Don't have sex with British women

In "the world is totally fucked and we should just give up now" news ...
Given what you'll read below, these might actually be good shirts to wear on a first date
Because now, you'll now have to prove that she said "yes" to being porked:
Men accused of date rape will need to convince police that a woman consented to sex as part of a major change in the way sex offences are investigated. 
The Director of Public Prosecutions said it was time for the legal system to move beyond the concept of “no means no” to recognise situations where women may have been unable to give consent. 
Alison Saunders said rape victims should no longer be “blamed” by society if they are too drunk to consent to sex, or if they simply freeze and say nothing because they are terrified of their attacker. 
Instead, police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape suspects [Didact: also known as ALL heterosexual single men] to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full capacity and freedom to do so”. 
Campaigners described the move as “a huge step forward” in ensuring fewer rapists escape justice.  
New guidance will be issued to all police forces and prosecutors as part of a “toolkit” to move rape investigations into the 21st century. 
Mrs Saunders said: “For too long society has blamed rape victims for confusing the issue of consent - by drinking or dressing provocatively for example - but it is not they who are confused, it is society itself and we must challenge that. 
“Consent to sexual activity is not a grey area - in law it is clearly defined and must be given fully and freely. 
“It is not a crime to drink, but it is a crime for a rapist to target someone who is no longer capable of consenting to sex though drink. 
“These tools take us well beyond the old saying 'no means no' - it is now well established that many rape victims freeze rather than fight as a protective and coping mechanism. [Didact: SO. MUCH. FAIL.]
“We want police and prosecutors to make sure they ask in every case where consent is the issue - how did the suspect know the complainant was saying yes and doing so freely and knowingly?” 
Mrs Saunders, who was speaking at the first National Crown Prosecution Service/Police Conference on Rape Investigations and Prosecutions in London, said the guidance should not only cover situations where someone is incapacitated through drink or drugs, but also where “a suspect held a position of power over the potential victim - as a teacher, an employer, a doctor or a fellow gang member”. 
The ability to consent to sex should also be questioned where the complainant has mental health problems, learning difficulties or was asleep or unconscious at the time of the alleged attack, she said. 
The new guidance also covers domestic violence situations and those where “the complainant may be financially or otherwise dependent on their alleged rapist”. 
Around 85,000 women per year are victims of rape in the UK, of whom 90 per cent know the perpetrator. [Didact: This "85,000" number is pure, unadulterated, Grade A Bee Ess. See below for details.]
The most recent figures showed that just 15,670 women reported rapes to the police, often because they thought it would be impossible to prove the offence, or because they did not have any confidence in the police’s ability to help them, with only 1,070 convictions resulting from the 2,910 cases that got to court
As if sexual relations between men and women in the West weren't FUBARd enough already, the burden of proof is now placed upon men to demonstrate that they received unambiguous consent to sexual relations.

The penalty for not getting this, in a fashion that can be proven in court, is potentially the utter destruction of his reputation, livelihood, career prospects, and financial health.

The reward for obtaining such consent is... sex with a woman. Who can still change her mind afterwards and argue that she didn't really mean it when she said "let's f[ornicate]". If the sex was bad, or if she thought you were too rough, or if... well, I suppose I should keep this as PG as possible, so let's just say, if certain unexpected sounds were to be heard, under British law, she now has every right to claim that she'd had too much to drink and was not really in a position to give consent.

That leaves you and Mr. Happy there looking at a false rape conviction, that just got much harder to fight. All for the sake of getting some strange.

Dunno about you, but it's difficult for me to make the equation balance there.

Indeed, the only way to avoid such a disastrous outcome would be to quite literally record her consent in electronic and written form. It would be rather interesting to see how that would happen- how exactly does a man enjoy, er, congress properly when he's constantly worried that his phone might run out of batteries while recording every moment of the interaction, so that he might avoid the deathly peril of a false rape charge?

Indeed, the endless possibilities here beg the question- how exactly would one go about getting a form that is both appropriately ridiculous and legally defensible in a court of law?

We in the Androsphere are immensely fortunate that one of the best of us, Badd Popp no less, has taken it upon himself to not only write out a full Coitus Consent Form, but various supplementary forms, such as an Objects of Use Addenda specifying exactly what might be used during, er, the act; an S&M addenda for the bondage fetishists; and of course a Gangbang Rider for the really slutty girls.

