Sunday, October 15, 2006

The rape of justice

UK Rape laws: Under proposals which could be announced as early as next month it will be up to juries to decide whether the woman was sober enough to know what she was doing.

Inch-by-inch the tide of represive, misandric laws draws further in. Drowning those men too close to it's shoreline.

So, now women who have downed a few alcoholic drinks are deemed innocent of their own actions, eh? So therefore a drunk woman could get in a car, drive it wrecklessly and kill a man, and be let off by the courts. Don't laugh, its only a matter of time now. Drunk women = innocent of any action, drunk men = guilty until proven innocent. *THAT* is the sickening basis of this law. A trip-wire-trap that now lays in wait for you, your brothers, friends, father, cousins etc. Who will be the first victims of it? No doubt they will be ensnared there by some spiteful woman, set on vengence for some petty mistake the man might have made, or might have made in her immagination. The act of sex itself is not the issue here for her, its all about her own will having ultimate power.

The article continues, warning us: "It raises the possibility that even if a woman agreed to sex while drunk, a jury could rule that she had been too inebriated to give meaningful consent."

What does 'meaningful' mean? Used in this way its meaningless! And if the woman is unable to give meaningful consent after drinking alcohol, then having sex with almost any woman whose been in a bar, pub or night-club is now an ambiguous, semi-illegal activity.

But what amazes me about all this is if you had something which you deem to be very precious, so precious, in fact, that mere bodily contact of a man against this thing is deemed to be a deeply serious crime, would you then go and flaunt this precious object in those very situations where this is most likely to happen?

Of course not. It would be like taking your life savings, contained in a briefcase, out into the worst, crime-ridden alleyways of the roughest part of a city and leaving it there for a couple of hours while you go and do some shopping. Or it would be like taking your new-born baby into an abotoir and balancing it on the rim of a meat-grinding machine while you bend down to tie up your shoe-lace!

Yet this is what we are supposed to believe is happening with today's women. A large percentage of them sleep around without batting an eyelid, going out at night in skimpy clothes, make-up and perfume to those locations where they are most likely to attract the rougher, more sexually pro-active end of the male spectrum, yet then act like innocent little damsels when they have sex with such a man and later regret it.

If we lived in a society where women deeply valued their virginity, and sought to maintain it till marriage, then these laws might at least be partially understandable. Or if the case was about a set of highly nieve nuns who had their drinks spiked by a passing rougish priest, who then got under their habits and ravished them, we might be able to entertain it as a neccessary precausion. But all this is a million miles away from the reality of our modern culture.

But remember, the harsh prison sentences and demolition of a man's character and life are justified wholey on the basis that such 'rapes' represent a severely traumatic event, the psychological and spiritual effects of which remain for years, or even the rest of the woman's life.

Yet, of course, this concept is completely subjective. Whether it is 'traumatic' or not will vary from one woman to another, and vary through time, and can be made to change dramatically merely by lines of thought and rumination that a woman pursues, massively influenced by whether or not her relationship with the man subsequently sours, on what things her friends say about him, and the rhetoric she hears in the daytime lifestyle media. In other words: its in her head.

I cannot think of any other area of life in which the law will punnish a man so seriously as to ruin his life, purely on the basis of something that is in someone else's head. A something which to a third-party observing the event, would not have been seen as a crime at all. It's this lack of the third-party of observer that now makes men so vulnerable to these unfair laws. Indeed, we are now in a situation in which it's men who need to guard their sex, and to ensure they have chaperones!

These laws are brought in by using the rhetoric of 'protecting women', an aim to which the largely ignorant public will nod their heads in approval. In reality, all thats needed is to push the laws into a zone of ambiguity and miscarriages of justice will occur against men.

No comments: