Laws that affect women and men equally are misogyny sexist raaaaaape.

Update:

Looks like Outrage culture deliberately misrepresented the situation: A controversial Oklahoma court ruling was widely misinterpreted to mean that under state law, rape charges cannot be brought if the victim was intoxicated.


Ruling here

---

A response to "Oklahoma Court: Oral Sex is Not Rape if Victim is Unconscious From Drinking"

28 Apr 2016 23:25:52 UTC

http://viralwomen.com/post/oklahoma_court_oral_sex_is_not_rape_if_victim_is_unconscious_from_drinking

'We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language.’

(source)

Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and persecution to Feminists. Why are they angry about that judgement?

They seem to want to abandon the law and just have kangaroo courts.

"Listen and Believe" in practice.

‘

"decision asvictim¹[sic] blaming"?

"Campaigners and legal experts have criticised the "insane" decision asvictim blaming "

Usually a link backs up your argument. The link here just talks about a different issue.

It's almost as if the author thought:

"I don't actually have any evidence to back up my assertions so i better pretend to have some legal experts agreeing - they won't check anyway, those idiots will just Listen and Believe (TM)".

‘We will not, in order to justify prosecution of a person for an offense, enlarge a statute beyond the fair meaning of its language.’ - See more at: http://viralwomen.com/post/oklahoma_court_oral_sex_is_not_rape_if_victim_is_unconscious_from_drinking#sthash.5KLxNWs3.dpuf

Since the statute applies without any sexual bias, how is it a women's rights issue?


"The court argued that, under this statute of law, incapacitation by drinking didn’t apply as it wasn’t on the list of circumstances that constitute force."


It wasn't a group of men deciding to be mean to women - it was a statute with a loophole. That happens all the time because people are not omniscient, but you Feminists automatically interpret it as malicious and biased against one sex only - despite it applying equally to both sexes.

If Feminists cared about justice, they would want rape laws to apply to everyone, not just to men. They would want female rapists punished, and punished exactly as severely, instead of wanting them to walk free.


If men are so awful that they are writing laws to hurt you, why on earth do you Feminists share a country with them?

Seriously, move away, form your utopia, prove to the rest of the world how much better you are without us.

But Feminists never will. They bitch, and they moan, and they whine, for men to solve all their problems, while patting themselves on the back for being independent.

These are strong women.

This is a Feminist.

Which of these two groups do you think would be able to build a civilisation?

---

Follow-up:

Oklahoma Legislators Seek Change in Sodomy Law After Ruling

Which means this is a non-issue. A loophole, affecting both sexes, was discovered, and will be closed. There's no conspiracy here against women.But if you look at , it's framed as proof of the wicked men in power persecuting women, and the commentators on the Feminist side are only interested in the victim narrative.

Feminist response:

Mostly just abuse - it does amuse me how ready they are to call someone "cunt" and then run screaming to the harassment police if i reply with exactly the same term.

"It's a human issue.
Seriously, you read this article and that's all you have to say?
No empathy for this victim?
No outrage over this loophole?
Wow.. Perhaps it's just YOU who needs to move away. My male people are wonderful, caring human beings."

Notice they avoid dealing with the arguments and focus on emotive manipulation. "Feelz over Facts" is the Feminist mantra.

My counter-response:

"It's a human issue."

This page isn't "human interest news", the article doesn't treat it as a human rights issue but as a persecution of women by men - as do all the feminist commentators I can find here.

"Seriously, you read this article and that's all you have to say?"

No, which is why i linked my comments separately.

"No empathy for this victim?"

None has been shown on this page for men who have been raped but unable to charge their attackers due to Feminist legislation.

You don't seem worried by that - your demand that I SHOW empathy but no-one else on your team has to DO so is very revealing.

"No outrage over this loophole?"

The one that is being closed? Do you get angry over potholes that are being filled? Bad things happen. In this case it was an accident. You don't seem to care because you see that accident as proof of malice. That is paranoia.

"Wow.. Perhaps it's just YOU who needs to move away."

You realise if you moved away from me, that's exactly what would happen? That's how it works?

