Women want to wanted so badly that they'd love to think a man would force themselves upon them, and they have such an ego that if they no longer want the man, or the man doesn't want her around, then it was retroactively rape.
On the flip side, he could *actually* rape her and if she decided he was quality enough and wanted to keep him, she wouldn't consider it rape. See: top female sexual fantasy being rape and the popularity of Fifty Shades of Gray.
Real, actual, forced-himself-upon-her-with-violence rapists can't get women any other way, because they're low value. They're often ugly, dumb, broke, or otherwise unattractive. Playboys don't need force to get laid. If they use it, it's a kink and not the same thing.
So I think if a woman starts to believe that about a man, even one she willingly slept with at the time, she'll say she was raped, because CURRENT her wouldn't have slept with him, so he must have forced her. This also lets her think of herself as not-slut.
The first ever recorded #metoo was actually women making a false accusation against a man named Joseph.
When he wouldn't lie with her, she lied to her husband that he tried to rape her. Joseph was thrown into prison.
The story of Joseph is worth the read.
Genesis 39:11-12 KJV
[11] And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business; and there was none of the men of the house there within. [12] And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out.
Please bear in mind that "RAPE" is not the only terrible offence that is often used in constructing false allegations against men. It is just the EASIEST, most handy, most readily accepted - a great weapon that brings no responsibility to the corrupt, even when launched with malice. But we hear it so rarely noted that even RAPE can go either way - it is not always male towards female - but that is ignored. "Child abuse" and "Partner Violence"? are also terrible with serious consequences - It seems females almost always receive a "get out of Jail Free card" when they are the offender. Thus their crimes are not accurately recorded in a way that reflects the severity of the offence, hence don't count when legislation is being formulated and policy established. There is a SEXIST bias in the exploitation of these serious classes of crimes that target males. The way this works out does nothing to encourage the "true offender" to improve their behaviour and character - and nothing to help the VICTIMS. Indeed VICTIM BLAMING is common in these cases, while in more politically acceptable narratives, it is treated with disgust. If we want healthy FAMILIES, communities and to have healthy character's ourselves, then we must apply the Rules, laws and standards equally to everyone - regardless of Sex or demographic.
URGENT TASK NEEDED - Labor's dreadful family law bill looks like being pushed through parliament next week, with the help of the Greens. We plan to make video clips exposing who is selling out fathers and who is standing up and being counted objecting to the bill. We need a team of people to help monitor the speeches in the Senate next week, starting on Monday, taking note of key statements worth recording. If you can help, please contact me asap at https://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/contact/
Rape used to be a Capital offence! Yes, men were hung for it.
It was removed from the Capital offences list for ONE reason specifically............................
The number of FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS.
These allegations were often because women got pregnant, got caught on their infidelity, shame and regret, just to name a few. That was back when Rape actually meant RAPE!
Ironically, all of these reasons still apply against a massively expanded list of what Sexual Assault means but now, miraculously, Women have changed morality standards so much the old lessons no longer apply.
Here's the kicker, even the very first feminists in the 1800's tried claiming this MORAL superiority while sending men to the gallows on False Allegations.
Remember the interview Bettina did with the ex-policewoman, who worked in sex crimes for twelve years?
She said that in all that time she saw maybe two genuine rapes. The rest were all just false allegations.
I wish she had said how many so-called rapes she had been called to investigate, because then we would have an idea what the proportion of fake to real is like.
Thanks for this. Note at the end of the article it says:
'Friday's application, by the man's legal team, for a non-publication order follows changes to Queensland's Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act which came into effect on October 3.
The changes allow the identification of people charged with sexual offences before they are committed to trial.'
So we see ever more male-bashing laws. This one is from lawmakers happy to see innocent men's reputations wrecked for life as happens with sexual allegations even if disproven. Disproof is now the requirement rather than the prosecution needing to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence now a hollow slogan, precisely as shown by this law allowing name publication even before any prima facie case has been made to prosecute.
And male-bashing it is. Note this law doesn't apply to other offences for which women are charged as often or more often than men are. It's only for offences of which men are overwhelmingly more often accused (and yes, that men more often commit under current definitions of sexual offences).
Thank you Empathic Listener...I have not dug into this sort of thing before, I was reading it in a similar way, but I wasn't sure if it was real! It is scary where these things are going. It's reflective though of so many imbalances that are appearing in the legal system. These incremental changes make it very hard for people to recognise when the justice system itself is losing its 'justness'.
