8. beauty and pc.
Celebrity and sovereign power.
- 'Rape' gets political.
"Rape is not the worst thing that can happen to a woman. If you allow a man to put his penis into your body because otherwise he will cut your nose off, you clearly feel that having your nose cut off is miles worse, but clearly the asinine law does not agree with you." -Germaine Greer, author of The Female Eunich quoted, The Idependent, U.K. April, 2006. I wonder what the world famous feminist and media commentator Germaine Greer thinks of the sentencing comments of NSW District Court judge, Michael Finnane, for alleged gang rapes in 2000. Not only did the Judge obviously think that rape could be the worse thing that could happen to a woman--he said it could even be worse. Rape, he said, could be worse than getting killed. Worse than murder. Worse than Grievous Bodily Harm and obviously worse than getting your nose cut off. And I quote: "Rape takes away life effectively from the women upon whom it is perpetuated. Multiple rape can be, and in this case in my judgement, is worse than murder." He sentenced one of the rapists, a 20-year-old man to 55 years jail with a non-parole period of 40 years. |
The 20-year-old male was among a group of 8 men and one boy who were sentenced to a total 240 years gaol for a series of alleged rapes and sexual assaults that occurred on 4 separate occasions involving three 16-year-old girls, and three women woman in Sydney in 2000. The case became known as the Sydney gang rapes. The first incident, an alleged sexual assault (fellatio), involved two women, the second a 16-year-old girl (rape); the third a different woman (rape); the fourth, two 16-year-old girls (rape). None of the females were abducted. They willingly went along with the males thinking (on two occasions) they were going somewhere to smoke drugs. After the rapes, on each occasion, the males simply let the girls go. There was no attempt at cover-up. The 20-year-old male was regarded as a ring leader of the group. You can source the details on the Internet. However he ended up being convicted of 21 counts of aggravated rape, assault, indecent assault and detaining for sexual advantage. It's important to note here that there were no charges like AOBH (Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm) or AOGBH (Assault Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm) or Wounding or Torture or attempted Murder or even Kidnap. Yes, the males sexually assaulted those females but they didn't--technically-- hurt them physically. They were hardly a "snatch, bash and murder" rapes followed by attempts at covering-up evidence, yet the sentences handed out make you wonder. When it comes to illegal physical assaults, all the Police could get them on was the lowest level assault, Common Assault. You can be guilty of Common Assault for example, if you push someone, or shine a light in their eyes, or slap someone on the bottom wearing jeans. If the female bodies had any assault markings on them (i.e bruises, cuts etc) , no matter how faint, it would have qualified, technically speaking as AOBH--and you can bet they would have been included in the charges.
It's worth noting the 'victims' attitudes 10 years after the incident. After such a long interval some of the females were interviewed in the media. And there was no Christian type mercy coming from their lips. They said the males had got what they deserved. And another 20 years in gaol, after already 10 served, didn't prick their consciences. Some of the Public would think fair enough, and agree with these victims. Others like myself would consider this quite ruthless and typical of the heartless psychopathology of many females that males are unfamiliar with. Even Jesus let the adultress walk away completely free. She was going to be stoned. Yet he let her go. No penalty. No moral guilt.
I have broached this topic with unaffected males. One of them said to me: "So what I'm not going to rape anyone,"... therefore the length of the sentence is irrelevant to them. I think this is the default attitude of most males. Another male, an old lawyer friend, on hearing of the 55-year sentence said: "So what, another dickhead off the streets."
Well this chapter is about why it does matter.
I believe there is a rape myth in society and that myth hammers home the message that rape is the worst thing that can happen to a female. And if its not the worst thing then its very close. In fact there are some people like Judge Finnane who think some rapes are worse than murder. That the victims are better off being killed. Now seriously, what makes common sense to you?
This rape myth has always been out there. Males with their Female Perception Disability, Sex Addiction and Fear of God have almost disqualified themselves from having any sex at all. That's because the Pussy is almost too good to touch. It's up high on a pedestal next to Jesus and John the Baptist. Many males psychologically think that once a virgin's vagina has been 'burst asunder' with its first penis, and has received its first sperm load, that from then on the vagina and the female herself is somewhat despoiled. That its never as good, or unique, fresh and original as it was before its first real use. As a form of protection for the female, its lucky that she's married because now that she's 'despoiled' she's no longer as good for any subsequent male. Its like a male cat introduced into a new house...the male tomcat slowly and methodically inspects each new room and then pisses a little bit (called a "spray") into each room to symbolically claim the territory as his own.
