Once women begin to question the inevitability of their subordination and to reject the conventions formerly associated with it, they can no longer retreat to the safety of those conventions. The woman who rejects the stereotype of feminine weakness and dependence can no longer find much comfort in the cliché that all men are beasts. – Christopher Lasch
Every freethinking woman has heard some form of it: “You’re setting the cause of women’s rights back a century”. I’ve heard it upon getting boyfriends’ coffee for them, letting it be known that I was a stripper or escort, being seen with a Camille Paglia book in my hand, etc. But as with so many pronouncements deriving from belief rather than from logic, it’s exactly backward; it’s the neofeminists and their stooges who have set women on course for a return to Victorian paternalism by enshrining in law the principle that women are delicate, innocent, asexual little flowers who must be protected from beastly men and their carnal lusts at all costs. “Mandatory prosecution” laws deny a woman’s right to decide whether to press charges on an abusive husband, on the grounds that she can’t be trusted to make the “right” decision. The “Swedish model” denies that women can consciously choose to have sex for reasons other than lust, loneliness or childish fantasies of romance, and establishes men as women’s moral superiors by holding them liable for women’s actions. Women who deny being coerced, raped, abused, “trafficked” or whatever by men are said to be suffering from “false consciousness”, the neologism for “weak-mindedness”. And though majority-male legislatures and government agencies enact these policies, it’s women who propose them in the first place and then lobby tirelessly for their implementation.
Why in the world do they do this? Can’t they comprehend the precedent they’ve established? I’m really not sure; it’s difficult to understand the workings of warped, hateful, evil, power-mad minds. One thing is clear: they don’t care anything about the happiness or needs of individual women, only their plan for the “advancement” of “womankind” and the destruction of the monolithic, mythical “Patriarchy”. And like bloodthirsty, obsessed generals they don’t care how much carnage is inflicted on their own troops so long as their side “wins”. If neofeminist “leaders” tried forcing this monstrous catechism of permanent childhood on mature adult women they wouldn’t get very far, so instead they inflict it on young, naïve, sheltered white girls at expensive universities. And though the real world has moved on since the heyday of neofeminism, in America’s universities it’s still 1992, bogus rape statistics are spread around like manure and the fluffy-bunny minds of coeds are crammed full of “rape culture” and “female victimization” rhetoric in the hope that they never grow up enough to recognize that they’ve been lied to, robbed of adult agency and quite possibly used as weapons to destroy the lives of equally naïve, hormone-addled young men they once liked enough to date.
And now, thanks to lawyers on the lookout for new sources of blood, American universities are being forced to implement the male-crushing schemes of neofeminists via threat of ruinous lawsuits and the loss of government funds on which nearly all of them depend. And when given the choice between senselessly destroying a young man’s academic career and losing money, I don’t need to tell you what they’ll do every time. Consider this article from Philadelphia magazine:
U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education Russlynn Ali…[has] disseminated a…letter to all colleges and universities that receive federal aid—which is all but two in the country—detailing how they’re required to combat [what Ali calls “a terrible, alarming trend of campus sexual violence”]…While women’s rights advocates have lauded Ali…a quieter groundswell of protest has charged her with trampling on the rights of young men accused of sexual assault…deans say she’s stripped their ability to deal with delicate he-said-she-said cases in fairer, more nuanced ways…[and her] guidelines impose a paralyzing “nanny state” on…campuses…across the country. At precisely the time in their lives when young men and women should be exploring what sexuality means, the new rules choke off their freedom, limit their choices, and encourage the canard that all males are unrepentant predators. What’s more, they position women as helpless victims who require bureaucratic protection from those males—victims with no responsibility for their own behavior. Heaven help those women when they graduate.