The rates of false sexual allegations must be becoming worse because of:
(i) Ever-expanding definitions of what constitutes rape and other sexual offences, providing ever more imaginative opportunities to allege falsely. For example, in New Zealand s128A of the Crimes Act specifically allows consent that was clearly given to be retrospectively ruled as not having been given for various reasons, some reasonable but others ridiculous, such as if the complainant was mistaken about who the sexual partner was or the nature of the sexual activity, and of course a clause that doesn't rule out any other circumstances in which consent can be retrospectively removed. One concerns alcohol but in practice if equally drunk male and female interact sexually only the male is ever seen as proceeding without the other's consent.
(ii) Relatively recent policies by police to always believe the 'victim' at least if she is female. This can only encourage false allegations. Even using the term 'victim' before any victimization has been properly established will embolden liars.
(iii) Numerous legislative changes making the process of lying easier for the complainant. For example, providing evidence-in-chief through a previously recorded video interview, giving evidence in court through video link or having the accused behind a screen. Not having to face the person you're accusing will, for most people, make it easier to lie. Also of course, police not being allowed to conduct a proper investigation by asking questions that might challenge the complainant's story. Come on everyone, we welcome lies!
(iv) Numerous other legislative changes for trials to make it easier to achieve a guilty verdict on the basis of the same inadequate evidence. This can only encourage false allegations. For example, disallowing cross-examination questions about things that may call into question the complainant's honesty, including a complainant's sexual history even though (actually because) having frequently engaged in sex with the accused or being the town bike might reasonably make her withholding of consent on the alleged occasion less credible.
(v) The change in law to allow (actually require) police to proceed, and to allow a Court to make a guilty finding, on nothing but the complainant's allegation. That can also only embolden a liar.
The research on which meta-analyses have been done probably hasn't caught up with all these changes and the resultant increase in false allegations.
A central issue here is misandry in the form of reducing protection for men against false conviction and punishment. Most of the changes demanded by feminists are likely to increase the number of truly guilty parties being found guilty, but they will equally or even disproportionately also increase the number of truly innocent parties being found guilty. Collateral damage to innocent men doesn't matter at all to the feminists or compliant lawmakers. Unlike, say, progress in genetic evidence, these changes don't provide any better evidence or any better method for distinguishing the truly guilty from the falsely accused, they simply lower the goalpost to find all defendants guilty.
To say that women do not lie about being raped/sexually assaulted is like saying the sun won't shine. I know for a fact that in the early 1970's a chap I knew was almost jailed for an alleged rape. Fortunately friends of the female came forward in support of the chap as they knew the truth about the allegation. How times have changed as it appears that females easily support the "victim" whether they personally know her or not. The media hype around Brittany Higgins is a typical example.
Feminists ask us why a woman would lie about being raped. They tell us it's an excruciating ordeal that they have to relive through the legal process and the publicity, and that most rapes aren't even reported for those reasons. The glaring logical disconnect here is that, if women are making false accusations, NONE OF THAT APPLIES!!
The liars have no trauma to relive, or shame, because the crimes that they are alleging DIDN'T HAPPEN!! This is such a blindingly obvious fact that only a truly misandrist and gynophilic mind wouldn't grasp it immediately.
Yes and the feminists come out with this reasoning: Many rapes and sexual assaults are not reported therefore there are few false allegations. Of course, the two phenomena are separate issues and not necessarily correlated. Also: Many rapes and sexual assaults are not reported so we should convict a higher rate of those accused. Again a non-sequitur. And then: Many rapes and sexual assaults are not reported and that's because it's so traumatic to go through the misogynist legal process. Well it might be scary making and following through with allegations despite red carpet treatment nowadays given to complainants (who are called 'victims' from the outset). However, many people who really experienced a traumatic assault will feel confident that they are telling the truth whereas it's precisely liars who are most likely to feel anxious. Actually there are many reasons for not reporting, such as that the potential reporter isn't sure whether she consented or not or whether she reversed an initial consent, or she knows they were both drunk and she's not really sure who led the activities, or she knows she led the man on and the law is unfair in that case, or the non-reported offence was too trivial to report, or she knows the non-reported claimed offence didn't actually happen. The non-reporting data come from anonymous surveys with no effort to measure reliability (e.g. by checking medical records in a random selection of responders). We simply don't know how many in those surveys who claim they were raped or sexually assaulted actually experienced anything like that or just said so to exaggerate the stats out of hatred towards males or in moral support of all their sisters they are sure must have been victims.
I had an epiphany, many years back, about the nature of 'rape'. We are programmed to believe that it's an absolutely horrific offense, perhaps even worse than death. Consensual sex, however, is widely sought and engaged in as extremely pleasurable and gratifying. There's a huge logical disconnect in that.
In cases of battery, the offense could be as trivial as unwanted touching or as serious as beating someone nearly to death. No one in their right mind would equate the two in terms of moral outrage or appropriate punishment yet that is exactly what feminist 'theory' has desperately and successfully, in many cases, attempted to inculcate into social perception and law.