Some males think , in my opinion, like the pissing tom cat...that dumping that first sperm load into a vagina gives them a certain lifelong claim to that female.
It's beyond the normal male's comprehension to think that some of these dow like virginal females have been shoving some quite large objects, bigger than their puny penises, into their vaginas already-- as a form of practice. Secondly any foreign bodily fluids like sperm residue is quickly eradicated entirely from the vaginal cavity. After probably a week you could undertake a DNA swab from the vaginal walls and you won't any find traces of another human. In fact females who may think that their vaginas remain "dirty" months after a sexual episode have an entirely different psychological problem which has nothing to do with sex. It could be an Obsessive Compulsive mental syndrome, for example, where its sufferers have an irrational fear of either germs or chemical contamination. For example sufferers wash and then repeatedly re-wash their hands trying to get rid of the germs or chemicals they imagine are still there. In term of bodily fluid invasions I would suggest that a blood transfusion is far more internal and direct. Some of the sweetest and most innocent looking females in the world have probably received anonymous life giving blood from some of the filthiest looking male donors you could imagine. (In the U.S homeless tramps were paid to give blood). Even males of a different color; i.e a 'white' female receiving 'black' blood or Asian blood. And that blood doesn't get eventually ejected like foreign sperm. It stays inside forever. I would also like to state that males cannot 'traditionally' be raped. That's because males don't have a vagina. Males can be buggered (i.e. a penis inserted in the anus) and so can females. However this orifice is completely different to the much stronger and durable vaginal orifice. Of course these days 'technically' (i.e legally) a male can be raped especially if you change the rules and 'legal definitions' to include other actions. These days a 'rape' includes a female enveloping a male's penis with her mouth, or a male touching the outside of a female's vagina with his fingers. Legally this is just as invasive and 'assaulting' as a large penis shoved all the way into your anus. Now that sounds logical doesn't it?
This idea of being forever tainted, after the first penis, is truly a genuine sex-bias against females. Yet strangely in the feminist campaigns for so called equality, you never hear them complaining about this male misconception about their perceived value. That's because the female fascists are not going to interfere with any 'values' they already posses (i.e. their virginity). It doesn't make sense to tear that idea down.
Which brings me back to the rape myth and why its a concern.
Firstly the strategy of the female fascists is to lobby and get the community and eventually lawmakers to at least accede that rape COULD be the worst thing that can happen to a female. That's enough for the next step, which is that a penalty has to reflect that. So the maximum penalty for a rape is now Life Imprisonment, just like for Murder.
The next step is to ensure that more people can 'qualify' as a rapist because under the old terms there wouldn't be enough rapists for Police to catch to satisfy the male-hating feminists. There's no point being a power junky, sexist male hater and being able to get the rules changed in your favor if you can't catch more fish. So the terms get changed. Males that say 30 years, ago would never be perceived as a rapist--even by many feminists of the time--can now be branded as such. For example its now legal for a wife to accuse her husband of rape. It's got the stage now where a woman in South Australia accused her ex 81 year-old husband of a rape almost 50 years earlier. She' claiming her ex husband raped her in 1963. Yet they continued living together until 1969 and didn't divorce until 1971. And bizarrely she didn't go to the Police until 2009. Males should note that Police are prepared to even pursue these sorts of "cases" with vigour. It now appears possible for a female to accuse a male of a rape following a one night stand, even if she gave consent. She can declare that she was drunk at the time, and the male took 'advantage'. She withdraws her consent and on a technicality a new penalty (i.e rape) can be imposed retrospectively. The logic of this is astounding because if a woman gets drunk, and crashes her car, she's still liable for the damage. She can't say "It's not my fault, I was drunk." Even a boyfriend (or a husband) who helps himself to "seconds' with his "sleeping" girlfriend (or wife) is liable to be branded the same "rapist" by the man hating Sisterhood as the anonymous stalker who grabs a petite victim from a secluded laneway and rapes her behind some bushes. They're all "rapists."
There are just too many cases of false rapes reported. And its plain tyranny if the "branding" of rape is corrupted.
