Tuesday, 14 April 2015

Why We Should Legalize Rape

So, over on Amerika is an interesting post on why we should legalize rape:

Legalize Rape, Revisited

To break it down into a nutshell, he states that rape is no longer the life-destroying crime that it used to be (complete ruination of a woman) - it's more along the lines of beating someone up. These days, no woman is expected to go to her wedding a virgin - even though when that happens it's an excellent start to a marriage.

The thing is that our society now accepts casual sex. No woman will ever tell you how many men she's had. You are considered a loser if the thought of it bothers you. You are considered a loser if you catch her out fucking some other guy - and you dump her. You are considered a loser when you won't take her back nohow, no way.

All of this, no matter what, you are a loser - because casual sex is acceptable.

However: due to "remorse" the woman who gave it away freely can next day - or any time up to decades or even the end of her life later - retroactively state that it was not consensual sex. He raped her. Perhaps even claim against his estate (keep an eye out for that).

This has been experienced by several famous people recently - including Bill Cosby:


Yeah, like those girls don't want any of the billion dollars the man is worth. I hope that he spends that billion dollars fighting against them and smearing their reputation worldwide. Fucking gold-digging cunty little whores.
So.

Even though it was consensual last night, now that she's got seller's remorse - it was rape.

Even though it was consensual at the time, because you're now worth a bunch - it was rape.

Cha-ching! $$$$$$$$

THIS is why we should legalize rape. Society is basically forcing it on us. If a girl wants casual sex, then next day says "it was rape" while he says "it was casual sex" - it becomes a he-said she-said. Retroactively changing the mind about something that actually isn't completely life-destroying means that the man becomes disproportionately punished (by default) for doing something which was not wrong at the time.

When the average modern ho girl has had 20+ men in her - taken them happily and freely - also done innumerable hand-jobs, blow-jobs, tit-jobs, anal, jizzed on the face/back/ass/belly, etc. Can we seriously consider that sexual penetration is a life-destroying crime? Given that she's already given it away for nothing over and over and over - or at least is in the process of doing it over and over and over.

It means nothing any more. Even to her.

So yeah, too bad for those girls who are actually, violently, forcibly raped. Your shitty sisters - giving it away for free - being fickle cunts who change their mind retroactively - even years or decades later - have screwed you over.

Yes, I'm pointing at those slutty little cunts.

They're basically forcing society to say: "All right, next overnight offender. What'd this one do? He raped her? A $100 fine. Next!"

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™ - only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

1 comment:

  1. Comparing rape to crimes (not "other" crimes) is the "apples to oranges" thing. The difference between rape and non-rape sex is the state of mind of the "victim" - the recipient.
    If the recipient is agreeable, it's not rape. It's fun, relieves sexual tension, helps a woman make a baby, allows the recipient to feel fulfilled pleasing the other party...
    If the recipient is not agreeable, she (sometimes "he") is not harmed any more than if she was agreeable. Her sexual organs were used for the purpose for which they are designed.
    This is entirely about "plain, simple" rape. Injurious force or its threat is a crime in itself for whatever reason it is perpetrated, other than for the recipient's protection, such as dragging her out of the way of a speeding bus, out of a burning house, etc. The transmission of a dangerous disease is an assault, battery or in some cases attempted murder.
    Comparing sexual activity to beating, cutting, shooting, kidnaping, and other forcible crimes that endanger bodily integrity or life is not reasonable. The commission of unwanted sexual activity that doesn't cause pain or injury is no worse than an unwanted butt pat, gentle breast squeeze or other minor assault.
    The "damage" from unwanted sexual intercourse is entirely emotional. And emotional "injury" is due to the conditioning of the recipient of unwanted sexual activity. If the "rapist" doesn't hit, slap, beat, slam, or otherwise get rough, causing reasonable fear of serious injury or death, it should be treated as a very minor crime at most. If a date seizes his date and wrestles her down without harming her, then has sexual intercourse with her, no actual harm has been done. Perhaps she has been affronted, insulted or otherwise offended, but nothing that can be shown. If she doesn't feel hurt, doesn't feel that she has been raped, she hasn't been raped. If upon reflection, she decides, perhaps at the instigation of another, that she has been raped, later, the next day, the next week, a month later, a year later, this doesn't transform the incident into rape if it wasn't rape at the time.
    So whether it was no big deal or her date is imprisoned for 20 years is entirely a matter of her attitude at the time, the next day, the next week, a month later, a year later.
    This is why "rape" as such should be decriminalized. Not "legalized," granting a "right" to impose sexual activity against a recipient's desires, but, in the absence of violence or real threat of violence, that the state should stay out of it.
    Statutory rape is another matter: incest, sex with prepubescent children, the mentally incompetent.
    Taking the term "rape" out of the law would make it easier to get convictions of those who have done what the popular image of rape has been. It would be called "assault," "aggravated assault," "assault and battery," "unlawful restraint," "kidnaping," and other crimes, any of which is punished with substantial imprisonment.
    The dates who get drunk and have sex would not be rapist and rapee. The man who finds a drunk or drugged woman, one not unconscious but intoxicated, and who is not the one who drugged her, and has sex with her should not be called a criminal.
    Going the other way, women who impose sex on men should not be prosecuted, either. Most discussion of unwanted sexual activity is from the man vs. woman direction, so that's how I've treated it. But it goes as well in the woman vs. man direction.

    ReplyDelete