What Me Worry? About Rape?

Rape, like shit, happens. It is unfortunate. And for the life of me, I cannot see the point of forcing sexual congress upon any unwilling citizen. Might as well be a heap of sand-bags! The mere fact that the party is unwilling, ought to be a reverse-aphrodisiac surpassing multiple submersions in the Arctic Ocean. Or so you might think. But then again, not all people think alike.

I would not wish rape upon anybody. Not even upon people who might seem to have it coming! Granted that if by chance it should befall such a one, I might shrug my shoulders and say "ah, well! Poetic justice!" But never would I be so barbaric as to wish it upon that individual beforehand!

For example, suppose I had been falsely accused of rape and sent to prison for ten years, and had suffered things more hideous than I hope you can imagine, and had been placed on a sexual offenders list for life, and had correctly benefited from all of this exactly as Catherine Comins would suggest. Now suppose that if some time after my release I were taking a constitutional stroll in the evening, and I chanced upon my accuser being gang-raped by the most ugly and disease-ridden thugs this side of hell, what do you suppose my feelings would be on that occasion? Would I intervene like a gallant knight to rescue the fair damsel? Or would I merely shrug my shoulders and say, "ah, well! Poetic justice!", and then saunter along my way whistling a sprightly tune?

Whatever my response to the occasion in question, I can assure you I would never wish that occasion upon the person beforehand! After all, as our wise and wonderful friends the feminists would say, "nobody deserves to get raped!" However, deserving something and deserving to get rescued from something, are separate issues. I reserve the right to form my opinion independently as regards the latter.

Very well. Turning from the rarified altitude of levity, irony and flippancy, we descend now into a somber valley, a valley cloaked in perpetual shadow, where innocent blood trickles from the rocks and ledges, saturates the very soil, and accompanies our footsteps with an ugly sucking sound everywhere we wander. Feminism, our mortal foe, must be held to a stern accounting for the innocent blood which it has spilled, for the innocent tears which it has caused to flow, and for the multitude of human miseries both large and small which have sprung to life along its path.

What value hath the life of a man? I don't mean "man" in some default generic way of speaking, as denoting humanity in the abstract. No, I mean a male human being pure and simple! What specifically is the worth of a male life? For that matter, what is the worth of anything at all that pertains to maleness—whether feeding into it or proceeding from it?

We are quite familiar—I would even say too familiar—with the old feminist saw that men and women are "equal", or ought to be made so by appropriate measures. Now unless I am mistaken, equality should entail at the very least a balance of power. True? And in order to ensure a balance of power, both sides ought to possess an equal strike capacity. Yes? After all, what use has equality in other areas of life when a superior strike capacity can blow this away at any time?

Such being given, I would contend that men and women are not presently equal in point of strike capacity. Women enjoy superior strike capacity specifically as regards the law—both civil and criminal. In very basic terms I mean that women are able to leverage the state monopoly on violence against men in an arbitrary way, that they are able to do this by bearing false witness against men, and that they are able to bear false witness against men both because they are held to lowered standards of evidence, and because in judicial practice they are not held accountable for their perjury.

It is as if half the population were armed with a deadly weapon which it could use with impunity against the other half. Simply put, unequal strike capacity. Such is the power of the legal lightning bolt which lies in the hands of women.

Women therefore function as a conduit through which the state monopoly on violence may be visited upon men in a manner which renders men helpless against the state. No man is safe—every woman is a potential rape accuser, and women as a group have become the enforcer-accomplices in what amounts a police state.

The state operates in the capacity of a husband or father—in short, a surrogate male protector figure. The state monopoly on violence is brought to bear upon "men", but more to the point, it is brought to bear ARBITRARILY—at the whim of a woman! Not for any state reason, but for personal reasons—as the saying goes, the personal is the political.

Do you remember that old song about "my boyfriend's back and there's gonna be trouble!"? In this equation, "boyfriend" equals the machinery of state—an alpha male meathead with fat knuckles who will believe whatever cupcake tells him, and ask questions later!

In principle, this is no different than walking along the street, arresting men at random, and sending them to prison. Trouble indeed.