Imagine a man having sex with his wife of 30 years, both of them having a good experience, when she suddenly realizes she's lost track of time and her favorite TV show has already started. She's satisfied with the 4 or 5 orgasms she's already had and says "Honey, we have to stop now--'Sex and the City' is on and it's one I've only seen 3 times." He replies "Just give me another minute or so, Baby, I'm almost there." 30 seconds passes and she says "I'm sorry, Darling, but I really do want to see this," and gets up to turn the TV on, leaving him unsatisfied.
She revoked her consent and he didn't stop, immediately. To a feminist and, in many legal jurisdictions, that's now defined as rape--a serious felony that could earn a man years of prison time. If she doesn't go to the police, that's an unreported rape.
If there was any symmetry or reciprocity to this scenario, one could claim that the husband didn't consent to pleasuring his wife knowing that she would end the encounter before he was finished for such a trivial reason and that he wouldn't have participated in the encounter under those conditions, so he was also raped.
He's a congenitally brutal manbeast, however, and she's the delicate flower of femininity. How in the world could you ever expect to see equality of outcomes, or even opportunity, in that mindset?
This is exactly why are ancestors were wise enough not to take women's words at face value to dismiss their histrionics, to require witnesses to their claims, and to not take very seriously claims of rape or force especially in a scenario where they should be reasonably expected to put out, as in the case of a marriage. I, too, have noted the disconnect in praising casual sex with strangers, yet thinking it somehow the worst crime on Earth if that casual sex with a stranger wasn't 100% wanted in perpetuity.
The only way that rape can be a horrific crime is if sex is sacred, revered, and limited to committed monogamous relationships. Then any sex that is casual and with a stranger is automatically much worse, opening the door to rape being much worse. Rape cannot be the most terrible thing on earth if you don't value sex as sacred. Worshiping consent can never fill that gap, especially when consent is an ever-moving goal post.
Great thinking! Under s128A of the New Zealand Crimes Act (I imagine Australia and other countries have similar legislation and would be interested if anyone can elucidate) consent can be retrospectively removed if the complainant was mistaken about the "nature and quality" of the sexual activity. So you are correct; a man who is encouraged through mutual activity to commence intercourse is consenting to that under a reasonable belief about its nature and quality, i.e. that intercourse typically involves orgasm or at least a realistic effort to achieve orgasm. We need some test cases brought by men who were led on then told to stop as intercourse progressed. It will be important that they did stop immediately upon being told/asked.
In such a case the man, in NZ at least, would not be able to prosecute for rape because that's defined as something only applicable when a person penetrates another's genitalia with a penis (one of many sexist laws). However, sexual violation carries the same punitive tariff as rape and would apply in this case.
A male complainant on this basis needn't be too concerned about the accused, if female, receiving a serious punishment. No Court would do that. But even a guilty finding then discharge without conviction would show up such legislation for the unrealistic, sexist thing that it is.
Similarly, any pregnancy resulting from a woman's dishonest assurance she was on birth control, or even her enthusiastic encouragement without warning that she wasn't on birth control, could be prosecuted on this basis.
Your other point about the changing definitions of rape is also excellent. In the past, rape involved an act of force and violence or threatened violence and required evidence that the complainant made non-consent clear by trying to resist. There was justification for amending that so as to include other forms of coercion, deceit and exploitation of vulnerable victims. However, the amendments have developed to ridiculous proportions, from defining passive acceptance as lack of consent, to enabling consent clearly given to be retrospectively not given, through now to the totally unrealistic requirement for enthusiastic consent for each new step in an intimate liaison. No force, violence or threat necessary now; an entirely mutually loving, gentle and apparently consenting encounter can be defined as rape with similar punitive tariff and lifelong damage (through having a rape conviction) to the 'offender'. Of course, the punishments have also increased through the years due to feminist demands, such that gently touching a woman without her enthusiastic consent can and often does result in harsher punishment than that for causing permanent brain damage to someone by kicking them while they are prone on the ground. NZ:
- 14 years for wounding, maiming, disfiguring or causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm;
- 7 years for wounding, maiming, disfiguring or causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure;
- 10 years injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm;
- 7 years for indecent assault (which can include a fleeting gentle touch on an erogenous zone or even on any part of the body if indecency is deemed by the Court to have motivated the touch);
- 20 years for sexual violation, with a presumption (rebuttable) of imprisonment. (Sexual violation can include any penetration no matter how gentle or minor of the complainant's genitalia (even by a fraction of a millimetre) by any part of the accused's body or by any object. So any masturbation of a woman without consent (as now defined) can always amount to sexual violation whereas previously it would have been defined as indecent assault.)