Society doesn't recognise all killings as outright murder. And the killings can start from abortions, spur of the moment killings, pre-meditated killings, self defence etc. Even in outright murder there are "degrees" of culpability. So in regard to the usually 'unlawful' killings, everything is not either black or white. Its not all "Murder-blue". But for the feminists ALL unwanted sex is rape. Lucky for the males there are female killers as well as male killers. "Rape" however is in a category of its own. And this propaganda is repeated ad nauseum in the media by politicians and the Government funded Sisterhood. There is to be no sophisticated reasoning and legal application for the males.
There surely has to be a modern and medical re-evaluation of "rape", devoid of all femocrats, abuse industry empire builders and man haters, which is probably impossible because they are embedded everywhere. For example there are all sorts of issues about entrapment that haven't been examined, especially when so many males are genuine "sex addicts" (see earlier Ch 5) and have a form of female perception disability (Ch 4). Why haven't the males got their own array of defences for their sexual misdemeanors or other transgressions like the females do? Why, for example, can't a male plead that he has a sex addiction and that he was drunk with lust, and that the female unfairly provoked him with her sexual approach, her manipulative cosmetic appearance, which extorted an involuntary sex tension? And what about those poor ugly males that have never experienced a cosmetic/physically beautiful woman in their lives (and never will) and as a result have probably developed a long standing rejection psychosis that interferes with their normal functioning?
On that point I'd like to bring up the double standards of the accountability of women. For example whenever they do something, which used to be seen as being 'barbaric' or anti social, it now has a new identity, and vocabulary re-assignment. For example, abortion is no longer killing your unborn child, its "exercising control over your bodily integrity and reproductive rights." A woman even killing her infant soon after birth has avenues to escape punishment because she's suffering "post-natal" depression. And if she ends up torturing her young adolescent child later in life, like a woman who ended up taking her child to hospital 45 times in 3 years, she can plead she's really a victim with Munchausen's Syndrome. I have already mentioned earlier about women being able to murder their sleeping husbands in cold blood, blaming the "Battered Wife Syndrome".
Another example of double standards is the new 'legal' arrangement for prostitutes in Norway. You can be an illegal prostitute selling your services in Norway, but the Police are not interested in catching you. You are the 'victim'. Instead the male client is charged. The law was changed in Norway 4 years ago to legally recognise that the offender is now the male and not the Prostitute. The logic of this is the same as somebody selling stolen goods. The law only nabs the buyer, but you as the seller and thief get off scott-free, and can keep the cash. Why do males allow this? Well I think it has something to do with the males feeling "chivalrous". This helps them to accept the double standards. I think it subconsciously comes back to a sense of debt males feel that they owe their mothers. And of course most females are connected to motherhood in some way. This gets back to the GUILT that most males are susceptible too that I discuss in an earlier chapter. Then there is birth propaganda. Every motion picture or television drama ever made always depicts a natural birth, (hospital or home) as the greatest suffering imaginable. It always shows an image of excruciating pain and suffering for the female. This naturally forces a feeling of sympathy from the audience. It sets up a notion that such a sacrifice is owed plenty. Never has there been a happy and painless image of childbirth in a drama showing a smiling and happy mother during the birthing experience, the pushing, declaring. "What a glorious and Holy day!" Yet statistics show that only 25pc of first time natural birthing mothers, without pain relief, report excruciating pain (more see Epilogue).
Female fascists use the myth of rape, to tyrannise males, to increase their blackmail potential, to increase their 'Pussy Power'...to keep changing the rules, not only for rape, but a whole gamut of conflict outcomes, usually by creating or increasing penalties for 'offenders', which realistically means the males. This momentum of rule changes, which many males are heedless about, seem designed to trap the innocent-- to extort income out of them via threat or penalty. Already this momentum has changed the rules to things like Sexual Harassment, which I outlined in the previous chapter. You can bet that the female fascists are working on getting the rape rules changed, just like that for sexual harassment. So the onus of proof is reversed. The male is assumed guilty unless he can prove otherwise. The male will be on his own, with his expensive lawyer, trying to collect his own evidence to save himself against any false allegations. And then he'll be up against the female's taxpayer funded Prosecution team that can duke it out forever. Of course you can bet there will be "mediations" where the male can fork out for an out-of-court settlement. This is the sort of thing the female fascists are working on right now. And don't laugh. It's like a modern form of witchcraft, where a crone points the finger and either destroys the individual or has to be paid off.