But we non-Feminists are the majority, and we get on perfectly well. Why should we abandon our civilisation - especially as you show no sign of being able to cope five minutes without us?

"My male people are wonderful, caring human beings"

I hope you gave them a good pat on the head and a tasty treat. Yet you don't seem to care that your sibling paints them as toxic monsters?

Y'know, some Nazis kept Jewish women as mistresses - it doesn't mean they liked Jews. How do you treat men? You join in the group hate sessions quite readily. What does that say about you?

A typical example of Feminist abuse.
It's an abuse of my eye-sight, especially.

---

¹Ouch. Typos. I am worried about their ass-victim tho', I'd see a doctor about that. I mean, I make typos all the time - but I'm doing this for my own benefit, not for something that claims to be professional. Oh well.

Feminism is equality, which is why only men should be punished for crimes.

http://www.thenational.scot/politics/womens-group-calls-for-number-of-females-in-prison-to-be-capped-at-100.16465

And the Guardian agrees - of course!

Judge: "Well, murdering your seven children and your niece would put you in jail if you were a man, but fortunately for you, the 100 people we have on minor offences means you can go on as many killing sprees as you like!"


"Nearly every incarcerated woman is the victim of a perverse and lazy policy disfigurement that fails to acknowledge the marked differences between female and male offenders."

Why does Feminism fight against the protection of rape victims?

This isn't the attitude of some extreme group -

Feminists with this belief lead the movement.


Woman gooood! Man baaaaad! Everyone is equal under Feminism - to oppose us is to oppose equality! Stop mansplaining, malescum!

Judges told: 'be more lenient to women criminals', and ignore the murders they commit.

Feminists look at systems which treat women unfairly - which will take a case of a man and a woman who murder or rape together, and give them different sentences on the basis of sex - and decide that that injustice is good, and it could only be better to increase it.

After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted."

This gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity that Prof. Starr found in another recent paper. (source)

From http://prichardsworld.weebly.com/animal-farm.html

The only conclusion I can reach is that Feminists hate justice as much as they hate men, and I have to wonder - what would they do without us as a class to despise?

Can you imagine an island populated by these people? When crimes are committed by women, they have no mental framework to deal with it... so they would have to declare them to be men.

Of course, this wouldn't apply to the right sort of women - I'm sure the daughters of the powerful would be immune to consequences.

DPP rules all men are now rapists

So much for "Innocent until proven guilty". Feminists just destroyed 1500 years of legal principle.

The Director of Public Prosecutions said it was time for the legal system to move beyond the concept of “no means no”

Really? Despite the idea that adults are able to articulate yes or no, and this is reducing women to the status of children? Because it only casts women as victims here, and men as victimisers. It's very clear they want to prosecute men - lots of them! Perhaps they have a motive other than justice?


"Men accused of date rape will need to convince police that a woman consented to sex"

How? Whereabouts is the bar? Do they need a written contract? Will a witness be required? A Justice of the Peace?

In no other area of the law would they be vague about the required method of obeying the law.

"Prove you're innocent!" is something we abandoned with witch-hunts and show-trials. It's very clear there's no way to prove you're innocent; once accused, the lynching can begin.

"Alison Saunders said rape victims should no longer be “blamed” by society if they are too drunk to consent to sex"

Note she never defines how drunk is too drunk. One glass of wine? We don't have that vagueness for motor vehicles or heavy machinery. Can there be any innocent reason for phrasing a law in such an inept manner? Or is it more likely to have been chosen in order to persecute men?

And, of course, she never addresses the case where two people drink equally then have sex - the logical paradox of having people simultaneously be rape victims and rapists never seems to occur to her.

Either she cheated through her exams and did a lot of favours to get her qualifications  - or she is corrupt, and is knowingly passing corrupt legislation.


" “a suspect held a position of power over the potential victim - as a teacher, an employer, a doctor or a fellow gang member”"

So it's rape if you have sex with your boss? Even if you chased them, you can destroy them as your rapist? Even if they had recordings that was your plot - she has no problems with that?

And "a fellow gang member”??? A peer is.. in her warped mind ... a superior?

HOW DOES THAT EVEN WORK?