Those who read my column of July 25th will no doubt recognize this as the same “campus rape crisis” hysteria that’s been aggressively marketed by radical feminists since the 1980s, complete with bogus statistics and support from Joe Biden. But while the government was previously content to throw money at what dispassionate observers recognize as a fairly rare problem, now schools will be required to expel young men on the basis of evidence too flimsy to convict them in court:
…consent [as defined by Ali] has to be active, not passive. And [a man] has to get [clear verbal] consent every time he wants to move up another base—a policy first instituted at Ohio’s Antioch College in the early 1990s…“If you want to take her blouse off, you have to ask. If you want to touch her breast, you have to ask. If you want to move your hand down to her genitals, you have to ask. If you want to put your finger inside her, you have to ask.” Reaction to Antioch’s policy…was wildly derisive; eventually, the college closed down. The policy, however…lives on all over the country…even [if a man has] no way of telling…[how much a woman has been drinking it is] his responsibility to determine if she [is] “incapacitated” [because]…if she [is], any fondling they [do], no matter how great her zeal, [is] sexual assault. She doesn’t even have to lodge a complaint; the college has to investigate if…[a witness] sees her…and suspects she’s drunk…and then there’s the new…requirement that has raised the most alarm among civil libertarians: the lowering of the evidentiary standard to that used in civil-rights litigation…a “preponderance of the evidence” is now all that’s required…not the more familiar “beyond a reasonable doubt” of criminal cases or the intermediary “clear and convincing evidence” standard many schools used to employ…Samantha Harris, of the…Foundation for Individual Rights in Education…says the new standard violates accused students’ due process rights…the Supreme Court’s precedents demonstrate that evidentiary standards should be higher, not lower, when so much is at stake, as FIRE argued in a lengthy letter to…Ali. “We’re not sending these students to prison…but…they’re found guilty of serious criminal offenses.” Perpetrators are subject to expulsion, which affects their employment and social prospects…Why don’t colleges just turn sexual assault cases over to police to prosecute? Because there’s rarely enough evidence to convict in a real court of law.
I was a married graduate student the first time I heard about the Antioch policy, and my reaction then is the same as it is now: If any guy had repeatedly sought verbal permission for everything rather than simply following my non-verbal cues I would’ve been so turned off I would’ve stopped the proceedings immediately, which is of course what the feminists want. Anyone in her right mind understands that “please don’t do that” or simply repositioning a wandering hand works on any normal man, and real rapists aren’t deterred by a lack of permission.
…the 2007 Justice Department report…researchers didn’t ask the 5,446 female students who took their online survey if they’d been sexually assaulted. They decided for the young women, who…were deemed too ignorant to know…when researchers asked the young women themselves if they considered what happened to them “rape,” three-quarters… didn’t. Only three percent said they’d experienced physical or psychological harm. Only two percent reported what happened to campus security or police. Asked why they hadn’t, the women said they didn’t consider the incident serious enough (66 percent) and/or that it wasn’t clear a crime or harm was intended (36 percent). Half said they themselves were partially or fully responsible for what had happened…But the fact that the victims didn’t think of themselves as victims, [university risk management consultant Brett] Sokolow says, misses the point: “They have to learn to say, ‘This is something that was done to me’”…I tell Sokolow that if [my college-age daughter] got drunk and had sex with someone, I’d jolly well expect her to take responsibility. He isn’t buying it: “She should have the right to strip naked and run through the streets and be unmolested. She didn’t make that happen; the molester did.”
This is the catechism being preached to young American women: You are NEVER responsible for your own actions. No matter how irresponsibly you act, no matter what you say to or do with a man, if someone later convinces you that you were “assaulted”, or if “authorities” rule that you were despite your protests, then you are a helpless, powerless victim without adult agency or volition, no better than an infant. Heaven help them, indeed.
One Year Ago Today
“A Whore in the Bedroom” explores the implications of my philosophy that “When one has a living creature under one’s care, it is one’s responsibility to take care of that creature’s needs, or else to arrange for someone else to do so. And if you shirk that responsibility, you only have yourself to blame for the inevitable and foreseeable consequences.”