Already there are claims by mens rights activists of literally hundreds of false rape allegations, especially in the UK and Canada, where it seems any female can accuse a male of rape, and have the taxpayer fund an army of investigators to try and prove--not disprove-- that allegation on her behalf. And if a conviction is forthcoming you could be entitled to significant 'monetary compensation', either from the losing male (if he's got any money left) or the State. The female has nothing to lose. There are no penalties imposed against her if any allegations are defeated in Court or deemed unprovable. So there is plenty of incentive for a mentally unstable male hating sociopath, who might also be an attractive young woman, to come up with a rape or sexual harassment allegation. Only if there was no sex whatsoever, and the female is found to have concocted a fantasy, is she in trouble. With an increase in rape penalties, coupled with a dramatic widening of the rape definition, along with a virtual immunity for the accuser, and the temptation of massive compensation payouts, the "playing field" has never been more dangerous for a male, especially with the controversial and unjust Rape Shield Laws, potentially stifling a defendant's 'best' defence options.
You can ask why don't the politicians do something. Are you kidding? In a democracy where everyone gets a vote, there's not a 50-50 split on gender lines. The 'female' vote makes up for considerably more than half the electorate. Its expanded to include the rich males, older males, homosexual males and uxorious males. The 'female' vote is probably 2:1.-- a potential tyranny of the majority over the minority (i.e hetero working class male). A politician criticising women, even if it was true, or is not slavishly sympathetic to even the most outrageous primma donnas is close to committing political suicide. Words have to be very carefully selected. At the first opportunity the Government funded Sisterhood will accuse him (or her), of hating women, or of condoning rape. And they won't just say it in a politely worded Press Release they'll scream it from the rooftops....and trot out as many teary victims as necessary. It's a lot easier for politicians, who want to survive, to fall in line and bash males, or at least be 'politically correct.' For any real change, true justice, it has to come from females themselves; the mothers and sisters of the males being lined up.
I'd like now to do a vivisection of a rape
In this working example lets take a classic dirty rapist, envisioned on those old 1950s black/white American police dramas...i.e a slimy looking middle aged male, who has a past criminal record, oily features, unshaven, an uncouth voice tone, and is carrying a knife in his pocket. He silently watches an attractive petite female jogger in some outer suburban parkland. He's been silently watching her for a week and knows that she will soon run past where he is hiding. As she does so he springs out and threatens her with the knife. She tells him to put the knife away and goes with him to a secluded area where she is raped. He doesn't say a word. He just stinks and grunts. When he 's finished he gets up, pulls up his trousers, quickly looks around then runs away.
Now according to Germaine Greer: "Being raped by a stranger is like being hit by a runaway bus, your injuries eventually heal." "If you talk to raped woman, they usually resent all the other insults that accompanied the rape more than the unwanted presence of the penis in a vagina." she says. She then went on to add that sex forced upon women by a total stranger was psychologically easier to deal with than sex forced upon them by someone they loved and respected.
Now there are two components of the rape that the victim in the above example suffered. The first is the physical trauma and damage; the second is the emotional trauma and damage. First, the physical: In the example above the rapists body was heavy. However he didn't punch, or strangle the female. He kept the knife in his pocket. He did however place his penis inside her vagina and left a sperm residue. However biologically a penis cannot commit violence on a vagina. Its meant to go in there. The other thing to remember is that the average penis, even a well endowed one is about 3 to 4cm in diameter. A newborn baby's head is at least double that, sometimes triple. The vagina is a tough orifice. In fact many husbands have been trying unsuccessfully to bash up their wives' vaginas for years using their penis. So its surely hard to argue that a penis "bashed" a vagina. Continuing with our example, after a week there is no measurable sperm residue, there are no cuts or bruises on the female's body. So technically in terms of bodily and measurable tissue trauma, the female would only qualify for a Common Assault. According to the Australia's Criminal Code, the maximum penalty for Common Assault is 3 years jail. Of course the female suffered an aggravated assault because a knife was produced. This constitutes a threat to murder, which carries a 7-year maximum. Finally there is the Deprivation of Liberty which carries a 3-year maximum. Obviously there has been some psychological damage but this doesn't seem to be accounted for in the Criminal Code. However I reason that the female could argue that she has suffered a form of Defamation because of the rape act.
Now imagine that our rapist is caught. The judge is able to convict on the longest sentence available (i.e the Threat). So the rapist is sentenced to 7 years jail. However in addition, the female's lawyers put a caveat on the rapist's $250,000 home and a separate judgement for compensation is sought for the "defamation" in a Civil Court. The judge awards the female $200,000 of which the lawyers take a tenth. So our rapist gets a 7 year jail term, and loses his house. Is this Just enough? And if not, why not?
