A few
days ago I discovered something that sounds too good to be true.
Until
now, any man whom a woman deigned to accuse of having raped her, has been
considered guilty unless proven innocent – which in most cases is impossible.
Now, it
would seem that the Italian Supreme Court has decided that rape cases are to be
handled with at least some regard to the evidence. In the case in question the
"victim" apparently had jeans which were so tight that they could not
have been removed without her cooperation. In the court of first instance, the
accused was, of course, automatically convicted – after all, the accusation was
rape – but the Supreme Court reasoned that if the jeans were so tight that they
could not have been removed without the woman's cooperation, her claim that she
had not agreed to sex was not credible, and acquitted the man. His reputation
and career will probably be ruined anyway, but at least he won't have to spend
any more time in jail. That's something.
This is the original article. Unsurprisingly,
the author is enraged that any court would ever dare to acquit a man accused of
rape. And so he brings on childish nonsense like the court's decision's meaning
that ANY woman wearing ANY jeans can be forced to sex without punishment under
ANY circumstances. Obviously, the decision doesn't say anything to that effect.
Now,
that ruling doesn't, of course, bring the legal practice anywhere near to fair
handling of rape accusations. The case did only deal with the problem of
automatically regarding the man as a criminal and the woman as a victim, no
matter what the circumstances. A vital next step would be a legal provison to
the effect that a rape conviction would require evidence apart from the
"victim's" word.
It is
one of the most elementary principles of criminal justice that to convict a
person of any crime except rape, the prosecution needs to prove that the
accused has committed that crime. Outrageously, in the case of rape accusations,
it is commonly considered sufficient that a woman simply claims after the
sexual act that she didn't consent to it. No other evidence is required (at
least in some jurisidictions). While we don't have the islamic law that the word
of one man is equivalent to the word of two women, we seem to have the
unwritten law that, in rape cases, the word of a woman weighs more than the
word of a man.
The
common legal practice to handle rape differently from any other type of crime
puts every one of us in danger. Every time a man fucks a woman, he risks having
his life ruined, should the woman be displeased with anything afterwards, and
decide to file a rape accusation to get back on him. Because gone are the times
when falling victim of rape was an awful shame for a woman. These days rape
accusation is merely a convenient way for a woman to damage a sex partner she
no longer likes.
You
think I'm exaggerating. To a certain degree, I may be. But ask yourself: how
could the man in that Italian case end up convicted in the first instance, and
acquitted later merely because of the jeans? Obviously, there was no proof
of rape to start with. Had there been any proof of rape, the Supreme Court could
not have ignored it and based their ruling on the jeans. The tightness of
the jeans could not outweigh, for instance, signs of violence on her body or
any other evidence suggesting resistance. So it would seem that the court of
the first instance convicted the accused without any evidence of
involuntariness.
In any
situation other than a rape accusation, the victim's word against the
defendant's word is not sufficient for a conviction. Suppose S sells a ring
with a stone of cheap material to B for 50 Euros (or dollars, if you prefer).
Then B files a complaint with the police, stating that the stone was actually
supposed to be a diamond, so the ring would have been worth 5000 Euros, and
that he actually paid 5000 Euros to S. He presents as proof the ring with the
stone which is not a diamond, and it's also proven that S possesses more than
5000 Euros. S claims that B only paid him 50 Euros (the 5000 Euros having been
received from numerous other sources, as is common for vendors), and that there
was an understanding between them that B pays 50 Euros and gets a ring that is
actually worth 50 Euros.
There is
no court in the civilised world that would convict S of fraud on B's word
alone. When the crime has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the
defendant has to be acquitted. That is the basis of civilised criminal justice.
But if the accusation is rape, those exact same judges wouldn't hesitate to
convict the accused of rape on the "victim's" word alone, without any
further evidence. For that matter, even traces of sperm in the
"victim's" vagina aren't required because he could have used a
condom. And a rape attempt doesn't require any evidence whatsoever. (Which is
why it was used in the former Soviet Union as a convenient means of disposing
of dissidents. The modern democratic world has, unsurprisingly, improved on
that – the offence called sexual harassment does the job even more easily.)
Pretty
much the only thing left to our protection is the women's decency, and that,
judging by what I hear from countries like the USA, is vanishing rapidly. The
most outrageous case I remember was a teenage girl who had to explain to her
parents why she was late coming home in the evening, so she lied that she had
been raped. To make people think she had been raped was clearly a lesser evil
for her than angering her parents and getting grounded or such. Hearing about
cases like these helps one to put into proper perspective the feminist whining
about how horribly women are supposed to suffer when raped. Yes, there are
those who do suffer, but they don't run around screaming that they were raped,
even if they actually were.