How true! In the 1970's whilst living in Melbourne, I met three (3) women who had been raped in differing circumstances and each one of them found it hard to discuss....and this is with close female friends and their respective families. They never went to Court as the violent act was too traumatic for them to re-live.
* Army Man Falsely Accused Of Rape By Daughter; High Court Acquits Him After 18-Years
* Mum gave kids sedatives to frame dad for drugging/sexually abusing them
* Children admit false claims on teacher to get him fired
* Woman Claims Cop Raped Her. Then Body Cam Footage Is Released. A complete lie!
* Woman's Lie About Sexual Assault Put an Innocent Man in Jail for 4 Years
- After confessing, she ended up getting a 2 month "weekend service-only" sentence.
- Western “Justice” in a nut shell
* Woman forced ex to give her over £7,000 by threatening to make false rape claim
* Sarah Browne, was given a ONE MONTH jail sentence after she made a false allegation of rape, which the judge described as ‘THE WORST ALLEGATION A WOMAN COULD MAKE AGAINST A MAN’.
* Woman 'wickedly' accused Leicestershire police officer she had never met of rape
* My neighbour was a principal in a school
- He was in an open area and there were 4 girls on other side of a 3-4' divider
- They said they hated a teacher and would accuse him of sexual abuse
- That day they came to his office and told their lie
- Of course, no punishment for them!
As I said, this is a TINY sample. This has to stop and those who do this MUST be held accountable!
I would appreciate it, if you wouldn't mind shooting me a contact email via https://equalitybalance.com/contact/ , I'd appreciate it. If not, I'll set up a throw away email to post on here for you to start, Many thanks
You could add Rolf Harris being accused and prosecuted for sexually assaulting females in towns he had not visited for years outside the alleged time of the assaults.
Thanks Tina. It's not surprising that rates of vasectomies in young males is reported as increasing in Au. Why lose your life & savings to not only false rape allegations but added unwanted babies to whose birth you did not agree or consent.
There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and the biggest lies of all FEMINIST statistics.
False accusations are far more common than peolpe realize and they have only 1 real purpose - to completely destroy a man's life. They are nothing but pure evil.
An overlooked fact is that false accusations are helped by the gynocentric media and the courts. As soon as the accusation is laid, guilt is declared, and the media go into full swing to help to destroy the accused man. The courts are no better. Once the man's innocence is finally determined and his life has been ruined, there is no real accountability and punishment for the female accuser.
This has to stop. Women who perform this evil act MUST be held accountable, and that accountability MUST be in line with the impact on the man.
Nearly all the tens of thousands of us falsely accused agree with this, but we also know that the very, very, few who do get prosecuted are done because they are hopelessly exposed BEFORE the police have gone through the case building process when they destroy or alter evidence to try and swing a "result" - and in the 99% of cases that a liar is scot free - anonymity intact, compensation money successfully claimed, - the police are the truly guilty party...
are they going to prosecute themselves? of course not.
Remember also re taking civil action - everything the false accuser said to the police - even when it is responsible for the suicide or other long term wrecking of the man's family, is legally privileged - and cannot be held against them in a civil damages case.
The real need is to change the police culture so that they do not chase results on a low budget and instead get any reward they might ever get, from the pursuit of truth and justice...
At the moment Justice is about 90th on their list of priorities.
Women want to wanted so badly that they'd love to think a man would force themselves upon them, and they have such an ego that if they no longer want the man, or the man doesn't want her around, then it was retroactively rape.
On the flip side, he could *actually* rape her and if she decided he was quality enough and wanted to keep him, she wouldn't consider it rape. See: top female sexual fantasy being rape and the popularity of Fifty Shades of Gray.
Real, actual, forced-himself-upon-her-with-violence rapists can't get women any other way, because they're low value. They're often ugly, dumb, broke, or otherwise unattractive. Playboys don't need force to get laid. If they use it, it's a kink and not the same thing.
So I think if a woman starts to believe that about a man, even one she willingly slept with at the time, she'll say she was raped, because CURRENT her wouldn't have slept with him, so he must have forced her. This also lets her think of herself as not-slut.
Thanks, Bettina. Aren’t about half of rape accusations false?
The first ever recorded #metoo was actually women making a false accusation against a man named Joseph.
When he wouldn't lie with her, she lied to her husband that he tried to rape her. Joseph was thrown into prison.
The story of Joseph is worth the read.
Genesis 39:11-12 KJV
[11] And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business; and there was none of the men of the house there within. [12] And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out.
It's not rare. It's not new. The Bible has many warnings to men of the dangers of women. The Jezabel spirit is dangerous and powerful.