(You'll find those in Brighton. Or is it Brixton? I never could quite figure out the difference.)

Crazy bastard with a wicked sense of humour- God love him!
And that, gentlemen, is the end of the snark, because this is about as deadly serious an intrusion into male freedom as we will ever see in our lifetimes. If you're a straight man- whether single, married, or otherwise- and you're reading this, and you're not shocked at the sheer stupidity of these ideas, you're not paying much attention.

Let us be very clear about one thing: rape- real rape, not the imaginary kind that women can claim months or years after the fact- is not to be tolerated. It is violence. It is abuse. It is literally an exercise in raw, naked power. It is a dishonourable and cowardly act, and those who perpetrate it- both men and women- are unworthy of mercy or temperance in sentencing.

However, it is one thing to acknowledge true rape for the horrific act that it is. It is quite another to enforce laws so draconian that they presume men are automatically guilty until and unless proven innocent. That is a grotesque perversion of the entire purpose of the law.

And it is pure psychotic evil to pass such a law on the basis of bad data and made-up numbers.

According to the article referenced above, "85,000" women a year are raped in Great Britain every year. However, a look at the actual Crime Survey of England and Wales tells us a very different story.

Because I am a mathematician by training, I'm not intimidated by doing some basic number-crunching- unlike, say, the people who seem to make the laws in this country, or the anti-rape crusaders who are so hell-bent on stopping rape that they are willing to ignore inconvenient facts in order to push their own evil agenda.

The crime statistics tell us that there were only 24,043 rapes committed in England and Wales in the year from October 2013 to September 2014. Of those 24,043 rapes, the supplemental data in Appendix Table 4a tell us that 21,532 such crimes were committed against women, across all age groups.

Do a little MAFF and that tells you that 2,511 rapes were committed against men. Whether these horrific acts were perpetrated by men or women is not revealed by the data set, but given that women can and absolutely do rape men, it is safe to argue that at least some of those acts were committed by women.

Yet we do not hear impassioned cries from these ardent anti-rape zealots to have women subjected to the same standard as men- not, of course, that this is the least bit surprising.

Returning to the data set concerning rape in England and Wales- the total number of "rapes and other sexual assaults" comes to a bit over 72,000. Since the data set excludes Scotland and Northern Ireland, we are led to conclude that if the proportions of actual rapes to total sexual assaults (about 33%) hold steady for the other two regions, and if the 85,000 figure is believable (it patently is not), then there have been a total of 28,000 or so rapes in the time period under consideration.

And assuming that the proportions of men being raped are also constant between all regions in the United Kingdom, we can therefore conclude that roughly 2,950 men of all ages were actually raped between 2013 and 2014.

I ask again- where are the voices calling for women who rape men to be subjected to the same draconian standards that men are now forced to deal with before engaging in sexual relations?

Oh, but wait, there's more:
Based on aggregated data from the ‘Crime Survey for England and Wales’ in 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12, on average, 2.5 per cent of females and 0.4 per cent of males said that they had been a victim of a sexual offence (including attempts) in the previous 12 months. This represents around 473,000 adults being victims of sexual offences (around 404,000 females and 72,000 males) on average per year. These experiences span the full spectrum of sexual offences, ranging from the most serious offences of rape and sexual assault, to other sexual offences like indecent exposure and unwanted touching. The vast majority of incidents reported by respondents to the survey fell into the other sexual offences category. 
It is estimated that 0.5 per cent of females report being a victim of the most serious offences of rape or sexual assault by penetration in the previous 12 months, equivalent to around 85,000 victims on average per year. Among males, less than 0.1 per cent (around 12,000) report being a victim of the same types of offences in the previous 12 months. 
Around one in twenty females (aged 16 to 59) reported being a victim of a most serious sexual offence since the age of 16. Extending this to include other sexual offences such as sexual threats, unwanted touching or indecent exposure, this increased to one in five females reporting being a victim since the age of 16
Around 90 per cent of victims of the most serious sexual offences in the previous year knew the perpetrator, compared with less than half for other sexual offences.
Read the bits that I've highlighted again, and carefully.

