Rape Hysteria’s legal proceedings questioned by Spiked Online

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.  [1]

A dangerous obsession with rape convictions

Despite what two of the UK’s leading prosecutors think, in rape trials defendants have rights, too.

We must be free to question rape laws

Feminist academics are using slurs and threats to chill the debate on rape. They must be challenged.


The discussion around issues related to rape is now so rife with intellectual bigotry and dishonesty that it is hard to know where to begin dissecting it. It is no underestimation to say that a portion of those contributing to this debate are engaged in a willful distortion of the truth and a cowardly drive to close down any challenge to their false consensus.

This was evident last month, following the London School of Economics’ decision to host a debate titled ‘Is Rape Different?’. I attended, along with over 300 others. Speaking at the debate was Helen Reece, an academic at the LSE and author of the important article ‘Rape myths: is elite opinion right and public opinion wrong?’. Reece appeared alongside barrister and spiked contributor Barbara Hewson, Crown prosecutor Nazir Afzal, and City Law School professor Jennifer Temkin.

The debate has since provoked predictable ‘there is no debate!’ uproar from people with nothing better to do on Twitter. But such is the hysteria around the discussion of rape and rape laws that the outrage of the Twitter sphere has been allowed to spill into the world of academia. The journal Feminists at Law, based at Kent Law School, has launched a petition for the LSE to ‘ensure that the ideas disseminated [at the debate] do not feed dangerous stereotypes about women being responsible for the sexual violence perpetuated against them’. The petition has been signed by around 85 people. Another journal published something similar, criticizing the decision of the LSE to host the debate and saying it was symptomatic of a neoliberal impact agenda in higher education.

We oppose speech codes, hate speech laws (except for clear call to violence, like Mandela’s ANC’s "Kill the Boer" song). We favor free speech, free research, free discussion



What this reaction reveals is a desire to restrict discussion around rape. We are seeing the cult-like elevation of one inalienable ‘truth’ above all others. This ‘truth’ is that we live in an age where rape is part of everyday culture, and where those in power are doing nothing to stop it. Anyone who dares question this prevailing orthodoxy on rape is guilty of a chauvinistic heresy, attributable to their immersion in a controlling patriarchal society.

This rape debate is demeaning to women

The current debate over the law on rape rehabilitates the Victorian view of women as helpless victims.

19 May 2011

A row broke out in the UK yesterday over comments by the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, about rape. After Clarke gave an interview on BBC Radio 5 Live, Labour leader Ed Miliband demanded his resignation for suggesting that there are ‘other categories of rape’. In this article, in response to an official review of rape law in March 2010, Nathalie Rothschild examined why the contemporary debate about rape is actually bad news for women.

Politically correct feminist language manipulation is a disaster that amazingly is pushed by leftist opinion makers upon the gullible masses 

  • Yes means No! Forcibly raping a 17 year old is the same rape as consensual love making.
  • "Rape is rape is rape" is a lie, Joe Biden! 20 different types of rape!
  • Republicans re-re-define rape: to the original definition rape had for 2000 years before re-definition 30 years ago
  • Consent, rape & minors. What is consent to sex?

    This is more absurd then claiming every killing is murder, abolishing self defense, accidental death, conflating all as "murder".

    A new report on rape and the criminal justice system in England and Wales has concluded that the debate around rape has been too much focused on conviction rates. Yet while Baroness Stern, author of the report, recommends that from now on support and care for victims be given as high a priority as the prosecution and conviction of perpetrators, her report is unlikely to change the terms of the debate.

    The Stern report does not challenge the way in which women today are encouraged to see themselves as victims and how they are regarded as less accountable for their actions than men. And in suggesting that women reporting rape should be believed from the outset, Stern is insisting that, when it comes to alleged crimes of rape, the accused is guilty until proven innocent.

    Feminists and rape awareness campaigners have been dismayed at Stern’s suggestion that attention be diverted away from the often-repeated claim that only six per cent of rapes lead to a conviction. This refers to the total number of reports producing convictions, but Stern says it is misleading as nearly 60 per cent of those charged with rape are, in fact, convicted. […]

    Feminists and PC create "truth" by repeating misleading and outright false statements and silencing truth. This happens with domestic violence, false rape statistics, race and iq cover ups and blank slate lies.