Oh wow...Bruce Lehrmann
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-26/bruce-lehrmann-toowoomba-court-rape-charges/102962680?utm_campaign=newsweb-article-new-share-null&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_news_web
Please bear in mind that "RAPE" is not the only terrible offence that is often used in constructing false allegations against men. It is just the EASIEST, most handy, most readily accepted - a great weapon that brings no responsibility to the corrupt, even when launched with malice. But we hear it so rarely noted that even RAPE can go either way - it is not always male towards female - but that is ignored. "Child abuse" and "Partner Violence"? are also terrible with serious consequences - It seems females almost always receive a "get out of Jail Free card" when they are the offender. Thus their crimes are not accurately recorded in a way that reflects the severity of the offence, hence don't count when legislation is being formulated and policy established. There is a SEXIST bias in the exploitation of these serious classes of crimes that target males. The way this works out does nothing to encourage the "true offender" to improve their behaviour and character - and nothing to help the VICTIMS. Indeed VICTIM BLAMING is common in these cases, while in more politically acceptable narratives, it is treated with disgust. If we want healthy FAMILIES, communities and to have healthy character's ourselves, then we must apply the Rules, laws and standards equally to everyone - regardless of Sex or demographic.
So glad you take the time to debate and contribute to this significant element of our society, very few others will, do and can, thank you!
URGENT TASK NEEDED - Labor's dreadful family law bill looks like being pushed through parliament next week, with the help of the Greens. We plan to make video clips exposing who is selling out fathers and who is standing up and being counted objecting to the bill. We need a team of people to help monitor the speeches in the Senate next week, starting on Monday, taking note of key statements worth recording. If you can help, please contact me asap at https://www.bettinaarndt.com.au/contact/
What people seem to have forgotten is history.
Rape used to be a Capital offence! Yes, men were hung for it.
It was removed from the Capital offences list for ONE reason specifically............................
The number of FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS.
These allegations were often because women got pregnant, got caught on their infidelity, shame and regret, just to name a few. That was back when Rape actually meant RAPE!
Ironically, all of these reasons still apply against a massively expanded list of what Sexual Assault means but now, miraculously, Women have changed morality standards so much the old lessons no longer apply.
Here's the kicker, even the very first feminists in the 1800's tried claiming this MORAL superiority while sending men to the gallows on False Allegations.
Want to see more?
https://equalitybalance.com/problems/legal/false-allegations/
Remember the interview Bettina did with the ex-policewoman, who worked in sex crimes for twelve years?
She said that in all that time she saw maybe two genuine rapes. The rest were all just false allegations.
I wish she had said how many so-called rapes she had been called to investigate, because then we would have an idea what the proportion of fake to real is like.
Someone has probably already added this...I am new (my excuse!) :)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-13/high-profile-man-suppression-bid-toowoomba-rape-case/102962684?utm_campaign=newsweb-article-new-share-null&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_news_web
Thanks for this. Note at the end of the article it says:
'Friday's application, by the man's legal team, for a non-publication order follows changes to Queensland's Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act which came into effect on October 3.
The changes allow the identification of people charged with sexual offences before they are committed to trial.'
So we see ever more male-bashing laws. This one is from lawmakers happy to see innocent men's reputations wrecked for life as happens with sexual allegations even if disproven. Disproof is now the requirement rather than the prosecution needing to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence now a hollow slogan, precisely as shown by this law allowing name publication even before any prima facie case has been made to prosecute.
And male-bashing it is. Note this law doesn't apply to other offences for which women are charged as often or more often than men are. It's only for offences of which men are overwhelmingly more often accused (and yes, that men more often commit under current definitions of sexual offences).
Thank you Empathic Listener...I have not dug into this sort of thing before, I was reading it in a similar way, but I wasn't sure if it was real! It is scary where these things are going. It's reflective though of so many imbalances that are appearing in the legal system. These incremental changes make it very hard for people to recognise when the justice system itself is losing its 'justness'.
The rates of false sexual allegations must be becoming worse because of:
(i) Ever-expanding definitions of what constitutes rape and other sexual offences, providing ever more imaginative opportunities to allege falsely. For example, in New Zealand s128A of the Crimes Act specifically allows consent that was clearly given to be retrospectively ruled as not having been given for various reasons, some reasonable but others ridiculous, such as if the complainant was mistaken about who the sexual partner was or the nature of the sexual activity, and of course a clause that doesn't rule out any other circumstances in which consent can be retrospectively removed. One concerns alcohol but in practice if equally drunk male and female interact sexually only the male is ever seen as proceeding without the other's consent.
(ii) Relatively recent policies by police to always believe the 'victim' at least if she is female. This can only encourage false allegations. Even using the term 'victim' before any victimization has been properly established will embolden liars.