Well, you know us men and our jedi mind tricks.
I’ve been trying to find a video of that SNL skit for about a week now, all I can find so far is a transcript
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/93/93bdaterape.phtml
@MikeS,
Maybe it was our Male Voice. You know, the derisive, male voice that can induce weakness and female febrility just by uttering syllables. Hey! A radical feminist threw a man out of a classrom for disagreeing with her, and later charged him with harrassment, for using his Male Voice on a woman.
@Maggie,
This is a brilliant post. It needs to be copied and pasted into every American’s brain. Thank you.
You’re welcome, Gorb. 🙂
I guess the “male voice” thing is related to the equally idiotic “male gaze” thing. Incredible. I am appalled by the pusillanimity of so many members of my sex.
Holy crap! I learned a new word today. Good word – pusillanimity.
Glad to be of service. 😉
I wonder how long until giving a woman chocolate will be classified as sexual chemical warfare.
Buying her drinks is already described as “administering alcohol” in sex-assault cases.
Not directly related, but these two comments did get me thinking…
Since women are so easily misled and incapable of rational decision-making, why is it that they should be given equal footing in business and government? They should just be given pretty baubles and tasked with simple chores like child-rearing and house-keeping. They will, of course, require careful supervision to make sure they’re doing it right.
By the same token, why should we give any credence to the prattling of the neofeminists since they suffer the same faulty, childlike inability to think rationally? I mean, clearly they’re incapable of knowing that all sex is male dominance and tantamount to rape. They shouldn’t worry their pretty little heads about it!
That’s my point exactly. The only people who require special legal protections are those who are incompetent, such as children and the mentally ill. Anyone who requires such protections cannot be trusted with full citizenship and equal rights, and those who want equal rights must also accept equal responsibilities.
What about sex-positive feminism?
I’m currently in Seoul. With several Korean men and a number of women (wow, how this country changes), I just got back (early) from a jaunt to a Hof and Pub, which was followed by a series of drinks at a local bar-type place.
In it were a number of girls, working – too pretty to be waitresses, too attentive to be patrons. They sat with us in a room and helped serve drinks.
As the late evening wore on, it turned out my date for the evening was growing tired and I’d done my social necessities for the project with these co-workers, and we were leaving.
Two of the girls had become fast friends with two of the men. I’m absolutely certain that they ended up going off to the upper floors where there’s a motel; and I’m sure there was an exchange of pleasantries, enthusiasm and a gift.
None of the women with us (with me, and with two of the others) were in any way dispossessed of their faculties. They didn’t react in disgust. It was entirely normal. There were a few comments on the inappropriately tarty (but very sexy) dress, and one girl’s obvious but very good boob job. They were also very polite women and discreet about it, calling their men “opa” (older brother) and being proper enough.
what was shocking to me was when I mentioned to my date that these girls were almost certainly prostitutes. I asked her what she thought of it.
Her entire reaction was this:
“I hope they got paid well. They were cute.”
Not the most liberated people. But not even flinching from my date.
*
Apparently I, as a man, am so very mature and self-determined that even if I’m falling-down drunk and a woman is bending every effort to seduce me, I still have the mental capacity, moral responsibility, and psychic ability to
a) realize that she is very slightly buzzed, to
b) realize that the poor empty-headed thing couldn’t possibly control her own actions in this much-less-inebriated-than-I state, and finally
c) resist any and all advances, even if she’s ripping her clothes off and putting her hand down my pants.
Wow, I’m so smart, mature, responsible and capable and she’s so, well, pathetic.
I never realized men were so superior to women. I don’t think I can ever vote for a woman, now.
.
*flagged for the sarcasm-impaired
Academic Feminism is an outgrowth of Academic Radicalism, and like its parent it is driven by its believer’s absolute conviction that they were placed on Earth by Divine Providence in order to tell the Lesser Orders what to do and how to think. This is complicated by the simple fact that there is never any factual evidence to support this belief. Christianity can, at a minimum, point to 2000 years of fitful progress. Radicalism, Feminism, Communism, etc. can only point to 50 to 100 years of abject failure on all fronts.
