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.