(iii) Numerous legislative changes making the process of lying easier for the complainant. For example, providing evidence-in-chief through a previously recorded video interview, giving evidence in court through video link or having the accused behind a screen. Not having to face the person you're accusing will, for most people, make it easier to lie. Also of course, police not being allowed to conduct a proper investigation by asking questions that might challenge the complainant's story. Come on everyone, we welcome lies!
(iv) Numerous other legislative changes for trials to make it easier to achieve a guilty verdict on the basis of the same inadequate evidence. This can only encourage false allegations. For example, disallowing cross-examination questions about things that may call into question the complainant's honesty, including a complainant's sexual history even though (actually because) having frequently engaged in sex with the accused or being the town bike might reasonably make her withholding of consent on the alleged occasion less credible.
(v) The change in law to allow (actually require) police to proceed, and to allow a Court to make a guilty finding, on nothing but the complainant's allegation. That can also only embolden a liar.
The research on which meta-analyses have been done probably hasn't caught up with all these changes and the resultant increase in false allegations.
A central issue here is misandry in the form of reducing protection for men against false conviction and punishment. Most of the changes demanded by feminists are likely to increase the number of truly guilty parties being found guilty, but they will equally or even disproportionately also increase the number of truly innocent parties being found guilty. Collateral damage to innocent men doesn't matter at all to the feminists or compliant lawmakers. Unlike, say, progress in genetic evidence, these changes don't provide any better evidence or any better method for distinguishing the truly guilty from the falsely accused, they simply lower the goalpost to find all defendants guilty.
Not to mention all the other new kinds of abuse, like if you don’t give enough spending money it’s “financial abuse”.
Yes, but the focus here is on sexual assault.
To say that women do not lie about being raped/sexually assaulted is like saying the sun won't shine. I know for a fact that in the early 1970's a chap I knew was almost jailed for an alleged rape. Fortunately friends of the female came forward in support of the chap as they knew the truth about the allegation. How times have changed as it appears that females easily support the "victim" whether they personally know her or not. The media hype around Brittany Higgins is a typical example.
Feminists ask us why a woman would lie about being raped. They tell us it's an excruciating ordeal that they have to relive through the legal process and the publicity, and that most rapes aren't even reported for those reasons. The glaring logical disconnect here is that, if women are making false accusations, NONE OF THAT APPLIES!!
The liars have no trauma to relive, or shame, because the crimes that they are alleging DIDN'T HAPPEN!! This is such a blindingly obvious fact that only a truly misandrist and gynophilic mind wouldn't grasp it immediately.
Yes and the feminists come out with this reasoning: Many rapes and sexual assaults are not reported therefore there are few false allegations. Of course, the two phenomena are separate issues and not necessarily correlated. Also: Many rapes and sexual assaults are not reported so we should convict a higher rate of those accused. Again a non-sequitur. And then: Many rapes and sexual assaults are not reported and that's because it's so traumatic to go through the misogynist legal process. Well it might be scary making and following through with allegations despite red carpet treatment nowadays given to complainants (who are called 'victims' from the outset). However, many people who really experienced a traumatic assault will feel confident that they are telling the truth whereas it's precisely liars who are most likely to feel anxious. Actually there are many reasons for not reporting, such as that the potential reporter isn't sure whether she consented or not or whether she reversed an initial consent, or she knows they were both drunk and she's not really sure who led the activities, or she knows she led the man on and the law is unfair in that case, or the non-reported offence was too trivial to report, or she knows the non-reported claimed offence didn't actually happen. The non-reporting data come from anonymous surveys with no effort to measure reliability (e.g. by checking medical records in a random selection of responders). We simply don't know how many in those surveys who claim they were raped or sexually assaulted actually experienced anything like that or just said so to exaggerate the stats out of hatred towards males or in moral support of all their sisters they are sure must have been victims.
I had an epiphany, many years back, about the nature of 'rape'. We are programmed to believe that it's an absolutely horrific offense, perhaps even worse than death. Consensual sex, however, is widely sought and engaged in as extremely pleasurable and gratifying. There's a huge logical disconnect in that.
In cases of battery, the offense could be as trivial as unwanted touching or as serious as beating someone nearly to death. No one in their right mind would equate the two in terms of moral outrage or appropriate punishment yet that is exactly what feminist 'theory' has desperately and successfully, in many cases, attempted to inculcate into social perception and law.
Imagine a man having sex with his wife of 30 years, both of them having a good experience, when she suddenly realizes she's lost track of time and her favorite TV show has already started. She's satisfied with the 4 or 5 orgasms she's already had and says "Honey, we have to stop now--'Sex and the City' is on and it's one I've only seen 3 times." He replies "Just give me another minute or so, Baby, I'm almost there." 30 seconds passes and she says "I'm sorry, Darling, but I really do want to see this," and gets up to turn the TV on, leaving him unsatisfied.