Now, feminist theory might have us believe that such an arrangement is necessary in order to counteract so-called male violence, but by reason of its arbitrariness this arrangement rides roughshod over individual guilt or innocence. Feminist theory makes sense only within a macrocosm-based COLLECTIVE GUILT paradigm—which means that in practice, the veritable guilt or innocence of any particular male citizen becomes meaningless . It is "men" who are under indictment, and one scapegoat, provided it be a male goat, has much the value of any other.

Our traditional legal system has been breached by a system of collectivistic justice in which the actual guilt or innocence of living individuals no longer matters. I should say, living male individuals—since women have become a privileged class under this regime, engaged in a kind of symbiotic power-sharing racket.

This collectivistically-based system of justice—like a bolus of viral, alien logic—has hollowed out a sphere for itself within the traditional system, and awaits only periodic moments of opportunity to propagate itself further into the body of its host.

The feminists naturally give lip service to equal justice, due process, the Bill of Rights, and so on. In other words, they are careful to mask their collectivist thinking under acceptable rhetoric. Quite a few of them are, at any rate. But like an underlying rock stratum on a hillside, the truth sometimes pokes to the surface when geomorphic pressures are applied. One such outcrop—a very dramatic example—was the recent Duke lacrosse affair. In that setting it was clear that certain people—the gang of 88 among others—wanted blood rather than justice, that the Durham Three were on trial simply for who they were, and that it was immaterial whether they had truly committed the acts listed in the indictment. I find it difficult to fathom the minds of the lynch mob in the Duke case, but I am certain they have minds extremely unlike my own—which could explain why I find their minds difficult to fathom!

But pretty it is, to observe how they parade themselves under fine-sounding words like "progressive". Do you expect these people to change, to show remorse, to undertake self-criticism? Sooner expect a fish to sprout wings and feathers, and fly around with the seagulls!

"Presumption of male guilt" is a structural-conceptual model that underlies all thinking which may be characterized as essentially feminist. It applies equally across the broad spectrum of the cultural fabric, by which I mean that feminism aims to saturate that fabric completely, entirely, fully—step by step in the fullness of time. However, it is in the administration of law and public policy that such intentions are most keenly felt. And men are certainly under the power of the legal lightning bolt in areas other than rape prosecution. However, rape is the subject of our present talk, so let us return to it.

Feminism's Presumptive Male Guilt model supplies an answer to the question posed earlier: what value hath the life of a man? The answer would be: less than the life of a woman. Also, think fast: who went to the lifeboats first?

But, to devalue male life can only mean to deprecate maleness altogether—it can mean nothing other. And not only maleness but anything appertaining to maleness, or to men, in whatever manner you please.

Consider, for an example, the case of rape prosecution. The feminists have put it about for many years that "women don't lie about rape". This saying has passed through the tumbler and gotten a bit of rounding-off, so that you will sometimes hear it phrased merely as "women don't lie"—which demonstrates a certain logic in action consistent with feminist ethics.

However, the idea that women don't lie about rape has packed certain consequences for the administration of justice. A companion watchword to "women don't lie about rape" is the hortatory expression "we must believe them!" Accordingly, when a woman gets up on the stand, and points her finger at a man and says, "he raped me!", her power to command belief has, owing to feminist innovation, bulked rather large. The conviction that women don't lie, and that we MUST believe them, has been planted, watered, cultivated, assiduously tended, and finally taken deep root.

This state of affairs ought to concern us. If the truth be known, rape is inherently a difficult crime to prosecute. In our criminal justice system, we have what are known as standards of evidence, and it just so happens that rape cases often pose a formidable barrier for the prosecution in terms of what is required to satisfy these standards. I mean, chiefly, in the matter of witnesses and corroborations.

A comparison might be helpful. Let us consider the crime of burglary, and let us construct a scenario involving this offense. Very well: a burglar, having spent several weeks casing a particular residence, finally picks a time to strike. It is late evening, the people are away, and the burglar believes they will be gone for quite a while and that he can work uninterrupted. He effects his entry by jimmying a window on the ground floor, but unfortunately for him he makes a bit of noise which attracts the attention of a neighbor. This man happens to be a high-tech buff who owns a videocam that can see in the dark, and he has the presence of mind to film the burglar in the act of breaking and entering. He also calls his family members to witness this, and immediately afterwards calls the police. Having done so, he similarly contacts several other neighbors by phone and tells them what is going on. These people saunter discreetly down the street toward the house, and a couple of them go to the alley in back and while standing in the shadows observe the burglar ferrying several items into his van. The police arrive, and the officers stake out the house from every side. The burglar emerges and is promptly arrested—an event which the neighbor once again captures on camera. The case goes to trial, and with the abundance of evidence it is speedily concluded. The jury deliberates, finds the defendant guilty, and the judge hands him a sentence. Hammer down!