The Political Left’s biggest problem in the last 50 years has been the usurpation of large parts of its movement by these idiots. The Civil Rights Liberals, the Populists, and others have significant achievements to point to. The Radicals and company have only our withdrawal from the Vietnam War, and they dasn’t let people look too closely at that lest somebody notice that the Communist North did, as predicted, celebrate its victory by mass imprisonments and wholesale murder.
CS, you are spot on correct here. I however, don’t believe all of this is an “outgrowth” of the “do-gooder” mentality as much as it is the work of tyrannical forces behind the scenes manipulating it’s useful idiots.
The goal, of course – being the enslavement of all of us.
I have no other explanation for why there is all this frenetic activity to turn the world on it’s head by hanging an anchor around the necks of the productive and happy people – just to allow the lazy and angry ones to get ahead.
krulac,
You may be right, but I resist the temptation to attribute to conspiracy what is adequately explained by boneheaded ego. The West is afflicted by a large class of self-styled Intellectual (amazing how few of them are willing to do actual scholarship, BTW) every one of whom thinks they should be running things. They are, in effect, a self-selected elite, just like the European Aristocracy, or the Antebellum Planters. And we can take some small satisfaction from the knowledge that, if by some calamity they should succeed, one of the first things the all encompassing State they labor so hard to create will do is liquidate them. It’s happened in every Communist country to date….
Meh … I spent a lot of time in the Navy around young men and women … I can tell you – the younger generation isn’t buying into this nonsense.
Yeah – you can “feed” it to them. You can sit them in classes and recite every bit of the neo-feminist catechism to their faces. They’ll sit there with smiles on their faces and nodding … but you can see it in their eyes, they ain’t buyin it … they are much smarter than that by far!
Make me wonder if this is all just going to come down to attrition in the neo-feminist ranks. The only one’s I know of are … pretty old and way beyond their prime. They won’t be around too much longer.
I think the next crop of “feminists” will be a sexy one indeed. 😀
I sure hope you’re right, Krulac. I’m so tired of these busybody moralists pissing taxpayer money down the drain in attempts to suppress behaviors they don’t like.
Yeah, the younger generation is doing quite well. Er, they’re often doing good, at least. Almost all of the things that we worry about teens and young adults (like violence and smoking) are down, and things like voting and volunteerism are up.
Their google-fu is unmatched, and no indoctrination program can get all of them. Oh, you’ll always get a few, but more and more of them are looking the facts up for themselves.
Why? Because they’re a cartel. Those who tell us that their services are worth a lifetime meal ticket don’t want to have to face competition, so they lobby for licensure just like people in any other profession whose members have inflated opinions of their own indispensability.
Even if the laws stand, soon we’ll have robots that can replace them, and they’ll never manage to ban those.
Really? Again with the robots?
I got a documentary off of some channel called Sex Robot. Haven’t watched it yet. I know it deals with couples where one or the other pretends to be a robot as part of love-making. Don’t know yet if it deals with real robots in the future.
Here’s a song by a group I’ve never liked, but the video is appropriate for the subject. Nothing I could do about the ad. Sowwy. 🙁
Oh look! Sexual equality in robot songs!
Laura and I have now seen Sex Robot. The technology has a ways to go, though one man got a RealDoll and said that it works, sort of, if he fantasizes that it’s a robot which has been deactivated.
As for the robotic role-playing…
When it got to that part, Laura turned to me and in no uncertain terms said, “I am NOT doing that.” Good thing robots aren’t my main fantasy, lol!
PS – Speaking of Title IX, Yale is being sued under it for the murder of Annie Le. They’re claiming the lack o crackdown on male behavior led to it.