She revoked her consent and he didn't stop, immediately. To a feminist and, in many legal jurisdictions, that's now defined as rape--a serious felony that could earn a man years of prison time. If she doesn't go to the police, that's an unreported rape.
If there was any symmetry or reciprocity to this scenario, one could claim that the husband didn't consent to pleasuring his wife knowing that she would end the encounter before he was finished for such a trivial reason and that he wouldn't have participated in the encounter under those conditions, so he was also raped.
He's a congenitally brutal manbeast, however, and she's the delicate flower of femininity. How in the world could you ever expect to see equality of outcomes, or even opportunity, in that mindset?
This is exactly why are ancestors were wise enough not to take women's words at face value to dismiss their histrionics, to require witnesses to their claims, and to not take very seriously claims of rape or force especially in a scenario where they should be reasonably expected to put out, as in the case of a marriage. I, too, have noted the disconnect in praising casual sex with strangers, yet thinking it somehow the worst crime on Earth if that casual sex with a stranger wasn't 100% wanted in perpetuity.
The only way that rape can be a horrific crime is if sex is sacred, revered, and limited to committed monogamous relationships. Then any sex that is casual and with a stranger is automatically much worse, opening the door to rape being much worse. Rape cannot be the most terrible thing on earth if you don't value sex as sacred. Worshiping consent can never fill that gap, especially when consent is an ever-moving goal post.
https://mensrights.com.au/false-allegations/feminist-influence-in-the-courts-the-diabolical-episode-of-the-30-second-rapist
Great thinking! Under s128A of the New Zealand Crimes Act (I imagine Australia and other countries have similar legislation and would be interested if anyone can elucidate) consent can be retrospectively removed if the complainant was mistaken about the "nature and quality" of the sexual activity. So you are correct; a man who is encouraged through mutual activity to commence intercourse is consenting to that under a reasonable belief about its nature and quality, i.e. that intercourse typically involves orgasm or at least a realistic effort to achieve orgasm. We need some test cases brought by men who were led on then told to stop as intercourse progressed. It will be important that they did stop immediately upon being told/asked.
In such a case the man, in NZ at least, would not be able to prosecute for rape because that's defined as something only applicable when a person penetrates another's genitalia with a penis (one of many sexist laws). However, sexual violation carries the same punitive tariff as rape and would apply in this case.
A male complainant on this basis needn't be too concerned about the accused, if female, receiving a serious punishment. No Court would do that. But even a guilty finding then discharge without conviction would show up such legislation for the unrealistic, sexist thing that it is.
Similarly, any pregnancy resulting from a woman's dishonest assurance she was on birth control, or even her enthusiastic encouragement without warning that she wasn't on birth control, could be prosecuted on this basis.
Your other point about the changing definitions of rape is also excellent. In the past, rape involved an act of force and violence or threatened violence and required evidence that the complainant made non-consent clear by trying to resist. There was justification for amending that so as to include other forms of coercion, deceit and exploitation of vulnerable victims. However, the amendments have developed to ridiculous proportions, from defining passive acceptance as lack of consent, to enabling consent clearly given to be retrospectively not given, through now to the totally unrealistic requirement for enthusiastic consent for each new step in an intimate liaison. No force, violence or threat necessary now; an entirely mutually loving, gentle and apparently consenting encounter can be defined as rape with similar punitive tariff and lifelong damage (through having a rape conviction) to the 'offender'. Of course, the punishments have also increased through the years due to feminist demands, such that gently touching a woman without her enthusiastic consent can and often does result in harsher punishment than that for causing permanent brain damage to someone by kicking them while they are prone on the ground. NZ:
- 14 years for wounding, maiming, disfiguring or causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm;
- 7 years for wounding, maiming, disfiguring or causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure;
- 10 years injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm;
- 7 years for indecent assault (which can include a fleeting gentle touch on an erogenous zone or even on any part of the body if indecency is deemed by the Court to have motivated the touch);
- 20 years for sexual violation, with a presumption (rebuttable) of imprisonment. (Sexual violation can include any penetration no matter how gentle or minor of the complainant's genitalia (even by a fraction of a millimetre) by any part of the accused's body or by any object. So any masturbation of a woman without consent (as now defined) can always amount to sexual violation whereas previously it would have been defined as indecent assault.)
How true! In the 1970's whilst living in Melbourne, I met three (3) women who had been raped in differing circumstances and each one of them found it hard to discuss....and this is with close female friends and their respective families. They never went to Court as the violent act was too traumatic for them to re-live.
