This article on sex crimes is probably the hardest and most ‘risky’
one to write. Since the feminist-controlled media have created a
paranoia around any sex crime that they can portray as man versus
woman. They have portrayed anything involving children as worse than
murder.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6399471.stm
The public humiliation of any man accused of anything in this area
before even facing a court is way beyond proportionate or fair. As
such I feel that there is no freedom of speech in this area and would
like a large blank space under the sub-heading of paedophiles as a
protest that it is impossible to make objective comments about the
subject without being punished or portrayed as a paedophile oneself.
Sex crimes
I must emphasise that at no point do I condone support or encourage
any breach of any of the following laws for any reason. Whilst there
are a significant number of unfair, disproportionate and
discriminatory laws already on the statute book and an ever-increasing
number planned for introduction, my attack on these laws is not
intended to encourage or in any way promote others to break any of
these laws, simply to highlight how unfair things are to men in this
country.
1 )Prostitution
I have briefly covered this subject before when considering employment.
It appears that the CPS/Police have taken the decision, regardless of
what it says in the statute book, to deliberately discriminate on the
grounds of gender. A woman who is caught offering sex for money on the
street is unlikely to be prosecuted. The man who is approached whilst
driving past will be. These ‘kerb crawlers’ are perceived to be
causing a problem by harassing ‘innocent’ women in the area. This is
absurd for a number of reasons –
a) Since the woman is inciting the man to commit the crime, she should
be prosecuted not him
b) The locations used by prostitutes tend to be industrial estates at
night, not busy residential areas
c) The prostitutes are clearly different in their dress and demeanour
– short skirts, tight or revealing tops, standing around, smiling or
trying to talk to men driving past – it is in their interests to make
it obvious as to who is available.
d) The cure is obvious – select an area and agree that this should be
the place – then there is no risk of harassing ‘innocent’ women.
e) The punishment is disproportionate – naming and shaming the men by
publishing their names and addresses on a website or sending letters
to the home address of the registered car owner.
f) The demand is there, the Government should be trying to legalise it
and to raise tax from these women – oops – I forgot, tax is levied on
men and given to women in the form of benefits and tax credits. If the
prostitutes paid tax, HMRC could be prosecuted for living off immoral
earnings.
g) Brothels are ‘illegal’ so the only way for prostitution to take
place is in this manner. Brothels should be legalised (as in Holland)
and then both parties would feel safer in a secure, clean and warm
environment. It would also become a tourist attraction (as in
Amsterdam’s red light district, Berlin’s Reeperbahn etc.
2) ****ography
You might ask why this subject is in an article on ’sex-crimes’? The
government has proposed and will introduce new measures making it a
criminal offence to own/download etc pictures of ‘violent’ sexual
acts. Even when clearly faked and staged for the camera. Thus
ownership of Jamie Lee Curtis’ film will be punishable by
imprisonment. This is a further extension of the laws against
owning/downloading ‘child ****’. What next?
What is clearly absurd is the connection between sex and violence is
largely perceived as a type of **** that mainly appeals to men and
hence the reason for the target. There has been a noticeable (to me
anyway!) attempt to ‘distinguish’ between **** for men and **** for
women. So-called ‘herotica’ has started to appear – written by women
and for women. I must admit to not being able to see the difference.
It could be argued that the real ****ography is created by ‘Mills and
Boon’ and other romantic love stories in filling the heads of
impressionable young girls with the unrealistic idea of being swept
off their feet by a handsome young prince and living happily ever
after’. This unrealistic expectation fuels dissatisfaction and
frustration in the boring tedium of real life leading to perfectly
satisfactory relationships ending in the unrealistic pursuit of
’something better’. ‘Because you’re worth it’ is the message to women
in the advertising – you deserve something better – the end result is
a rapidly increasing number of sad and lonely embittered and vengeful
single women unable and/or unwilling to ‘compromise’ for a
relationship.
In addition to ‘poisoning the mind of the viewer against ‘ordinary’
relationships with ‘ordinary ‘ partners, ****ography has another
perceived negative – re-enactment. The justification for banning
‘child ****’ and ‘violent ****’ is that the viewer is likely to go on
and commit the crime portrayed in the picture. Thus men are being
prosecuted for what George Orwell described in ‘1984′ as ‘thought
crimes’. There are few if any victims. The viewer is unlikely to be
connected in any way (apart from financial if he has had to pay for
the pictures) with the people in the picture, but is prosecuted for
what ‘he might do in the future’. This absurd connection is not made
between non-sexual violence and the viewer. Watch virtually any of the
top 100 movies in any year and the amount of violence is mind-blowing.
Count the number of (almost exclusively) men being disposed of in
countless ordinary and extraordinary ways and you will run into
thousands. Yet it is not presumed that watching Tom and Jerry do the
same to each other means that every child viewer becomes a mass
murderer or even an animal abuser?