    Since the Sexual Offences Act 2003 came into force, the definition of rape has been expanded to include oral sex. But there has also been a profound attitude shift with roots in the second-wave feminist idea that heterosexual sex is an inherently violent and degrading act that women subject themselves to against their better judgement.

    More than four out of five rape allegations are made against friends or acquaintances. As alcohol and/or drugs were involved in over half those cases, Cavendish puts this down to ‘the culture of binge drinking’. But this avoids the more complex picture. Today, various rape-awareness activists and state feminists are themselves helping to blur the boundaries between sex and rape, encouraging women to regard themselves as violated, abused and traumatised for having gone to bed with a man without thinking it through in minute detail.

    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. As Cavendish pointed out: ‘In our zeal to protect women, are we going to legislate so that a drunken man is accountable for his deeds, but a drunken woman is not? Why do we encourage women to see themselves as victims?’ Absolving women who engage in sexual liaisons – whether drunk or sober – of responsibility for their actions is not liberating; it’s demeaning.

    There is no doubt that forcing someone to have sex is a heinous, violent and degrading act and victims of rape should indeed be treated with dignity and respect. But in the name of protecting women, the government is insisting that rape cases be treated differently from all other crimes, while interfering with the course of justice in a way that undermines defendants’ rights and undercuts the power of juries.

    Roache verdict: why jury trials are indispensable

    10 February 2014

    The criminal trial of the Coronation Street star, as opposed to the media trial of Woody Allen, showed the value of being tried before a jury.


    Perhaps the CPS should now consider whether it is a good idea to abandon considerations of complainant credibility, especially in cases like Roache’s, where credibility is so fundamental to the allegation.

    Student censors, your time is up

    12 May 2014

    Campus censorship makes a mockery of student politics. Time to shake it off.

    This is an edited version of a speech given at King’s College London as part of spiked’s ‘Down With Campus Censorship!’ campaign.

    Today, it’s easy to be dismissive of it all, as the bans have become more and more banal and their justifications more and more flimsy. Recently, we’ve seen the University of Derby’s student union attempt to ban the entirety of UKIP on the grounds that the burble of the notoriously gaffe-prone party poses a threat to student safety. Meanwhile, the University of Cardiff’s student union keeps trying to pass a motion that would effectively outlaw ‘pro-life’ societies and demonstrations on campus.

    Last year – which was dubbed ‘the year of the ban’ by the Tab – the state of affairs went from the troubling to the vaguely ridiculous, as near-enough 30 universities banned Robin Thicke’s pop smash ‘Blurred Lines’, as well as tabloid newspapers, such as the Sun and the Daily Star, as part of the national No More Page 3 campaign. These bans were argued for under the bizarre notion that they were underpinning a culture of misogyny, even sexual violence, on campus.

    It’s a strange state of affairs: where once student unions wanted to protect students from the racist invective of Nick Griffin, now they want to protect you from the come-hither warblings of Mr. Thicke


  • Author: Human-Stupidy (Admin)

    Honest Research, Truth, Sincerity is our maxim. We hate politally correct falsification, falsification, repression of the truth, academic dishonesty and censorship.

    2 thoughts on “Rape Hysteria’s legal proceedings questioned by Spiked Online”

    1. “So are these men actually being raped?”

      No, as per feminist ideology only women are not accountable for their actions when intoxicated. And don’t forget, the way the laws are written in most western countries the legal charge of rape can only apply to men. Women can generally only be charged with sexual assault.

    2. So does this mean that the kink known as “forced intoxication” is actually illegal? If you don’t know what that is, forced intoxication is a bdsm kink where the submissive gets drunk while the dominant remains sober to create a greater power imbalance.


      This kink is mostly popular among dominant women and submissive men. A simple typing of “forced intoxication” into google will bring up page after page of mistresses advertising forced intoxication sessions. So are these men actually being raped?

    Leave a Reply. We appreciate a discussion: if you disagree, your comment still is welcome.

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.