I have been recording false accusations. Here is a tiny sample. These are actual cases and I have the links;
* Woman lied about rape because date didn't drive her home
* Hucknall woman blackmailed man with threats of false rape allegations
* Woman sits in front of a man’s car and calls the police and lies to them
https://www.tiktok.com/@themanicuredmom/video/7258767420943519022
* Woman filed over 30 complaints of rape, wrongful restraint in 4 yrs
* Student Files Fake Gang Rape Case AFTER MISSING UNIVERSITY EXAM
* Mum of teen who killed himself AFTER WITHDRAWN RAPE ALLEGATION found hanged family home
* Mom loses custody after filing 10 false abuse report against father
* Lawyer apologizes for falsely accusing trooper of rape
* 16-Yr-Old Girl Cooks Up False Rape Story, To Escape Scolding For Staying Out With Boyfriend
* Dumfries Greensands false rape claim woman sentenced
* Army Man Falsely Accused Of Rape By Daughter; High Court Acquits Him After 18-Years
* Mum gave kids sedatives to frame dad for drugging/sexually abusing them
* Children admit false claims on teacher to get him fired
* Woman Claims Cop Raped Her. Then Body Cam Footage Is Released. A complete lie!
* Woman's Lie About Sexual Assault Put an Innocent Man in Jail for 4 Years
- After confessing, she ended up getting a 2 month "weekend service-only" sentence.
- Western “Justice” in a nut shell
* Woman forced ex to give her over £7,000 by threatening to make false rape claim
* Sarah Browne, was given a ONE MONTH jail sentence after she made a false allegation of rape, which the judge described as ‘THE WORST ALLEGATION A WOMAN COULD MAKE AGAINST A MAN’.
* Woman 'wickedly' accused Leicestershire police officer she had never met of rape
* My neighbour was a principal in a school
- He was in an open area and there were 4 girls on other side of a 3-4' divider
- They said they hated a teacher and would accuse him of sexual abuse
- That day they came to his office and told their lie
- Of course, no punishment for them!
As I said, this is a TINY sample. This has to stop and those who do this MUST be held accountable!
😧 What a list… dreadful
G'day, I'd like to post these with their links on https://equalitybalance.com with your agreement (either with or without a credit as you prefer).
If you're agreeable, please touch base with me on the sit's contact form or ask for other contact details.
Feel free to do so.
The credit belongs to whoever posted this information on the internet.
Do you want me to provide the links?
I would appreciate it, if you wouldn't mind shooting me a contact email via https://equalitybalance.com/contact/ , I'd appreciate it. If not, I'll set up a throw away email to post on here for you to start, Many thanks
You could add Rolf Harris being accused and prosecuted for sexually assaulting females in towns he had not visited for years outside the alleged time of the assaults.
Simple, it has nothing to do with the truth, just the ability to destroy a man's life
I know of a case in Queensland whereby a girl was prepared to lie about being raped by her boyfriend rather than admit they had had sex. Go figure!
That is quite common. As well, they will create a false accusation it they have had an affair.
That one’s common. Rather than get in trouble just say it was rape.
Thanks Tina. It's not surprising that rates of vasectomies in young males is reported as increasing in Au. Why lose your life & savings to not only false rape allegations but added unwanted babies to whose birth you did not agree or consent.
There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and the biggest lies of all FEMINIST statistics.
False accusations are far more common than peolpe realize and they have only 1 real purpose - to completely destroy a man's life. They are nothing but pure evil.
An overlooked fact is that false accusations are helped by the gynocentric media and the courts. As soon as the accusation is laid, guilt is declared, and the media go into full swing to help to destroy the accused man. The courts are no better. Once the man's innocence is finally determined and his life has been ruined, there is no real accountability and punishment for the female accuser.
This has to stop. Women who perform this evil act MUST be held accountable, and that accountability MUST be in line with the impact on the man.
If only
Even when they admit it and are prosecuted, all they get is a slap on the wrist
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7900543/no-jail-for-woman-after-fake-abuse-claims/
Nearly all the tens of thousands of us falsely accused agree with this, but we also know that the very, very, few who do get prosecuted are done because they are hopelessly exposed BEFORE the police have gone through the case building process when they destroy or alter evidence to try and swing a "result" - and in the 99% of cases that a liar is scot free - anonymity intact, compensation money successfully claimed, - the police are the truly guilty party...
are they going to prosecute themselves? of course not.
Remember also re taking civil action - everything the false accuser said to the police - even when it is responsible for the suicide or other long term wrecking of the man's family, is legally privileged - and cannot be held against them in a civil damages case.
The real need is to change the police culture so that they do not chase results on a low budget and instead get any reward they might ever get, from the pursuit of truth and justice...
At the moment Justice is about 90th on their list of priorities.
The courts are a horrific unconscionable biased hell hole for men