Of course, the subtext is " a MALE gang member with a FEMALE ”

Because women are weak and feeble, and even if they say yes, it secretly means no.

THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM A MALICIOUS WOMAN UNDER THESE LAWS.

Let's look at her definition of victimisation:

"The ability to consent to sex should also be questioned where the complainant has mental health problems"

MOST PEOPLE HAVE THOSE AT SOME TIME OR ANOTHER.

We do not describe such people as incapable of making decisions. If you sign a contract and were a bit depressed - you are still liable! You have to be very seriously ill for the court to regard you as incapacitated.

Yet she wants any woman to say "it doesn't matter that i was recorded shouting yes every 30 seconds; i secretly meant no because i saw a nasty message on twitter!"

The new guidance also covers domestic violence situations and those where “the complainant may be financially or otherwise dependent on their alleged rapist”.

Yep, if someone is financially dependent on YOU, YOU ARE RAPING THEM.

But wait! Maybe I'm misreading the gender bias here! Surely the law will be applied fairly?

 "Around 85,000 women per year are victims of rape in the UK, of whom 90 per cent know the perpetrator. The most recent figures showed that just 15,670 women reported rapes to the police"

Ok, they just made up a number, because saying 85000 women were raped required omniscience - there's 15,670 reports, and a lot go unproven - so 1,070 convictions resulting from the 2,910 cases that got to court means 1,070  CONVICTIONS PROVEN, NOT 85000!

No mention of men being raped. Not an option in their minds. There's no chance they don't have in mind how this law is to be applied. Men are wicked - women are saints.

"The rape conference was designed partly to address the long-standing gulf between rape allegations and conviction"

Well yes - like in the Soviet Union, every accusation will automatically carry a conviction. It will simplify matters. Perhaps they'll provide weeping confessions on television, before they have them shot.

CDC admits it uses Feminist definitions to impose sexism on it's services.

–]oneiorosgrip 2 points 2 months ago

In February of 2013 I sent a Freedom of Information act request to the CDC asking for the raw numbers from 2010 for the various areas of intimate partner and sexual violence, with a specific set of questions.

The CDC took almost a year to reply, sent me a PDF file with copy/paste errors in it that looks very much like it was thrown together at the last minute, and insisted on trying to tell me that it was useless before releasing it to me. Their explanation for why it was supposedly useless didn't address the interest I had in it.


In addition to the errors, there were issues with the information itself. There are areas in which the text makes the claim "The numbers of respondents reporting victimization in other categories not described above were too small to produce a reliable estimate and therefore were not included in the report" about types of victimization for which hundreds were listed reporting in response to other questions.

It's evident that there *were * enough respondents in at least some of those categories, and the CDC or the researchers themselves simply dodged the questions because they did not want to answer them.


It was in part because of that evasiveness that during the conference call, I point blank asked them why they refuse to call forced coitus rape when the victim is male if they're aware that it's rape when the victim is female.

The researcher on the phone literally could not answer the question - she stumbled over it for a few seconds before falling back on "because the experts said so." There was no actual reasoning - just, "because we said so."

We saw the "reasoning" behind Koss's decision to exclude female-on-male rape from the definition of rape. That is where the "expert" definition comes from.

What I got from them was an admission that they've allowed feminists to write sexism into their policy on sexual violence. It didn't even seem to bother them that much to admit it.

source

Why does Feminism love Female Pedophiles?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/british-mom-jailed-sex-8-year-old-article-1.1726526

Judge Robert Juckes QC said he would be "lenient" in her sentence because she'd stopped after realizing it was “wrong” and had suffered "embarrassment."


EMBARRASSMENT.

Yes, you can see how terribly her guilt burdens her.


 So why does this happen? Why do female pedos get a nice cup of tea and a shoulder to cry on?

Because Feminists made it the law.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7995844/Judges-told-be-more-lenient-to-women-criminals.html

So sexism is the law now, and Feminism is fine with that - because it privileges Females. Feminism is Female Supremacism - it has nothing to do with equality. If it did, the idea of a law treating one group differently to another on the basis of their sex would be absurd and wrong. Instead, they feel it's right; they are entitled to superiority, because vagina.

You have 5 seconds to comply...