An objective view would argue that it is likely that a violent person
would like violent movies. Somebody who does like to commit violent
crime would like violent movies. The reverse is not proven, otherwise
there would be millions more murders than there are. It is complete
nonsense, but yet another way in which the feminist government can
attempt to control the minds of men in this country.
3) Domestic Violence (DV)
I have covered this subject in previous articles. DV includes
emotional, psychological, sexual and verbal as well as physical abuse.
It is widely (incorrectly) perceived as a male perpetrator and female
victim. The reality is that it is probably around equally committed by
men and women. Even my local DV forum indicated that around 20% of the
victims are male, but did not have anyone representing male victims on
the forum. I have heard numerous stories of men ringing the Police and
being arrested themselves. The threshold for ‘ex parte’ orders and the
use of emergency powers is abysmally low and the feminist
organisations know this. The judges are trained to ‘bend over
backwards’ in support of female ‘victims’ of DV – see their distorted
advice on www.jsb.gov.uk.
The power of false allegation to prejudice the judge in a custody
battle is well known by everyone other than the judges themselves –
see article on the family courts.
4) Sexual Touching
This ridiculous law was introduced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Prior to this, if a man had an unusual fetish, for example working in
a shoe shop he got ‘turned on’ by taking off women’s shoes, he could
only be prosecuted for ’sexual assault’ if ‘ a reasonable man’ would
believe that the accused would have been ‘turned on’ by this. Since it
was a minority fetish, the accused could not be prosecuted. The law
now says that if the accused was ‘turned on’ by the act then he was
guilty. One male victim spent three months in prison as a result of
defending himself from a DV attack and accidentally touched her
breasts. He was prosecuted under this law.
In addition, any act could be included. Two 11 year olds holding hands
could be prosecuted under this act. Even the CPS accept this is absurd
and advice has been sent out to all Police forces not to prosecute in
these circumstance!
5) People Trafficking – inaccurate portrayal that women are being
‘forced’ to come here to be used as ‘prostitutes, when in fact they
chose to come here as economic migrants.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6459369.stm part of the
feminists desperate hunt for ‘women as victim’ stories to continue to
remind the wavering feminists that there is still much work to be
done. If this happens at all, it is a tiny number of forced women and
a huge number of willing participants. Not a real issue compared to
the forced punishment of hundreds of thousand of men in this country
forced into second class citizenship and parenthood.
6) Sexually transmitted diseases (STD).
If a man knowing he has HIV/AIDS, but does not tell the woman and has
unprotected sex with her and she catches HIV, he can be prosecuted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3191312.stm
For a discussion about the pros and cons – read here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5282806.stm
Rape
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it absolutely clear that rape is a
crime by men only. It is specifically stated that the perpetrator must
be male although the victim can be male or female. Penetration does
not need to be by the penis, but by any part of the perpetrator’s
body, but there must be penetration of the victim by the perpetrator -
without consent.
At first glance it is obvious that a woman could not be prosecuted for
rape as she does not have a penis. This is blatantly absurd for a
number of reasons -
a) Rape can be by using a finger, tongue, toe, hand, elbow for example
- women have all these bits.
b) Who does what to whom? If the man is asleep and has an erection and
the woman pushes his penis inside her, is this not rape? What if the
man is unconscious? What if he is drunk? How has he consented?
c) The consent is only required by the ‘recipient’.
d) Drunken consent is not consent – in other words, if the woman is
drunk and jumps on the man, she can still claim rape as she was too
drunk to give ‘informed consent’. In all other areas of criminal law,
being drunk is no defence to committing the act (except in criminal
damage where the accused is a drunk woman).
Bizarrely if two drunk people have sex, the man cannot claim to be too
drunk to know if the woman was consenting and can still be prosecuted
for not being certain that the woman was not too drunk to consent (if
you understand my meaning).
It is now extremely easy to retrospectively claim that any sex was
rape. How many times in a longterm relationship has sex taken place
between sleepy adults? Was the man CERTAIN that he had consent? Should
it be in writing? Should there be a satisfaction clause?
It is all utterly absurd. There is a huge difference between dragging
someone off the street to rape them and a drunken ‘role in the hay’
after a party, which the woman later regretted and made the rape
accusation. The law should be written to respect the difference and be
proportional.
There has been a massive jump in the number of rape accusations over
the last few years. The absolute level of rape convictions has stayed
the same. The feminists argue the police are failing as the percentage
of convictions is so low – 6%. I would say that the Police are doing a
good job but being swamped by the number of false allegations. Clearly
they do not know which ones are false and have to investigate them
all.
Since the damage to the man’s reputation is done immediately as there
is no anonymity for the accused, only for the ‘victim’.
There is no punishment for the false allegation in most cases. It is
an easy option for the vengeful woman and many are taking up the
opportunity.
The end result is that more and more people are reluctant to have
relationships – chalk up another one to the feminists.
Tags: discrimination, false allegations, female, gender, human rights, male, offences, rape, sex