Only 0.5% of women have actually been the victims of real, forceful penetrative rape over a given 12-month period.

For this, we are now supposed to believe that it is right and just to presume that any male who has sex with a woman, ever, must automatically assume the burden of proof to show that the act was consensual? For 0.5% of all women?!?!

It gets even better, though. (Or worse, depending on your point of view.) Feminists love to trot out that ridiculously fatuous "one in five women has been raped in her lifetime" factoid. They never miss an opportunity to browbeat politicians and the stupid, the weak, and the gullible into believing this hogwash. And they do it with utter impunity.

They do it because they are EVIL. They do it because- at least until fairly recently- no one was ever willing to publicly challenge their stupidity. They do it because they can get away with it.

Not any more.

Their most cherished statistic is pure vapour. The only way anyone can get to that "one in five" figure is if one stretches the definition of sexual assault to and past the breaking point, to include all possible instances in which a woman might feel in any way uncomfortable due to "sexual threats, unwanted touching or indecent exposure".

Does that last one count women who uploaded nude pictures of themselves to their cloud accounts and then were horrified to discover their nude bodies displayed all over teh interwebz?

Because if it does, then by that definition, every porn star, ever, has been the victim of a sexual assault.

Sunny Leone in Bigg Boss house
Sunny Leone, former porn star- clearly a victim of sexual assault right there. Quick, get some white knight to charge to her defence!
Yet again, we are seeing laws being passed with the best of intentions that actively harm innocent people. The people behind these new laws sought to banish even the threat of rape from the minds of innocent women. They went about it in completely the wrong way- by perverting the entire purpose of the law, which exists strictly to protect us from each other, especially the innocent.

When the law has progressed from attempting to protect the innocent, to framing one group of people as automatically culpable while assuming without any justification whatsoever that another is guiltless by default, it has become an instrument of evil and must be destroyed.

And what of these women that the law would protect?

Are we now to believe that women should be permitted to act as foolishly as they please and yet be protected from the consequences of their idiocy?

Are we to simply accept that a woman who has so little self-control and such poor judgement that she allows herself to become drunk beyond the point of giving rational consent, should therefore be allowed a free pass when she drunkenly propositions a man for sex and then regrets it afterwards?

Are we to resign ourselves to sleeping with women only under their terms, when they feel like it, and only if they make us jump through hoops?

Fortunately, we have one very powerful weapon to use in this war- and it's about damn time we started using it.

As has been said here and elsewhere many times before, women are the gatekeepers of sex- but men are the gatekeepers of commitment. (As Uncle Bob once put it- "any woman can get laid and any man can get married".)

Women seek commitment and security, which is provided in exchange for sex and a secure genetic legacy for a man. One cannot exist without the other. If these petty tyrants and fools who passed these idiotic laws really want us to follow them, then let us take them at their word- and stop having sex with British women entirely.

They're just not worth it at this point. You'd have to put your little head under lock and key just to get a roll in the hay now and then with one of them.

Go Galt on these harpies. They are not worth your time, your money, your affections, and they sure as hell are not worth your seed.

(I am very sorry that I had to send you to the website of a known SJW and troll. LaidNYC is sadly no longer among us; his blog is shuttered. So I have to resort to debasing all of us by going to sources that quoted him- sources that hate and mock everything good and decent in this world.)

Let them suffer from this insanity of their own creation. Let them boil in the pit created by their own sins. You, as a free, thinking man, should simply walk away from them. Live your life, free and happy, having sex with women from less insane cultures where women are still feminine and the law is still at least somewhat rational and doesn't treat anyone with a Y chromosome as an automatic enemy of the state.

There really isn't any choice left. They have taken our choices from us. They should not then be surprised when their Utopian schemes literally blow up in their faces.


  1. Certain Gnostic sects believe that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was actually Lilith. That she was jealous and therefore led Eve into temptation so that Eve would be just as miserable as her. I'm embellishing just a little bit, but you get the point. Jealousy, envy, spite; goddess-like emotions, to put a fine point on it.

    I'm of the mind these days that Lilith is back. And she's running amuck and succeeding and having an absolute blast. Sometimes the hive minded hysteria just seems beyond human to me.


Post a comment

Contact the Didact:

Popular Posts