Now, by way of illumination, let us posit a hypothetical rape case. Let us imagine a couple—a man and a woman who are known to be "seeing each other" as such matters are mysteriously and euphemistically termed. One evening, they go out together—nobody else knows where—and the last available witness will vouch that she got into the car with him, and that they drove away. Two days later, she appears at the police station claiming that he raped her. She provides a minimal storyline about the two of them going back to her apartment where he proceeded to have his way against her will. Understand, that there are no witnesses to any of this. There is no corroboration of any sort. However, the accused is arrested, and it is found that his DNA does indeed match a specimen gathered from the woman's body.

Rape cases have been brought to trial on less evidence than what I am suggesting here. That should tell you something about the prosecutorial culture which has taken up residence in our criminal justice system owing to the influence of feminist innovation. Just try to imagine the first-instanced burglary case getting in front of a judge if the evidence were so meager—to say nothing of obtaining a guilty verdict!

In the rape case, it is plausible to assert that sexual intercourse occurred. I say plausible: it is merely possible that the semen got to the final location by some means other than coitus. The possibility seems rather odd, but still it is a possibility. However, supposing that coital penetration did in fact occur, it is both possible and plausible that the act was consensual.

And what would Sir Matthew Hale tell us here? He would tell us this:

"Rape is an accusation easily to be made, hard to be proved, and harder yet to be defended by the party accused, tho' never so innocent".

This is known as "Hale's warning." Formerly, it was the manner to read Hale's warning to juries during rape trials, but feminist activism has put an end to this custom. The feminist Marilyn French accounts this as a progressive innovation—or at any rate sees nothing objectionable about it.

We ought to pause and reflect a bit upon Sir Matthew's wisdom. In the case at hand, the accusation is indeed hard to be proved—unless you count as proof the unsupported word of a solitary female. Remember that we have only a compelling likelihood, on the strength of forensic evidence, that sexual intercourse even occurred at all. As for the likelihood that rape occurred, that case is not nearly so compelling.

Still, the feminists will inform us that women don't lie about rape—and they are adamant that "we must believe her." So, the woman in our rape case informs us that she was raped by the defendant, and we have seemingly no choice but believe her—although we have nothing better than her word for it. Such is the criminal justice procedure the feminists would have us follow. And what follows...?

What follows is that feminists do not, in principle, respect any so-called right of equal justice or equal protection under the law. For in the present case we must, according to them, believe the woman—and upon no greater recommendation than the fact that she is female!

Here, the lack of equality must surely compel our notice. Suppose the defendant in our rape case were to say: "She lies, the little slut!!!" No, on second thought, let us assume that he frames the point in more genteel terms as befits the dignity of a courtroom setting. At any rate, he disputes the accusation.

Still, the feminists would instruct us to believe the woman, and this paints a sexist double-standard in blazing characters fourteen miles high. What value hath the life of a man? There can be no doubt of the feminist answer. Any feminist who is truly a feminist sets male life in the same category as garbage, which signifies: worthy only to be thrown away!

If the burglary case sketched earlier rested upon no better grounds than our hypothetical rape case, it would straightway be thrown out of court. It is a serious matter, a deadly serious matter, to convict a person of crime and to exact a penalty for that crime. The person had better be guilty, and you had better be damn sure of it.

Sole testimony minus corroboration has not customarily been deemed sufficient to obtain a conviction. Most courts, historically, have required more than that. But the rape case now in question confronts us with a special kind of impasse known as a "he said-she said": HE said that he did not rape her; SHE said that he did. And according to the sect of philosophers known as feminists, whatever HE says carries exactly the value which this very same sect of philosophers in their wisdom have assigned to male life. Namely, the value of garbage. It is of no importance to this sect of philosophers that presumption of innocence and standards of evidence were established in the legal system only after hard-fought battles, and were set in place to secure the freedom and safety of all citizens, not just half of them. No, none of that matters to a feminist, in whose mind men are garbage—and what need has garbage for freedom and safety? The party accused may be "never so innocent", but since he is garbage, who honestly gives a rip?

