Men must prove a woman said ‘Yes’ under tough new rape rules

[Note added 29.1.15: While you’re here, why not check out why Caroline Criado-Perez has won three ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ awards? Details here. The latest award resulted from her recent discussion with me on the ITV programme This Morning.]

Our thanks to M for pointing us to this. Alison Saunders, the radical feminist Director of Public Prosecutions, has ensured that heterosexual men are the only cohort in society who are deemed guilty until and unless they can prove themselves innocent. She said:

We want police and prosecutors to make sure they ask in every case where consent is the issue – how did the suspect know the complainant was saying yes and doing so freely and knowingly?

What evidence of consent will suffice? A series of legal statements signed by the woman, at regular intervals during sexual activities, witnessed by a solicitor? A video recording in which the woman turns to the camera at least once a minute, and says, ‘I am consenting to sex freely and knowingly, and I haven’t consumed an alcoholic drink in the past 24 hours’?

What a truly vile woman Alison Saunders is. Along with other radical feminists, she possibly believes women can never consent to heterosexual sex. Another equally grim feminist, Andrea Dworkin, wrote the following in Right-Wing Women (1978):

No woman needs intercourse; few women escape it.

The article contains at least one outright lie, presumably the two lazy (male) journalists couldn’t be bothered to check feminist claims. It’s the same lie which led to us awarding Laura Bates her second ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ awards:

 Around 85,000 women per year are victims of rape in the UK.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • all this while the west is suffering record trade deficits,drowning in enormous and growing debts, and unable to make price-competitive products on world markets as a result of untenable labour rights (mostly demanded by women),while China is taking over the western pacific,flooding international markets with more and more products,making ever more hi-tech products,pushing western companies further and further into irrelevance. And this is what western men agree to put up with? This is what western governments are preoccupied with at this time of social and economic crisis ? A complete shambles of governance,a complete joke on us,men for continuing to put up with grotesque legislation brought about by a bunch of clueless,lying feminists.
    Time to wake up from this ‘women can do all’ and ‘women can do no wrong’ utopia, before it’s too late.

  • Feminists want to make male having heterosexual sex illegal, yet I bet these same women would shame men as losers, if they decided not to go with women.

  • tamurlame hit the nail on the head. Women do shame men for not pursuing them, yet ignore how they themselves are nothing men want. If such women convince their white knights to make it illegal for men to be men and seek female companionship, then the only logical response is to avoid women and let them have relationships with their pets instead. Men have better things to do than to be punching bags for sexless hags.

    • What does the attractiveness of the female have to do with this issue?

      I don’t care if the woman is a stunning blonde model, with nice long legs, I am not going to risk my freedom for female company.

      This law makes women something that all men should avoid.

      Google MGTOW (Men Going their own) Self protection for men in the current feminist legal environment.

  • “Alison Saunders said rape victims should no longer be “blamed” by society if they are too drunk to consent to sex, or if they simply freeze and say nothing because they are terrified of their attacker”

    Ignoring the separate issue of the undefined definition of “too drunk” (something that is a personal responsibility because it is an arrestable offence if causing a nuisance), and no disrespect to real rape victims who are threatened with violence so are genuinely terrified, the nonstop affirmative verbal consent implied means the missionary position, or man on top, in a consenting situation, can be easily construed with a woman not consenting in these guidelines. Making heterosexual sex initiated by men virtually always identified as rape if the woman, on a whim, says so, and being drunk not even a requirement at all.

    Do we really have to assume women on top, as the only allowed consenting position. This makes sex a legal impossibility for men, since women cannot be charged with rape in the UK. How can such insane feminist logic be allowed to go unchallenged in the law enforcement agencies and parliament? Guilty until proven innocent destroys due process and the Magna Carta. This is the true evil in feminist goals in this and other areas of the law.

  • I’m afraid to say that,after seeing what the feminists have been doing for the past two decades,that they can no longer be reasoned with. They need to be brushed aside.Men should no longer even try to reason with them.It is a complete waste of time. And the average men should have noticed by now.

  • Sanity the problem is the feminist have legal power and are changing the system, these are not silly women to be ignored, they have to be dealt with and tackled.

    Men didn’t take women seriously when radical feminists came out the woodwork in the 70’s that is a mistake we must never make again.

    Feminists need to be called out publicly by everyone.

  • This consent rule is not new. A touch, during a consenting kiss. My Miscarriage of Justice happened at Carlisle Crown August 2010 I had no Defence as could not prove innocence with missing evidence I even had a eye-witness the victims best friend who was called a hostile witness by the Crown so was not called? also missing was text messages from police seized mobile devices as contents could only assist the defence (I’m not shagging on first date said one message) it was a touch and a clearly understood rejection Please take a look at my web site as any advice or help to overturn this wrong in law conviction would be very much appreciated kind regards twitter @stanwelsh