Seriously: http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/sep/07/le-suit-alleges-yale-fault/
Unfortunately, people profiting from the murder of family members is nothing new; Ron Goldman‘s family has made a business out of it.
I’m not going to comment on the Goldmans, and I don’t know enough about the Le case to say anything there. But about people profiting from the murder of family members:
Such a thing puts all family members of murder victims under a pall of suspicion. It’s a horrible thing, when so many only want a little comfort. Not fame, not fortune, not even gobs of sympathy, but a little consideration of their feelings, a little respect for what they’ve gone through.
Dear Sailor B, thank God for the 1’s like you! 1 of the biggest reasons I wanted a relationship with you was the 1st thing you did when I told you about the murders was to give condolences. That’s the minimum courtesy ANY deserve who have had any kind of tragedy. It doesn’t matter if it’s a murder, natural death in the family, lost everything in a fire, have health problems, etc. That’s the least people deserve. You’ve shown a very open heart and mind towards the MVS from the time I met you. Yes, you’re right: we don’t want those things. Are there ###*** MVS? YES! I’ve run into a few, unfortunately. In my experience, though, they’re in the minority. You’re 1 of the NOT SMALL group that’s “reachable” by the MVS who speak out constantly. There’s a need for us to educate because of the lies, stereotypes, etc. about us. For us to not speak out would mean accepting the ###***. NEVER! Plus, the NEW MVS need to know who to go to for support and to learn about how the criminal courts work, etc., etc. The truth is there’ll be some we can’t reach because they don’t want to be reached. But, if we let them stop us that’s pathetic, self-destructive, lazy, defeatist, etc. and will cause the NEW MVS to go through even more HELL. Thanks again for speaking up for the MVS. This is 1 of the many reasons I love you: you’ve done this repeatedly for many years.
Laura, my deepest sympathy for the murders in your family.
You are truly a Survivor.
Dear Marla, sorry for my late reply to your post. Thank you. I’m very glad someone taught you to give condolences. Thank you again.
Dear Sailor Barsoom, I remember telling you all the updates on the Goldmans and you told me the things you’d heard about also. I know that was years ago so it’s understandable that we’ve both forgotten some things. I hope to meet the Goldmans one day. They’re fellow survivors and have never deserved ###*** like being literally called “vultures” (which I’ve seen online). You’ve learned through me and other MVS I’ve told you about the reasons some MVS go to civil court. I’m thankful for this. Just reading about MVS and not making efforts to interact with them and/or just reading stuff by non-MVS leaves people with a picture that’s not complete. Thank you again.
The “business” the Goldman family got involved in was to take the last chance they had at any justice. It was their ONLY chance left at ANY justice. These people were subjected to disgusting religious verbal abuse when outside the courthouse during the civil trial SCUM called them “greedy Jews”, “Your name is Goldman so you want all the gold”, etc. Isn’t that WONDERFUL? We survivors of murder victims do all we can to get as much justice as possible on this earth. Anyone who says that isn’t worth it or we should “let it go”, “move on”, “get over it”, etc. have NO idea the hells we go through and don’t WANT TO. They either see us as ghoulish entertainment and/or want us to shut up and go away. However, there ARE AT LEAST A FEW who don’t see us as ghoulish entertainment and have soft enough hearts to learn about us and also listen when we speak out. The truth is ANY of us at ANY time can be touched by murder. It still makes me very ashamed that I used to believe before it happened to my family that it would never happen to me. Arrogance at its worst! The truth is during the OJ Simpson criminal trial the Goldmans sacrficed a lot of their wages from their jobs in order to be there as much as possible. Survivors know that this CAN help and the GOOD prosecutors (and there are MANY) know it also. Many of us also want to be in court as much as possible because we want to know ALL about our cases. The wonderful Fred Goldman (Ron’s father) started helping other survivors (I call them MVS, for murder victim survivors) right away. He formed the Ron Goldman