The feminists do not believe in equal protection under the law for men. If they did, they would not have campaigned so strenuously to bring the world to its present state—in which no such equal protection is offered. Similarly, they would put their money where their mouths are and scream bloody murder about this current system where men live at the mercy of female perjury. I say they would, and that is conditional. But objective considerations force me to conclude that most feminists don't honestly give a shit if men are railroaded into prison on false charges of rape—to say nothing of all the other false charges on which men can be railroaded. Feminists quite frankly don't care about that because, deep in the bowels of their ideology, they are morally exonerated by the axiom that men are collectively guilty garbage and may be treated accordingly.

I wish that some honest feminist would stand up in front of Congress or Parliament, and propose a rape lottery system that would randomly select X number of men, based on the estimated number of rapes (both reported and unreported) that are said to occur yearly. The lucky winners would be summarily clapped in irons and carted away to the penitentiary, no questions asked! There is no doubt that some actual rapists would be netted in this way, purely by chance. However, I doubt that very many feminists would be either honest or bold enough to put forward such a proposal. For even though nothing in the proposal would contradict feminist morality, it would place that morality far too nakedly on display.

So, it is safe to predict that the feminists will continue to screech about "men getting away with rape!", and insisting that "we need to get more convictions!" But how to get "more convictions"? That's easy! Lower the standards of evidence even more. Put more political pressure on judges and prosecutors. Spread more slanders about men generally, so that juries will be more inclined to give the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt.

Concurrent with their judicially-based political warfare against men, the feminists will go on preaching their timeworn moral injunctions and sermons toward men. ALL men—rapists or otherwise. "Men can stop rape", they will say. And they will be careful to note that "most men are not rapists", but straightway they will follow it up with "most rapes are committed by men". And on and on they will go! But we know perfectly well what they'll do, don't we? We are wise to their tricks, aren't we?

I'm sorry feminists, but "believing the woman" does NOT add up to equal justice. Equal justice equates to one thing only: believing the evidence. And lacking evidence, we are under NO compulsion—legal, moral or otherwise—to believe the woman. If you insist on believing the woman, then equal justice demands that you insist on believing the man likewise—which sounds self-defeating and silly since the two testimonies would cancel each other and leave you no better than you started.

So in the end there is only one option: THROW THE CASE OUT OF COURT.

Then, feminists can go back to screaming at the male population about men's collective phantom responsibility to "stop rape". Remember, men are responsible for everything bad because men are garbage. And the fact that men are garbage proves that every man is a potential rapist, just as the fact that every man is a potential rapist proves that men are garbage. Women are blameless moral robots with zero creative agency, zero input into the equations of occurrence, and zero obligation to take commonsense precautions to avoid compromising situations and risky behaviors! None! Whatsoever! Only men can stop rape! Especially those who never started.

But even though men are garbage, don't give up your preaching and screeching! If you make men feel guilty enough, then maybe they won't ACT like garbage any more! And even though most men are not rapists as you are so careful to say, they can still stop rape if they form themselves into rape awareness posses, and act deeply sensitive, and preach unto one another like choir-boys, and practice self-flagellation! And if they get tired of that, they can all put on their white ribbons and go out patrolling obscure byways at 3 a.m. so that intoxicated women in fishnet hosiery, micro-minis, see-through tops and platform heels can walk around with the assurance of being rescued if somebody tries to rape them. Last but not least, they can start keeping files on guys like the present writer. . .

Oh, to hell with all of this rubbish!!! I will not submit to moral injunctions and behavior instructions from people who have declared war on me, who have poisoned the world against me, who hate me, who have slandered me, who wish to harm me in more ways than I've yet had the time to learn about! Fine lot they are, to lecture me about rape—or anything else! What impudent, brass-faced hypocrisy! First they injure me, then they insult me—and I'm bloody tired of it!

At this very instant, somebody somewhere on earth is getting raped, and there is not a damn thing I can do about it. So I don't intend to lose a wink of sleep over it.

And as far as I'm concerned, the feminists can drink horse piss.