Hoes Gon Be Hoes: Featuring the Huffington Post

I’ve reached a resolution: I’m going to stop naming the authors of the garbage that the Huffingpaint Post publishes as commentary. At this point, they are as interchangeable as factory-issued tires.

Another female has “bravely” decided to have a “conversation” (in woman-speak, conversation means you sit there silently while she whines and wags her finger at you) on this “taboo” topic (that at least five other females have probably blogged/tweeted/tumblr’d about in the last hour)…sexual assault.

It was only last month that the world learnt of a convicted rapist from Stanford University.

His name was Brock Turner.

Pause. Turner was convicted of sexual assault, not rape. They are two distinct offenses with separate elements. I know feminists love saying “rape.” For some reason, that word “rape” tickles their funny places to say it (rape). But “rape” isn’t like “fuck.” “Rape” is a legal term of art and has a specific meaning. “Fuck” is more like rhetorical seasoning, like pepper; you add just the right amount to add spice to your verbal dishes.

People in the States were already familiar with the case which had sparked outrage after the defendant was sentenced to a mere six months’ jail time, despite the fact 13 jurors unanimously found him guilty.

I don’t know how they do things in the godless, barbaric wilderness known as Australia, but in the U.S., our criminal jury trials consist of 12 petit jurors and 1 or more alternates, not 13 jurors. (See California Constitution, Article 1, Section 16, Paragraph 3.)

In criminal actions in which a felony is charged, the jury shall consist of 12 persons. In criminal actions in which a misdemeanor is charged, the jury shall consist of 12 persons or a lesser number agreed on by the parties in open court.

Also, to declare that the jury unanimously found him guilty is a tautology. For a person, in America, to be found guilty of a crime in a jury trial, then the jury had to be unanimous in its verdict.

But it wasn’t until Buzzfeed published the letter the victim had read to the judge and her convicted rapist after the light sentence was handed down, that the rest of the world would learn of this sexual assault narrative.

Rich man gets rich man’s justice. Stop the fucking presses.

The letter echoed the voices of millions of other victims and created a space for an important conversation.

Millions of other females are getting falling down drunk and finger-popped in the bushes? I feel like I’m missing out.

A conversation that addressed a scary and taboo subject. And one that we, the public, have become so skilled at ignoring.

Most significantly, the letter illustrated the total lack of recognition and empathy for the victim and the deep rooted problems that exist within the justice system in cases of rape and sexual assault.

A letter, a one-sided lecture from an accuser to a defendant is a “conversation” in the deluded minds of feminists. No exchange, just you sit there and take it.

Dr Marika Guggisberg from Curtin University’s Department of Health Promotion and Sexology teaches a lot about victim blaming and consent and explains the role alcohol plays in reports of sexual assault.

If you are drunk, you cannot give consent

“When a toxicology report reveals there was alcohol involved, immediately there is this assumption she has just drank too much and the responsibility is placed squarely on the woman to protect herself from sexual violation,” Guggisberg told The Huffington Post Australia.

“This perception is so ingrained in our society that even criminal justice officials seem to struggle at times not to engage in victim blaming,” Guggisberg said.

She says the attitude that females who are intoxicated place themselves at risk of being taken advantage of sexually, and that it’s their responsibility alone to keep safe, needs to change.

“Even if you engage in some form of sexual activity and then decide you don’t want to go further you can withdraw your consent without any feelings of guilt — that is your right.”

Let me go get my lemonade and a lap blanket before do this “back in my day” analogy:

When I was a young boy, we had girls in our class who were, to put it nicely, assholes. And being assholes, they liked to play asshole games. One of these games was a little rhyme/threat where they would link arms and walk around chanting “I am blind, I can’t see, if I knock you down, don’t blame it on me, KICK!” and walk around kicking people. Now, if you kicked them back, first, they’d try to kick your ass, because these were black females and black females are most dangerous in packs; but if they didn’t think they could get the better of you, they would run and tell. And the teacher (usually another female and more sympathetic to one of her own sex) would punish you because “you don’t hit girls” (despite the fact that the girls initiated the conflict and had no right to do so).

Where am I going with this analogy you might be wondering? Good. It’s about personal responsibility. You, as the holder and primary beneficiary of your own body, bear the primary responsibility for its care and well-being. If you engage in risky conduct, like running around and assaulting innocent bystanders, or getting drunk and lowering your cognitive abilities in the presence of strangers, then yes, you bear some responsibility when bad things happen to you.

This argument that other people bear any responsibility for the safety of any given female beyond civility is ridiculous.

