Laws rendering sex impossible for reasonably careful men
The female editor of the Scottish magazine 'Holyrood', has fired a male columnist who worked for her paper. Why? Julian Assange is wanted on rape charges under Swedish law, because after he had sex with a consenting female, while lying in bed with the female after the sex, he had sex with her a second time, this time without her consent. Galloway in the video-blog-post that got him fired, had said:
"Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them...It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, 'do you mind if I do it again?...It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape, or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning."
According to the Swedish law, if you have sex with a consenting woman, and then after the sex, have sex with her a second time without her having given her consent, you become guilty of rape.
The problem with the Swedish law, is that it is yet another law, yet another attitude found amongst administrators and law enforcement personnel, that has the effect of making it well-nigh impossible for a man who is not reckless, to have sex with a woman.
Suppose Joe and Mary decide to have sex. Mary appears before a notary public and solemnly swears, her hand on the Bible, that she gives Joe permission to have sex. Then Joe and Mary have sex. Then Mary lies and says that Joe had sex with her a second time, this time without her consent. Then if the of the prevailing attitude is the insane notion that a man is guilty of whatever a woman accuses him of unless proven otherwise, Joe becomes guilty of rape.
Hence, even though Mary appeared before a notary public to solemnly swear that she was giving official permission to Joe to have sex with her (videotaped), Joe was still not safe having sex with Mary.
If even after a woman gives official permission, before a notary public, for the sex act, the man still is not safe having sex with the woman, then we have a situation in which it has become close to impossible for a reasonable man to have sex with a woman.
This appears to be yet another example of how: lawmakers and activists fail to see the negative effect of the laws that they are in favor of; lawmakers fail to see the real world which features false accusations and false witness, and see only a theoretical world devoid of such lies; feminists favor legislation that puts them above the male gender, even if ultimately the legislation damages the persons and the liberties of both male and female (conspiracy theory note: sinister forces using the women to degrade both genders is perhaps a reality).
Sometimes women have a motive to falsely accuse men of rape or harassment. They might want to bask in the limelight of the fame of being a woman wanted so bady that men misbehave. They might be extorting some favor such as marriage from the accused. They might have been bribed by an enemy of the accused to get the man in trouble. They might have decided that financial safety for them lies in enmity versus the falsely accused.
It would seem to be reasonable that if a woman does not want to have sex a second time with the man she has just had sex with, she should get out of the bed that she is sharing with the man. If the man having sex a second time with her is so bad that it warrants the man being locked up and having his life ruined due to a rape conviction, how can the woman still be in bed with the man?
I wonder does the Swedish law also apply to married couples? If it does apply to married couples the inhibition of heterosociality has extended even into the marriage bed. If it does not apply to married couples, it still has the effect of censoring sexual relations that a (hypothetical) ethical polygamist virtuous male might enter into in a nation in which officially speaking a man is allowed to only have one wife.
For centuries and milleniums, there was no government big-daddy around to police sexual harassment and rape offenses against women. The legislative activism of the modern day in large part serves women who need the government to help them ward off sexual harassment and rape. Yet there also exists a type of woman who is able to avoid harassment and rape despite a lack of government activism designed to combat sexual harassment and rape.
Sometimes those who end up needing the government to defend them against sexual harassment and rape, are guilty of actions and of negligence (example drugs, alcohol, foolishness) the result of which is that the government has to expend time energy and money defending them against rape etc., that it would not have had to spend had they behaved themselves.
Give us a break. Stop being so simple-mindedly feminist in your thinking about sexual harassment and rape and think about this: banning from campus a man who is popular with attractive co-eds, is at least slightly similar to rape, and the primary victim is a man. Impoverishing a man who is popular with beautiful women, is also somewhat similar to rape, and the primary victim again is a man. Intimidating a man into not communicating with 'shy' women who want to marry him, somewhat resembles rape, and the primary victim is a man (it is false that if a woman fails to respond to a first email/letter/phone-call, contacting her again is harassment, because typically even when the woman wants to marry the man in question, she will fail to respond to his email/letter/phone-call).