Foundation for Justice. He could have EASILY DONE NOTHING. He chose instead to work at HEALING himself, his family and the other MVS. The foundation runs on donations. The Goldmans haven’t collected A CENT from OJ and if anyone wants links to that info I’ll be glad to post them. Fred is still working also. It sure sounds like they’ve “profited” greatly! RIGHT! Many MVS go the civil court route for many reasons and the reasons the Goldmans did are common to many of us. There’s a lot more involved than just getting $. I know this 1st hand from a civil suit my family was involved in that was connected to the murders in our family. The Goldmans could have put a hit out on OJ, beat him up, etc., all kinds of things like that. There’s no evidence of anything like that. This also shows the kind of people they are. They haven’t ever lowered themselves to OJ’s level. OJ has also confessed that he HID information about some of his assets from the Goldmans and Browns. WHAT A GUY! I remember back in 1997 when Fred said if OJ would confess the Goldmans would drop the judgment against OJ. That’s another proof that the family didn’t do this just to get $. They were willing to give up the whole thing in exchange for information from OJ. Ron was killed by ###*** SCUM while doing a good deed. His family and friends have been through HELL and when you do any search on them online you see the same old vicious, arrogant, racist/religious (those horrible Jews!) personal attacks and lies. If anyone says on here she’s talking about MVS again (gasp!) then ###*** you because this is an issue that needs to be talked about and the Goldmans defended along with the other MVS who go the civil court route. The truth is I’ve held back a great deal about my family tragedy for various reasons. I could easily bring it up constantly for sympathy, ego reasons, etc. plus other stuff that’s happened to me. On this issue, though, I couldn’t be silent and know many other MVS (and NON-MVS, like Sailor Barsoom, are with me on this. The Goldmans are part of the MVS family we (unfortunately) were put in through no fault of our own and I’d be very honored to meet all of them 1 day. I’ve read their book about Ron and have followed them in the news for years. They help other MVS all the time and that’s a huge deal. Thanks for listening.
I want to point out that even though I said Sailor Barsoom is a NON-MVS he is a type of MVS. He’s what I call a “war MVS” as his Dad was killed serving in the Vietnam War. Sorry, Sailor B, that I left this out above.
It’s OK, Baby. I know you support me in this, and that you have a sympathy for all war orphans, even if they do have one parent left, like me. You’re a prize I still don’t know how I ever won.
Dear Sailor Barsoom, you know why I’m replying to this now (and not way back when you first posted it) so thanks for bearing with me. Thank you. And YOU are a prize I don’t know how I ever won also.
I think much of this problem may stem from a the incompatibilities of two very different models of sexuality that are competing for the hearts and minds of younger people. There is the feminist touted “consent” model and the more traditional “guy chases girl” model.
Under the “guy chases girl” men always initiate and pursue sex, and women either resist or give in. Guys vary between the Awesome stud, who is masculine and confident and gets laid easily, and the Creepy Loser who does not. Women are rated by their beauty/hotness and by how ‘easy’ they are. Whether or not sex occurs is essentially the product of how easy the woman is, how awesome the guy is, and how much work he’s willing to invest.
Unfortunately under the “guy chases girl” model there is a grey area between rape and sex. Nobody would call it rape, but the woman can still walk away feeling used or even traumatized. Rape-Rape is only when a guy springs from the bushes in the middle of the night. What the woman wants is either irrelevant, or it’s assumed she wants to awesome stud or a long term relationship (i.e. a high price for her sex) or ideally an awesome stud in a long term relationship. Sometimes an awesome stud will force sex is he feels he really deserves it for whatever reason.
Sex is an irrational choice. Men have a massive desire for it. Though they can develop ‘game’ to make getting the girl easier. Women can make themselves more desirable towards certain men. However when sex does happen is ultimately a random event, a spontaneous happening under the right circumstances.
