly stated that a 17 year old boy making love with his 15 year old girl friend is not the same as dragging someone into the bushes. A media outcry corrected him and recanted. So it is the consensus, that both are the same.

Feminist manipulative language made sure that almost every sex act is a potential rape. And now it is clarified that all rapes are the same.

"I love you, please make love to me"

=

"NOOO, don’t touch me, leave me alone"
lovey-dovey-feeling

=

(is equal to)

 rape-ducks

Offensive to forcible rape victims

"Yes" means "No"

You have a girl friend under the local age of consent, and you (unwisely) want to have sex with her. Don’t bother to ask for her consent to sex.  Just ravish her violently, no matter how much she resists. It makes no difference if she consents or not. Her "yes" means "no", her consent is invalid. Either way, if she consents or not, you are raping her. And all rapes are the same.

This is not my fault. I am not making this up. This is our modern law and modern logic. 

"No" means "No", too.

Minors under 18 (or 16) years of age can not consent to sex.  If s/he says "Yes", it means "No". If she says "No", it means "No", too.

A underage girl’s consent it totally irrelevant

  1. On the way home 3 young men drag 15 year old Maria into an abandoned lot, 2 men hold her down and one rapes her violently, against her protests and screams.
  2. 15 year old Maria begs her boyfriend to make love to her and they have a great love-making session.
What is the difference between (1) and (2)?

Both (1) and (2) are exactly the same: non-consensual rape!. If she consented or fought back makes no difference!

I am really sorry, forgive me.

I am not insensitive to rape victims.

Maria, if you think that forcible rape and love making are not the same, you are mistaken! You are too young to understand the wisdom of the elders, that know that these are the same.

I am sorry,it is not my fault. I did not make this up. I swear.  On the contrary, I dare to challenge conventional wisdom and write against this insanity.

There are cases where a 15 or 17 year old girl begs a judge not to jail her boyfriend and common law husband, father, financial supporter and caretaker of her baby. But, the laws are there to protect her (?from what??), and thus she is left a penniless single mother with a jailed boyfriend in prison. 

We fail to see how this serves the well being of the child, which is of extreme importance to the law.

All rapes are the same

We just learned, from Vice President Biden "Rape is rape is rape" : all types of rape are the same.  British Kenneth Clarke said  that "some "rapes" are less serious then others" but was forced to recant.  Clarke explicitly stated that a 17 year old boy making love with his 15 year old girl friend is not the same as dragging someone into the bushes. A media outcry corrected him and recanted. So it is the consensus, that both are the same.

Feminist manipulative language made sure that almost every sex act is a potential rape. And now it is clarified that all rapes are the same.

"I love you, please make love to me"

=

"NOOO, don’t touch me, leave me alone"
lovey-dovey-feeling

=

(is equal to)

 rape-ducks

Offensive to forcible rape victims

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Yes means No! Forcibly raping a 17 year old is the same rape as consensual love making.” »
Yes means No! Forcibly raping a 17 year old is the same rape as co…
» continues here »

Some "rapes" are less serious then others. Of course, Mr. Kenneth Clarke is right!

Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has been heavily criticized for talking about "serious rape" as compared with other types of rape. But can some rapes be viewed as more serious than others?

The  word "rape" needs to be differentiated, into "serious rape", "forcible rape", "rape rape" because the word "rape" nowadays means everything.

  1. "Rape is rape is rape" is a lie, Joe Biden! 20 different types of rape!
  2. Consent, rape & minors. What is consent to sex?
  3. Victim dupes man into raping her. How can you rape without knowing you are raping?
  4. Judge John Reilly forced to apologize for differentiating nerd’s groping from sexual assault
  5. Republicans re-re-define rape: to the original definition rape had for 2000 years before re-definition 30 years ago
  6. Feminist rape laws don’t apply to male prison rape victims
  7. Hofstra false rape case: any law abiding man can be jailed at a woman’s whim!