An 18 year old woman decided she wanted to have sex with a 15 year old boy. (source)

"The woman testified that Mr. Baby continued for five to 10 seconds after she asked him to stop. "

So he was slow by 5-10 seconds. 

He didn't instantly freeze. Perhaps all males should be fitted with shock collars, so a woman just had to press the remote and shock the

evil rapist into unconsciousness?



"Tracy Brown, executive director of the Women”s Law Center of Maryland, said Maryland”s decision means the law will match what people already think"

That an adult female can rape a minor and have the CHILD arrested?

Yay, Feminism! Crushing those evil rapists one male at a time...

EU to ban antifeminist speech

"“Group libel” means: defamatory comments made in public and aimed against a group as defined in paragraph (a) – or members thereof – with a view to inciting to violence, slandering the group, holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to false charges."

So ridiculing feminism is a crime? People ridicule political movements they oppose all the time; why is feminism so privileged that it cannot even be criticised?

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_revframework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf – The European framework national statute for the promotion of tolerance – full text (in English)

And since when did feminism prove it's points? Is the Patriarchy Hypothesis something that's ever been subjected to rigorous examination?

Well, it can't be after this is passed. That would be "subjecting it to false charges". Charging it with being wrong, or actively deceitful.

So who gets to decide what's a true charge and what's false? It does.

Judge, jury and executioner all in one.

Discussion here: http://www.avoiceformen.com/suggested-reading/eu-to-ban-anti-feminist-speech/

---

Boy, 15, kills himself after 'facing expulsion and being put on sex offender registry' for streaking

He was wearing a sock.. you know who also did that?


Were they arrested, branded for life?

Of course not.

"He was arrested and school district recommended he face a court hearing
If convicted of indecent exposure, he'd have gone on sex offenders list"


The sex offenders list... for streaking?

He'd have been regarded as unsafe to be near children and denied a lot of work. 

A creep, a pervert, a rapist.

 

I grew up when streaking regularly happened at sporting events. People would laugh, or see it as a nuisance, but they didn't feel damaged.



He'd have been marked for life. For doing something we used to regard as a silly prank, or even a political protest. The sex offenders list. Did what they propose fit the crime?

Isn't that what punishment is supposed to do?

In 1973, what the press called a "streaking epidemic" hit Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, with streakers being seen in residence halls, at football games and at various other on-campus locations and events, including Spring graduation.

The trend continued until spring 1974, when Ralph W. Steen, University president, hoping to end the streaking fad, designated a day to streak the length of East College Street, a tradition that - with a few breaks - has continued to this day. (source)

 I have to wonder.. would he have been treated as harshly if he'd been a she? Or would it have been seen as a bit of a joke?

Oh, right..

It was.

Chanting RAPE CULTURE RAPE CULTURE RAPE CULTURE does not make it real

Rape culture, in the west, is a myth. If there was any truth to it, then the boys wouldn't have been punished.

Well, it's a myth to an extent... when women rape, it's not even acknowledged as such by the FBI. It's not even counted as a crime in many countries thanks to changes made by Feminists recently. 

Even in Israel.

Even in the UK!

When women rape, they ARE coddled, excuses are made by the media, Feminists and even judges, their childhood investigated to find out who victimised them into doing such an unnatural thing.

Their sentences, when they are convicted, are shorter. Their prison conditions.. better. Baroness Corston dedicated her life to closing women's prisons, because the poor dears don't deserve to be punished, not like those filthy men.

And in rape trials men are guilty unless proven innocent, despite false allegations ranging up to 90%.

So what do I see here? I see a woman so smug in her self-entitlement and professional victimhood that she is happy to rage males for a system that punishes males for an act universally condemned ... by males. That refuses to acknowledge female on female rape can possibly even exist, let alone be common.

I see a man so lost in internalised misandry that he will fight to the death to protect a woman's right to rape without consequence, or accuse him of rape without evidence. 

These people chant their dogma, hoping you will believe, oh yea! -  believe, brothers and sisters!

Well, here's something I ask you to try instead.

Primary or Predominant Aggressor Laws

Mirrored from Onemv's excellent blog!

