Tuesday, December 18, 2007

John Redwood has said something politically incorrect about rape! Gasp!

Date rape should be treated differently from attacks on women by strangers, Politician, John Redwood, has said.

Watch as another man is about to get crucified for expressing a politically correct opinion. He happens to be right, and he also happens to be expressing something which most people would more or less agree with. But the way things work these days is that to say anything which goes against PC dogma is tantamount to an Orwellian thought-crime. Get hysterical whenever someone says something you don't like. That way you shut down any debate.

What is happening is people are reacting to how obscene and ridiculous it sounds to describe a *rape* as a disagreement, or misunderstanding. But what has actually happened is, without most people realising, the definition of rape has been expanded to included situations which most people would consider misunderstandings between couples who were already in some kind of sexual relationship.

The Government are keen, as you may know, to increase the number of men convicted of rape. So they want to change things so that if a woman has been drinking, then she can't consent to sex. i.e. if you are a man and have sex with a woman who has been drinking, then the default assumption is that you've raped her, and its up to you to prove you haven't. Aside from this being an obviously disgusting concept, and a violation of the assumption of innocent until proven guilty, there are a couple of implications which they either haven't thought of, or which they don't care about:

1. Feminists are always complaining about how in the past women were seen as their husband's 'property', because it was he who was the one legally responsible for her behaviour (although, if you think about that concept, its actually a lot less appealing from the man's point of view than the feminists usually make it sound). Now, we've tried giving women total sexual freedom, and its resulted in so much chaos that the authorities are seeing no other option than to once again force the man to be responsible for the woman's behaviour! Yet the feminists don't see the irony in this. Nor do people join the dots and start to wonder whether the real reason that society, in the past, forced men to be legally responsible for their wives was that women just couldn't be trusted with being responsible for their own behaviour.

2. If this does come in as law, its going to make it VERY risky for a man to sleep with any woman whose had a drink. In effect he'll be playing Russian Roulette, the risk being not a shot in the head, but a rape trial in which he'll have to PROVE his innocence. Do those who mindlessly back this law think that this will have no effect on social activity and relations between the sexes? The chances are that it would massively backfire on women. Relations between the sexes in this country are already so unnatural and strained that most people have to get drunk in order to meet people of the opposite sex. If men become increasingly reluctant to socialise with any woman who has been drinking, this is going to either mean women will find it harder to meet a man, or that it will become less socially acceptable for them to drink at all! Or, most likely, a combination of the two! What will happen is women will continue to go out to the bars and clubs in their groups, hoping for men to approach them. But it will be those men who are either losers or bad boys (in the eyes of the women) who will be most likely to approach them, as it only those men with a 'nothing to lose' mentality who will bother to chat up drunk women.


Anonymous said...

New laws making men guilty until proven innocent in rape trials...


How brainless are the lefty filth that run this country? They have their heads so far up the arses of the short hair and dungarees brigade that it's unbelievable.

It will backfire on women. Those guys who have any brains will keep it zipped.

Indeed, many single guys I know refuse to have anything to do with women. They all admit that they don't regret it either.

This will get worse, and the feminazi spinsters will have only themselves to blame when they have only their cats for company.

Anonymous said...

Rape shouldn't be a crime at all.
In real honest to God forced rape, if the girl is a virgin, the Man just marries her and pays her father some money according to the Bible (Deuteronomy 22).

Anonymous said...

Risky to "sleep" with a woman who's been drinking? Hell, it's risky to "sleep" with any woman in so many ways, drunk or sober. I always stay sober - much less tempting, for sure.

Anonymous said...

Makes it even easier to make false claims. Now all she has to claim is that she had a drink and any sex is rape even if videotape footage proves it was consensual.

Anonymous said...

the idea IS to put further strain on the already shaky relationships between men and women. Feminism and laws like this in general serve no other purpose.

Anonymous said...

Hi Darren,

It has also been suggested that around three-quarters of rape victims do not report the crime to the police.

"In fact, almost 90 per cent of rapes are committed by men who know their victims,

Why is it that 3/4 of rapes are not reported and that allegedly 90% are committed by men know to the alleged victim.

If I recall correctly the research that was conducted into this was that most of the incidences were seen as private matters by the alleged victim.

Secondly the research included types of behaviour that may occur in a relationship.

zimmy said...

Rape is anything feminists and anti-male women want it to be. They 'feel' men can thus be controlled by accusations of it. Of course, let us not forget the large lesbian brigades within the feminist movement. They have had a major influence with their misandrist philosophy.

Anonymous said...

I posted on Robyn Rileys blog some of the comments made by Darren.

She has not seen fit to put them on her blog.