 

Mr. Kenneth Clarke saying the truth (video) (which later on he has to retract)

Speaking to Victoria Derbyshire, the Justice Secretary said some cases of date rape or sex with under-age children might not qualify as rape “in the ordinary conversational sense”.  Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, called for Mr. Clarke’s resignation during Prime Minister’s Questions over the comments. Listen to full interview on BBC Radio 5 Live     Source: Telegraph

The justice secretary’s remarks suggesting some rapes were worse than others has led to a storm of protest and demands for his resignation from Labour.  BBC

Tyrannical political correctness speech code taboos prohibit sensible discussions

Political correctness is a speech code to silence discussion. It erects taboos: don’t talk, don’t question. Making a comment on a taboo topic yields to  ad hominem attacks, demands of resignation! Like a medieval church. The topic is taboo, critics are silenced, no discussion is allowed.

In the rape issue, there are stupid anecdotal one sided arguments.

"If we listen to what the victims of rape tell us about its impact, there is no difference between those who have suffered date rape and those who have been attacked by strangers. BBC

What a stupid comment! The "victim-feminists" who claim that a drunk-party-girl-who-next-day-is-sorry-she-consented-rape is the same as the mauled-in-the-forest-at-knife-point-rape are an offense to true forcible rape victims. These are the same people that say: consensual sex with an adolescent minor is rape, the same as violently raping the adolescent minor against her or his will. And such insanity pervades world wide press and politics.

Nation-wide and world wide politics are based on such drivel. Where is the peer reviewed research that supports such statements?

"If we listen to what the victims of rape tell us about its impact, there is no difference between those who have suffered date rape and those who have been attacked by strangers. BBC If we listen to what paralyzed victims of car accidents tell us about its impact, there is no difference between those that were accidentally run over due to a blown tire, a driver’s mistake or those that were  run over by a maniac assassin driver. 
  In either case, the victims are equally paralyzed.. The punishment for the perpetrator, though, is very different.

 

Unlike the car accident example with subsequent paralysis, as shown in the articles linked above, the modern revised definition of "rape" encompasses total different things

  • violent forcible rape,
  • consensual sex where consent is considered invalid later on, if the "victim" convinces a judge that she was too drunk, if she was underage, if she presented a fake ID and the perpetrator could not know he did commit "rape"
  • consensual sex where consent is withdrawn in the middle of the act and he continued for 5 more seconds (yes, google "5 second rape" if you don’t believe it.
  • consensual sex when the woman only felt raped 2 days later when he did not call her
  • consensual sex with an adolescent minor
  • When is a rape not a rape? | Police Inspector Blog mentions the pervasiveness of false rape accusations but fails to mention that lots of these lead to false rape convictions:  because of the dogma "women don’t lie", and the perverted suspension of due process, the "presumption of guilt of the accused in rape cases", it is very easy to be unjustly harassed and tried for years (Kachelmann, Strauss-Kahn) and possibly convicted of rape that has never happened 

Most men have already been raped by a woman, but are unaware of it

I have asked many men: "Have you ever said no to a woman and she continued with sexual activities like oral sex or sex?".  Almost all of them said they told a woman "Stop, I am tired" and she just continued.This happens when a man had enough sex but an insatiable woman wants more. It could happen early in the morning when the man wants to sleep.

I believe Britain has a sexist rape law where women can not rape. But by gender neutral rape laws this clearly constitutes rape. By the feminist rape definition that a simple "no" or "stop" in a consensual sexual relationship means "rape". And this is the same as dragging a screaming woman into the forest? Or 5 guys in prison holding down a man to rape him? David Cameron, thank you for your honest truth. Too bad you weaseled out and retracted, though half-heartedly

Kenneth Clark retraction (Video)

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Some "rapes" are less serious then others. Of course, Mr. Kenneth Clarke is right!” »
Some "rapes" are less serious then others. Of course, Mr…
» continues here »