And this
brings me to a sad paradox about rape. A decent woman who actually suffers
terribly from rape, is horribly ashamed of it. So she does everything in her
power to prevent anybody from ever learning about it. Usually she only files a
rape complaint when a family member sees her acting strangely and squeezes the
truth out of her or something. So their rapists who actually deserve to be
punished often go free. On the other hand, the modern arrogant bitch who uses
her sexuality to take advantage of the men without the slightest scruples,
doesn't really suffer when being fucked against her will, except for the
indignation that a man has had the insolence of refusing to be her obedient toy
and to meekly submit to her teasing. She wouldn't think twice about filing a
rape complaint even when there was no rape but she simply happens to feel that
a man needs to be taught a lesson. It's a game to her, a game where she can
enjoy watching the man suffer while risking nothing herself (because women
filing false rape accusations are almost never prosecuted). And that is
probably the reason why 40 percent of rape accusations are proven false,
further 55% are estimated to be false but can't be proven so, and merely 5% are
actual rapes – and at the same time many rapes are never reported. (The
feminists, of course, scream about the latter but completely ignore the
former.)
Some
Western countries have moved beyond even that, and others are following suit.
It would seem that in countries like the USA, any man's professional career and
family life can be easily ruined by having any woman pointing a finger at him
and claiming sexual harassment. Just as with a rape accusation, the accused is
not only left with the impossible task of proving that no harassment ever took
place, but his reputation will be badly damaged by the mere fact that such an
accusation was made. I read about a case where a female employee went to a male
superior and stood very close to him, rubbing her breasts against his body, and
then she went and filed a sexual harassment complaint, and he was apparently
in big trouble without being able to do anything about it. In some places it
seems to be police routine that a male police officer never interrogates a
female without a female police officer present – drawing pay for just hanging
around as a witness, in order to protect the male officer from a possible
sexual harassment accusation.
It would
seem that in such countries, every man in an influencial position has to constantly walk on eggshells, hoping to be able to get through his life without ever
provoking a woman to accusing him of sexual harassment. It seems to me that
the only reasonable thing to do for any man is to get the fuck out of such a
contry as soon a he can afford it. As a matter of fact, I intend to leave this
country before it becomes a clone of the USA or Sweden – and we're on our way
just there, that can be clearly seen.
The
official goverment policy and legal practice in the Western countries is
nothing short of genocide against men. Satisfying his natural need for sex is
difficult enough for a man as it is. It's like playing a game of dice where you
have one die and the woman has three. But the governments do all they can to
increase that disadvantage by giving the woman the fourth die. Even that is not
enough for the feminists who still keep screaming about discrimination and
demand that the women be given the fifth die, and why not the sixth while we're
at it?
While
the above-mentioned verdict of the Italian Supreme Court is to be celebrated, I don't
see any hope that the rule of law would ever be fully extended to the area of
sex crimes. That would require admitting that a proper woman wouldn't:
a) dress
and act like a whore in public, and scream bloody murder whenever any man as
much as lays a finger on her (I understand that in some countries the men are
severely scolded even for looking at the exposed body parts of an exhibitionist
woman);
b)
routinely let men take her on dates, knowing perfectly well that the only
reason they would ever ask her out is in the hope of having sex with her, and
never have sex with them.
There
are words for that kind of indecent behaviour. The first is called sexual
harassment, the second is called sexual abuse. Yes, that's right. When a woman wags her body in front of men, enjoying her ability to make them horny and
leaving them unsatisfied, it's sexual harassment of men. And routinely letting
men entertain oneself without giving them sex in return – that's date abuse, a
form of sexual abuse of men.
Don't
try to tell me that a woman who isn't ashamed to show herself on the street dressed
like this suffers horribly when raped.
And
don't try to tell me that a woman who repeatedly goes into a man's apartment
after dates and still keeps refusing sex does not deserve to be raped.
For that matter, as long as the false rape industry keeps destroying innocent men's lives all over the world, I find it impossible to have compassion with any raped woman.
Just to
avoid any misunderstandings, I absolutely advise against raping sex refusers (or any women, for that matter), as
it would ruin your life without doing her much damage. A better idea is to
simply tell her that a relationship without sex is not acceptable to you. If she gives you any LJBF bullshit, just break up all contact with her. I did
that some time ago, and guess what – a few weeks later she contacted me and
agreed to have sex with me. How do you like them apples?