For rapists who seriously physically damage their victims, such as Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) and attempted Murder, that obviously warrants a proportionate sentence. However a bodily penis invasion or an ego attack on a grown female shouldn't be considered in the same category as "attempted Murder" or GBH. Now for the rapists that kill their victims (physical, not psychological) I don't believe in Life, but Capital Punishment. Here I would adopt the American system. You show some mercy by giving the Prisoner about 10 years to repent, then carry out the execution.
Now for the rape victim I've described which would be better? Getting raped by the male described above, or getting her nose cut off? Which would be better?... Using your vagina to dissipate the violence or copping a king hit to the head by a crazed strong male with heavy iron-glove fist? I know it sounds crass and I apologise but the situation is too perilous these days to continue with polite niceties. Lets take Judge Finnane's example of a gang rape. Lets imagine that our petite female is led into the secluded bushes and there are another 8 males waiting, all with their penises out. And they all take it in turns to rape her. She lies there with her legs forced apart and each male, giggling gets down, inserts his penis, humps then gets off. When its over they all quickly run away leaving the girl lying there. She sits up, wipes herself and in obvious shock starts to cry. She stands and quickly decides to make a run for it, in case they decide to return. Now despite this horror situation is she better off dead? After a month or two Police counsellers introduce her to a hospital victims group. In this group she meets some other victims of life, She actually meets a woman who did have her nose cut off. She also meets one who had an eye gouged out. Another had a knife through her colon and kidneys and now wears a colostomy bag. Another woman has been permanently disfigured with sulphuric acid, and another was shot point blank in the face with a shotgun. She has had to endure a series of painful face re-constructive surgeries over 10 years. All these things have actually happened to women in Australia in the past 30 years...and none of them were raped or sexually attacked. They were from so-called 'standard' attacks (i.e non-sexual) which legally carry a much lower penalty than rape or sexual assault. The sadistic perpetrators of these offences received much lighter penalties, certainly nothing like the 55 years that the 20-year-old male received in the NSW District Court for his rapes.
To me its obvious that there are many terrible things in life that can happen that are worse than rape. So why are the penalties so high and therefore the traps so dangerous? Well because I think some rapists leave the orbit of criminality, having served a lengthy just punishment for the rape, and an enter some new space. They are being held for longer than the crime warrants and the only reason for that is, not justice, but Politics. Real Power.
The two most powerful things within a human colony, to have total 'ownership' of, are Land and 'Pussy'. If a collection of Land mass is large enough then a Sovereign State is formed to manage that space and the power within. This power will include life and death over its inhabitants. If individuals try and steal some of this space, or the components of this space (i.e goods and services) they will be quickly rounded up and jailed. If any individuals try and steal an entire State, for example in a Coup, then they are likely to be rounded up and killed or jailed for decades. And if those individuals haven't actually broken any 'laws', i.e by using the State's own systems (i.e democratic elections) to destroy the State itself, they will still be rounded up and kept in jail --probably without charge-- as Political Prisoners.
Women have a Sovereign-like control over access to their bodies by the lusting males. Sexual assault and rape is a form of anarchy, an attempt at a Communist coup. A threat to the fabric of Society, the tranquility of the Family and economic arrangements of its participant females. Now I'm not saying that Sovereign-like Pussy Power is wrong. Lets just recognise the power for what it truly is. The rapist is a prisoner of sex. The assault is given a different category of terminology. Rape becomes a word to be feared like guerilla rebels, terrorists, anarchists, communists , marxists....the assault itself is like an expression of chaos and anarchy, a revolutionary attack on a Sovereign State. Some "rapists"--not all of them-- really are, in my opinion, political prisoners.
Finally, this entire chapter will have me branded as a 'rape apologist'. REAL rape is a terrible crime and its perpetrators should face the consequences. But I refuse to be 'politically correct and I'm no more of an "apologist' for rape than those females mentioned earlier in this chapter who "condone' killing males or unborn children (i.e Battered Woman Syndrome, abortion etc). Yet no-one ever accuses them of being "killing apologists". I simply ask for some sophisticated reasoning and proper justice when it comes to sexual assault---not some opportunistic extortion or wild reckless passionate and disproportionate revenge. But I agree with Germaine Greer on this and for the first time a radical MRA (me) and a radical feminist (Gemaine) agree... And that is that rape is not the worst experience that can befall a female on Earth.