Under the ‘consent’ model sex happens because both (or all) of the people involved consciously chose to do so for whatever reason. The reason is irrelevant as long as they honestly want to do this. You propose an activity and your partner either accepts or declines the offer. Ideally you would literally ask as in the Antioch policy, but I think most feminists realize consent can be more complex than that, i.e. there is such thing as implied consent.
The ‘consent’ model is superior since you can actually communicate what you want rather than following a gendered script. If a woman is forced or coerced into something we can easily understand that her rights were violated and that sexual assault occurred. If the man backed off when told to we can easily say that he did nothing wrong. (Unless the situation strongly implied he should never of done anything at all, for example pinching a co workers ass during a business meeting…) The Rape vs Sex distinction is clear once we have all the facts (though admittedly, as with any crime, getting all the facts is difficult in practice). Getting your partner to do what you want is easy, just ask.
Unfortunately the ‘consent’ model can’t really be applied to people who are thinking in “guy chases girl” terms. Hopefully our culture will make the switch, but what to do in the mean time? How to help people enjoy sex and deal with rape is a way that promotes the ‘consent’ model, actually helps people, but is compatible with they way the average Joe approaches sex currently?
sex will always be guy chases girl. That is unchangeable. It is nature and hardcoded into men and women. examples from deviant lifestyles like lesbians or gays have no relationship to male female relations.
Only short term transactional sex works on the consent basis.
The problem with all that is that we’re programmed for the “guy chases girl” model, and the “consent” model by itself sterilizes and artificializes something which is and always will be biological, dark and irrational. Modern guys operating under your “consent model” have made up a bunch of stupid, asinine mythology about how women prefer “bad boys”, but it only bears a passing resemblance to reality. The truth is that women biologically respond to pursuit, not to “may I touch your breast?” so our culture cannot and SHOULD not “make the switch” as you put it. There’s nothing wrong with guys chasing girls, as long as they understand that “get your hands off me, you son of a bitch!” is not the same thing as “no, tee hee hee.” The problem isn’t human dynamics, it’s social engineering trying to turn everything into a rigid, mechanical, academically-approved process where, to quote Li’l Abner, “conveyor-belt women and assembly-line men settle down in push-button homes.”
And of course, the men damn well better push the right buttons and only the right buttons…
Great quote, by the way.
🙂
QuantumInc wrote: “Rape-Rape is only when a guy springs from the bushes in the middle of the night.”
Are you implying that it’s real rape only if the man and the woman are strangers? If so, that’s nonsense. It’s perfectly possible for a man to rape a woman he knows. In rape just as in murder, the perpetrator and the victim usually know each other.
Excellent article Maggie–
People here should take a look at the latest article The False Rape Society has up about this outrageous directive under Title IX to universities from the Obama administration.
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/09/college-campuses-expand-definitions-of.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheFalseRapeSociety+%28The+False+Rape+Society%29&utm_content=Google+Reader
I always find it very irritating when people are for a mere “I heard it someday and thought a bit about it later” quite convinced that something is quite terribly harmful, want to convince the affected persons that such is the truth -perhaps even forcibly-, sometimes even willingly causing more damage in the process, and then even have the guts or lack of mental capacity to sell that of as secondary harm from the original “offense”, rather than call it what it is – primary harm done by a culturally loaded, self-opinionated maltreatment of something that does most certainly not need to be treated, if it doesn’t even deserve to be nurtured. Not the Mad Hatter could be so mad.
If they would consistently display this profound logics inability, they wouldn’t even have passed elementary school mathematics. It truly boggles the mind how much a mere grain of moral conviction can utterly destroy a man’s ability and even will to reason. It’s no better than believing the earth is flat, or even hollow. In fact it is worse, because it directly insults and criminalises tens of thousands of good fellow humans, and most likely hundreds of millions if you think globally – which is only fair since the mindset is globally spread.
I agree. A hollow Earth is a cool idea, but nobody goes to jail for not believing it.