Our thanks to R for pointing us to this excellent piece.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 – drawn up in line with radical feminist thinking on the issue of sex – makes rape a crime that only men can commit, but the offence of women forcing men to penetrate them is said in official guidance by the CPS – the organisation led by Alison Saunders – to be of equivalent seriousness, although:
– the police, the CPS, and the wider justice system has minimal, if any, interest in pursuing female sex offenders; and
– the maximum prison sentence for women forcing men to penetrate them is 10 years, while the maximum prison sentence for rape is life.
This all begs an obvious question, of course:
Why aren’t women required to prove that the men they’ve had sex with, gave consent?
The standard response to this question is often, ‘An erection implies consent’. No, it doesn’t, any more than a women having an orgasm during rape implies consent.
Women sexually abuse men (and children) on a far larger scale than is popularly believed, yet the police and justice system focusing relentlessly on men. We cover the issue of female sex offenders on pp 31-37 of our election manifesto. It contains a link to the Ally Fogg piece on ‘erections imply consent’.
But girls would never lead boys on, never.
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
I thought this was an interesting and revealing piece in the ‘Comments’ section:
‘When I was 14 / 15 years old 55 years ago I belonged to a group of girls who thought it was good fun to lead boys on until “the point of no return” and then say no. Poor boys didn’t know what had hit them. I believe things haven’t changed and today’s girls are probably even worse than we were.’
I presume that any feminist reading that will have to instantly reach for the smelling salts. ‘What? A female admitting that not all her sisters are perfect and innocent victims? We must get the DM to delete this immediately.’
I’ve looked at the discussion boards, and I see too many men getting bogged down in the logic of details of: “Get to her sign this,” and “Video tape that.”
This is a trap!
We must call this out for what it is — a tactic to subjugate and dehumanise all males. It will not end here.
We have nothing to lose by rejecting this outright, and everything to gain.
Just tried to make the comment below on this on the DM website and publicise J4MB but it has not been accepted.
I’ll keep trying.
Comment:
I wonder when men in this country are going to wake up to the extent to which their basic human rights are under attack by feminist fanatics: fathers being denied access to their kids through corrupt family courts, male victims of domestic violence being denied support and media led witch hunts in cases of alleged sexual assault.
Look at the justice for men and boys website to get a picture of the extent of the problem.
//j4mb.org.uk/
Fiddling while Rome is burning….. Sounds familiar? The entire feminist inspired legislation is fit for the trash can.The state des not have the finances and can’t afford the luxury of preoccupying itself with absurd feminist hysteria while it is facing mounting challenges like the economy,pension crisis,trade deficits,unemployment,risinng debt levels,social breakdown,etc….
So next time you hear a feminist complain,give her a piece of your mind.Do not hold back!
Laura Perrins at The Conservative Woman has commented on Sarah Vine’s story: http://conservativewoman.co.uk/laura-perrins-rape-law-turned-head-suspects-will-prove-innocence/.
She starts with these words:
‘It was only a matter of time before the law of rape was turned upside down. On Thursday The Daily Telegraph headline proclaimed, “Men must prove a woman said, “Yes” under tough new rape rules.”
This would be quite a change – throwing centuries of common law on the pyre in reversing the burden of proof that “no matter what the charge or where the trial the principle that the Crown must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained”. This is the one golden thread that runs through English criminal law.
So for Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, unilaterally to change this would be a breach of her powers, to say the least.’
Ms Perrins ends with an observation on the test that must be administered by a jury at trial.