And because people are stupid, let me go ahead and knock this on out: Nobody “deserves” to be “raped,” just like nobody deserves to be murdered, robbed, beaten, blackmailed, maimed, etc. We don’t live in a world of “deserve.” If we lived in the world of “deserve,” nobody would have their natural rights violated. We live in the world of causality, and in that world, bad choices get bad outcomes, even when those bad choices are made by somebody else.

Sexual assault prevention

Guggisberg spends a lot of time educating her students around three focal points that are paramount to rape prevention.

“The potential victim, but also the potential offender and the potential bystander — all of us play an important role in preventing sexual assault,” Guggisberg said.

In order for an assault to take place there are three things that need to happen.

“There needs to be a suitable target, there needs to be a willing offender and there needs to be the absence of a capable guardian,” Guggisberg said.

Guggisberg explains the importance of making sure you are not isolated.

“If there is a suitable target and a willing offender but there is also a capable guardian, then there is not going to be a sexual assault.”

“A capable guardian?” Are you putting me on? I’m not here to “guard” anyone. It’s no one’s duty to save you from your own drunken self. Hell, not even the police have a legal duty to save anyone. (see Warren v. District of Columbia).

But this is objectionable because it goes to the idea of male disposability, that a man is just supposed to be standing guard while a female drunkenly flits about doing whatever silly thing pops into her inebriated brain and the minute someone tries to take some pussy from her, the disposable male steps in and says:

YOU SHALL NOT PASS!

Meanwhile, you don’t know this guy from Adam. He might back off. Then again, he might really want some pussy and decide he’ll gladly crack your skull to get to it. Then, you have a fight on your hands. Then, it’s either you or him (because a female is not much use in a fight anyway, much less a drunk one). So either you beat him up, he beats you up, you kill him, or he kills you.

And what do you get for being a “capable guardian”? Is the drunk female going to reward you with some pussy for saving it from the evil Brock Turner-esque rapey male? A chaste peck on the cheek perhaps? A handshake? A pat on the head? Money? Rewards in the afterlife? The warm fuzzies from knowing that you have saved pussy that you aren’t getting?

False reporting

“False rape accusations have a globally low rate of less than 10 percent,” Guggisberg said.

“The concept of ‘false accusation’ of sexual assault is generally defined as making a report of sexual assault victimisation when no sexual assault was committed, meaning, the alleged perpetrator is falsely accused.”

In Australia, false accusations of sexual assault are extremely rare with an estimated prevalence rate of about 2 percent of sexual assault reports being classified as “false”.

Guggisberg explains that given that prevalence data are estimates, they are by nature unreliable.

“It is important to note that myths of false reporting affect credibility of victimised individuals and the investigators’ determination whether consent was given. This may contribute to an overestimation of false reporting,” Guggisberg said.

Okay, this is stupid, no matter how many times it gets repeated.

“Well, golly-gee, it’s only 2-8%/less than 10% of men!”

Ma’am, an injustice is an injustice and is objectionable, no matter if it happens to just one man or if it happens to one million men. To turn the massive, merciless power of the state against an innocent man, to deprive him of his life, his security, his wealth, his freedom, and his good name, flies in the face of the concepts of the rule of law and of human decency.

Would this female be so cavalier as to make the statement, “well, the state only executes the wrong person 10% of the time, therefore, stop talking about it”? I don’t think so, but when it comes to female vagina vs. male freedom, despite admitting that the injustice exists, she will accept the injustice and defend it.

False allegations are not a common event

Another area Guggisberg focuses on is the importance of being careful not to misinterpret acquittals.

“If a person is acquitted that does not necessarily mean he did not sexually assault the woman who claims to have been victimised. It often just means there is not enough evidence,” Guggisberg said.

“False allegations of sexual assault are very rare but there is the general misconception that it is a common event.”

“However, research consistently suggests that the absolute vast majority of individuals who make the claim of sexual victimisation have been sexually assaulted,” Guggisberg said.

“The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”

The absence of evidence that I was raped doesn’t mean that I wasn’t really raped/abducted by UFOs/the lost heir of the Romanovs.

This is where the feminists’ willful ignorance of history shines through. The purpose of the criminal court system, and the rules put in place, are supposed to protect the defendant. Why? Because history demonstrates the alternatives to placing the burden of proof on the accuser and giving the defendant the presumption of innocence: Bills of attainder, torture, hearsay, spectral evidence, perjury for hire, secret trials, trials in absentia, show trials, and host of other injustices that end in the same place: the violation of rights and the destruction of the innocent.

This doesn’t trouble feminists because their purpose is not to do justice; it is to extract collective vengeance against the male sex for existing.

Archived Source

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s