Just as Christian fundamentalists view all sex as sin, feminazis view
all sex as rape.
While for genuine feminists, the agenda is equal rights (especially
equal rights to pursue sexual satisfaction), for feminazis, the agenda is
the criminal prosecution of men.
And while for genuine feminists, the motivation is a more fulfilled
life in the future, the motivation for feminazis is revenge for a love
relationship in the past that didn't persist the way they would have
liked.
The strategy in the quest for revenge is to entangle as many "male
chauvinist pigs" as possible in the net of criminal laws, police
proceedings, and court cases. It's a cowardly strategy, as these man-haters do
not expose themselves to any danger, and they can enjoy silently the
predicament they cause to men who, like fish in a net that is pulled
aboard, not just struggle to break free but grasp for air as well.
For men who are prosecuted for sexual transgressions not just have to
deal with paragraphs, but also with photographs. They face painful
publicity, while female man-haters can enjoy in silent, and members of the
public, kept informed by the media, can forget their own frustrations by
musing over the fact that while they themselves may not have satisfying
sex, they at least aren't in deep shit as the guy who is in court far
having had sex.
Because feminazis are many, and because there is a formulated ideology
for them (put down in extremist feminist books and taught in "Women's
Studies" courses at universities), they can pursue their revenge in an
organized and sophisticated manner.
As entangling men in criminal procedures is the preferred strategy,
nothing makes better sense for feminazis than to have an ever wider range
of male sexual expressions included in the list of transgressions, and
to have ever harsher punishments prescribed by the law.
The pattern is simple.
Step one is the widening of the legal definitions of "rape", "sexual
harassment", “domestic violence” and whatever else is defined as sexual
crime.
Rape used to be the insertion of the penis into the vagina by force or
under the threat of force, or with a woman who is unconscious.
Now, the laws of many countries define (and punish) as rape what
previously was considered just indecent behavior.
And a few obscene words (just words) are now considered sexual
harassment (and punished in some countries with prison terms), while
previously, they were just considered poor style.
Step two is the equation (by legal definition) of light transgressions
with far worse transgressions.
Among the worst transgressions would be what was the traditional idea
of rape: a mad man suddenly appears along a lonely walkway and pulls a
13-year old schoolgirl into the underwood where he forces sexual
intercourse, taking the innocent girl's virginity and leaving her bleeding.
A lighter transgression by common sense would be when the regular
sexual partner of a woman forces sexual intercourse on her in a situation
when she doesn't want it (for example, after an argument).
Yes, by today’s standards, scenario two is rape, too, but there is a
marked difference in gravity when compared to scenario one. After all, in
scenario two, the two people involved have had consensual sexual
intercourse numerous times before. And repeat intercourse with a regular
sexual partner would not have been considered rape by previous standards in
many countries, unless injury was caused.
The feminazi strategy in such a case claims "rape is rape", and
therefore 20 years of prison are appropriate in scenario one and in scenario
two.
While judges may still differentiate between the two scenarios, the
prospects for a substantially lighter sentence in scenario two are
diminishing in as much as judges may anticipate loud protests of feminazis,
branding them as anti-women. (Men are neither organized as well as women,
nor are they as vocal and biased in male rights issues, so judges do
not have to consider protests branding them as anti-male.)
Feminazi political lobbying has resulted in a general trend towards
harsher punishments for all male sexual transgressions.
Feminazis also successfully lobbied for evidence requirements to become
tilted against men.
For rape charges to have a realistic chance to result in a court
conviction, clear evidence of the use of force or the threat thereof was
previously necessary. Now, the political-judicial climate in many countries
creates an aura of pressure on judges to consider the claims of the
alleged victim as sufficient proof.
It used to be that when women gave sexual signals, it meant they were
interested in a sexual relationship.
Now, when women give sexual signals, men don't know whether they are
interested in a sexual relationship, or whether they are out to trap a
man.
Men, and the general public, ought to understand that feminazis are not
interested in improving our judicial system. Feminazis seek revenge for
the mental sorrow they have suffered on the hands of men.
Feminazis typically did not arrive at their political convictions via
logical reasoning but after having been disappointed by a man or,
possibly, several men. They were not able to have it their way (most
probably, the men were not faithful), and then found fault with all men, or the
alleged male-oriented society.
They may have felt treated unfairly, and most probably were lied to.
Therefore, at one point, they may have sworn to themselves to fight male
unfairness for the rest of their lives.
Feminazis prefer to fight men in court. It’s easy and risk-free. Even
when fabricated charges don’t stick, and a man is not convicted, he will
likely be financially and professionally ruined, and so traumatized for
the rest of his life that he will probably never enjoy sex again.
To redress the current anti-male legal bias would be that either, all
sexual cases are tried with an exclusion of the public and the media
(though there may be appointed observers who would, nevertheless, not be
allowed to comment on the case in public). For in sex cases, a public
trial all to often is a trial by publicity.
Furthermore, women who file rape charges that cannot be substantiated
should themselves face prison terms (how about 25 percent of what the
man would have convicted to if the charges were proven?
Such a system would likely not only work as a deterrent for making up
rape charges, but also return a sense of "situational responsibility" to
girls and women: if you are not interested in a sexual relationship,
avoid sending sexual signals and stay out of settings that could easily
be understood as a woman being available for sexual intercourse.