Primary or Predominant Aggressor Laws

First, what is the aggressor? The aggressor as defined by Black’s Legal Dictionary:

The party who first offers violence or offense. He who begins a quarrel or dispute, either by threatening or striking another.

     Very simple and straightforward. Clear, unambiguous wording. You start the fight, you attack, you are the aggressor. This definition caused problems when in the mid-80’s several states started adopting mandatory arrest laws. 

Mandatory arrest laws require that officers responding to a domestic violence call, arrest the aggressor. The Aggressor at the time of these laws inception, was defined as above. It is important to note it was feminist groups, mostly advocates for battered women, that pushed for these mandatory arrest laws, it will be vital in understanding what happened next.

After these mandatory arrest laws were enacted, they immediately backfired on the advocates of battered women. Drastically so, while the arrest rate for men climbed by 37%, the arrest rate for women skyrocketed by 446%. This was unacceptable, advocates started claiming that women being arrested, remember the definition above is what they were using, was re-victimizing them.

 To fix this “problem” Predominant Aggressor Laws were created.  These laws created a set of guidelines designed to ignore the legal definition of Aggressor used up until that point, and impose a new one. The list of guidelines is long and incredibly biased against males. Owing in part to Sexual Dimorphism, and in part to culture.

• Age, Height, Weight of the parties.

The male will almost always be older, taller, and heavier than the female.

• Criminal History

Men are much more likely than women to have a criminal history, men make up 93% of prison population.

• Domestic Violence Probation

Has no bearing on the matter at hand, just because a woman was the aggressor the last 3 times, doesn’t mean she is the aggressor now.

• Corroboration

This is evidence supporting claims. It is also redundant with other guidelines.

• Presence of fear.

This assumes that all persons will react the same to the same stimuli. Some people respond to abuse with fear, or anger, or in my case.. Calm.

• Offensive/Defensive Injuries

These can be a clear indicator in some cases, but 58% of domestic violence, is mutual. Meaning both parties are likely to have both sets of wounds.

• Seriousness of injuries.

Incredibly biased against men, due to sexual dimorphism. A male defending himself is likely to do more damage to a female, than the female is likely to do to him.

Example: My wife pulled a knife on me, to protect myself I grabbed the wrist of the hand holding the knife, I sustained no injury, but I bruised her wrist in the process. (this actually happened)

• Motive to Lie

As a general rule of self preservation, both parties have a motive to lie, if only to keep themselves out of jail.  They will likely both accuse the other of being the aggressor.

• Strength and Skill

Another guideline biased heavily against men. As men will almost always be stronger.  Skill is ambiguous, as unless you see them in action or they admit to training, you have no real way of knowing.

• Use of alcohol or drugs

I find this to more of an indicator testimony will wholly unreliable, rather than an indicator of who was the aggressor.  Who is to say the sober one didn’t start the fight because they were angry at their partner being drunk/high?

• 911 reporting party

This is a good factor to consider. The person calling for help is more likely the person who needs help.

• Demeanor of Parties

Another ambiguous guideline that leaves the interpretation completely up to the arresting officer and his own bias.

• Existing Protective Orders

By all means, if someone is violating a protective order, arrest them. Just make sure you arrest the person who caused the violation. If the person under the order goes near the party he is not allowed, arrest them. If the protected party follows the accused into a store forcing a violation, arrest them.

• Self Defense

This will come down to a he said she said spat if there are no reliable witnesses nearby. Once again leaving it up to the arresting officer and his potential bias.

These guidelines were designed to reduce the rate at which women were arrested and increase the rate at which men were arrested. It worked.  It’s important to know these laws, in order to protect yourself. Be sure to look up what the laws about predominant aggressors are in your state. Or calling for help, might land you in prison.


http://onemv.tumblr.com/post/90372814618

(date 30th/6/2014)

The 911 Call
The Police Video

The Cell phone video (at bottom)

This is the problem with Predominant Aggressor Policies.

Related Stories:

1. Duluth and the VAWA: "Power and Control"
2. Where Are All These Abused Men?
3. The pain of Aboriginal men abused by their women
4. The Duluth Model of Misandry
5. 70% of unprovoked domestic violence is by women