When as a result of feminist excesses or male rapist-like jealousy, the man that a woman loves is destroyed, the victim of feminism ends up being a woman, a female.
,
"Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them...It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, 'do you mind if I do it again?...It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape, or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning."
According to the Swedish law, if you have sex with a consenting woman, and then after the sex, have sex with her a second time without her having given her consent, you become guilty of rape.
The problem with the Swedish law, is that it is yet another law, yet another attitude found amongst administrators and law enforcement personnel, that has the effect of making it well-nigh impossible for a man who is not reckless, to have sex with a woman.
Suppose Joe and Mary decide to have sex. Mary appears before a notary public and solemnly swears, her hand on the Bible, that she gives Joe permission to have sex. Then Joe and Mary have sex. Then Mary lies and says that Joe had sex with her a second time, this time without her consent. Then if the of the prevailing attitude is the insane notion that a man is guilty of whatever a woman accuses him of unless proven otherwise, Joe becomes guilty of rape.
Hence, even though Mary appeared before a notary public to solemnly swear that she was giving official permission to Joe to have sex with her (videotaped), Joe was still not safe having sex with Mary.
If even after a woman gives official permission, before a notary public, for the sex act, the man still is not safe having sex with the woman, then we have a situation in which it has become close to impossible for a reasonable man to have sex with a woman.
This appears to be yet another example of how: lawmakers and activists fail to see the negative effect of the laws that they are in favor of; lawmakers fail to see the real world which features false accusations and false witness, and see only a theoretical world devoid of such lies; feminists favor legislation that puts them above the male gender, even if ultimately the legislation damages the persons and the liberties of both male and female (conspiracy theory note: sinister forces using the women to degrade both genders is perhaps a reality).
Sometimes women have a motive to falsely accuse men of rape or harassment. They might want to bask in the limelight of the fame of being a woman wanted so bady that men misbehave. They might be extorting some favor such as marriage from the accused. They might have been bribed by an enemy of the accused to get the man in trouble. They might have decided that financial safety for them lies in enmity versus the falsely accused.
It would seem to be reasonable that if a woman does not want to have sex a second time with the man she has just had sex with, she should get out of the bed that she is sharing with the man. If the man having sex a second time with her is so bad that it warrants the man being locked up and having his life ruined due to a rape conviction, how can the woman still be in bed with the man?
I wonder does the Swedish law also apply to married couples? If it does apply to married couples the inhibition of heterosociality has extended even into the marriage bed. If it does not apply to married couples, it still has the effect of censoring sexual relations that a (hypothetical) ethical polygamist virtuous male might enter into in a nation in which officially speaking a man is allowed to only have one wife.
For centuries and milleniums, there was no government big-daddy around to police sexual harassment and rape offenses against women. The legislative activism of the modern day in large part serves women who need the government to help them ward off sexual harassment and rape. Yet there also exists a type of woman who is able to avoid harassment and rape despite a lack of government activism designed to combat sexual harassment and rape.
Sometimes those who end up needing the government to defend them against sexual harassment and rape, are guilty of actions and of negligence (example drugs, alcohol, foolishness) the result of which is that the government has to expend time energy and money defending them against rape etc., that it would not have had to spend had they behaved themselves.
Give us a break. Stop being so simple-mindedly feminist in your thinking about sexual harassment and rape and think about this: banning from campus a man who is popular with attractive co-eds, is at least slightly similar to rape, and the primary victim is a man. Impoverishing a man who is popular with beautiful women, is also somewhat similar to rape, and the primary victim again is a man. Intimidating a man into not communicating with 'shy' women who want to marry him, somewhat resembles rape, and the primary victim is a man (it is false that if a woman fails to respond to a first email/letter/phone-call, contacting her again is harassment, because typically even when the woman wants to marry the man in question, she will fail to respond to his email/letter/phone-call).
When as a result of feminist excesses or male rapist-like jealousy, the man that a woman loves is destroyed, the victim of feminism ends up being a woman, a female.
,
Labels: assange, galloway, holyrood, law, rape, sexual harassment
posted by David Virgil at 10:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home