After having compiled my extensive Op End blogs about Roman Polanski, or more precisely the old sex case that was revived through his rearrest last year, the fact that many other cases like this were brought to my attention, I therefore have surfed the www for false rape accusation cases, and came across myriads of widely media covered and many more unknown cases mainly from the US that simply defy humanity, since they are far more common than suspected and have long outnumbered actual rape cases, or even murder cases, while the consequences of such a crime are far more devastating and far-reaching than people realise.

The article might be rather long and meandering at times, could be amended at any time, touch on other things related, I borrowed from several sources including my own blogs to highlight this growing epidemic, cited some of the comments I received on my Polanski blogs, and hereby accredit their own good efforts when not my own words, in an attempt to disseminate their contributions even further. But, it will be analysed within the context of the Polanski case where pertinent, who was the victim of just such a woman, or even two, one teenager many years ago and an ‘actress’ only very recently. If you don’t agree on that fact, or don’t have any insight into the old case to realise that, don’t even bother to read on. Or better still, study my very extensive in-depth analysis of the Seventies case here, and the new allegations here, to know better. All comments will be monitored.


As declared, this is about the other side of the coin of ‘rape’, that of the ‘false rape accuser’, which sends countless innocent men into the legalised hell of terrible sexual assault, enduring much worse and most of all systematic abuse many times over, to in fact become real rape victims in turn.

To go to the very core, by branding a rape accuser a ‘victim’ outright, the motion impliedly asserts that a ‘rape accusation’ is ‘true’, based solely on yet utterly unchallenged allegations before any scrap of evidence is even admitted at a trial, much less an adjudication of ‘guilt’ is handed down, and any grand jury testimony as they only have them in the States is solely meant for indictment purposes and not ‘fact’. Such description of ‘victim’ is grossly unfair to the presumptively innocent who are accused of such crimes, since, by necessity, they first ‘must’ be guilty of rape if their accusers are, in fact, ‘victims’. Such logic seems to evade the feminist brain however.

Or, as in Polanski’s case, the girl was underage, and because he was the ‘in/famous’ director and so much older making her automatically a ‘victim’, rather than ‘minor participant’. When he addressed the public in May this year to defend himself for once, he unwisely used the word ‘victim’ instead of naming the woman concerned, Samantha Geimer, as so to perpetuate her undeserved status as ‘victim’, which ‘technically’ might be correct since she was a minor, but now people believe even more she really was, or still is the ‘Polanski victim’ that in fact never was the way they believe. But that’s not even the issue, since many slept with underage teens and will do so in the future, and yet NO one of his status was ever held as unendingly responsible in the same manner as Polanski. Simply for who he was, or is. Oh yes, and because he’s a man.

The ‘Geimer scenario’ is a classic example of how a woman (or mother) shifts all responsibility onto the man alone who had sex with her daughter, simply blamed him for everything. I.e., the booze and the drugs the daughter took herself without any coercion on his part and was in fact used to from her own home environment, and the girl could have refused but obviously didn’t. For the mother to never look at herself first, her answerability as parent, and then her daughter for her very own accountability no matter her age, letting the girl engage with him on her own in order to seek fame through his helping to further the daughter’s career, ending in sex one day, then, make her lie about the most crucial points to nullify her own actions throughout entirely, is simply put criminal. Though luckily these points could be discredited outright by medical evidence, like the cunnilingus and sodomy for not the slightest signs of any force or saliva/semen/injuries, (or witnesses not corroborating her claims either), the girl most probably made up most of it herself as teens do and mom fell for it, in order to avoid ‘punishment’.

That, according to Geimer’s own words, and that her mother otherwise might not have let her go with him for more topless photos, i.e., made her the ‘victim’ outright and fully, forced her to lie to both her mother and Polanski, rather than ask her first if she’d mind topless, though that was in point of fact obvious especially in view of this sort of erotic publication generally depicting also underaged nudity, and because she did everything on her own free will. But, as usual the state aided her ‘helpless female victim status’ par excellence, all to avoid liability, while, if she’d killed someone, would be held fully (and rightfully) to account no matter her age. But not for something as harmless as ‘sex’. Therefore, this description of ‘victim’ also trivialises genuine rape by including among its ‘victims’ those women who are false accusers, or minors. See Geimer, a sexually experienced teenager who was exposed to sex from very early on by her own admission, hard and soft drugs and alcohol from a very young age onwards the attorneys fully realised. Or, see self-confessed ex-teenage prostitute and promiscuous drug addict Charlotte Lewis, his recent, even lesser credible ‘accuser’ who had said the exact opposite some years back and had an affair AFTER  the ‘abuse’ lies.

Every step of the way Geimer’s mother tried to deflect from her own responsibilities once the law took on a life of its own and a turn to the worst she had not anticipated, and what’s more, she allowed her daughter, or even coached her to lie in a court of law under oath, in order to make themselves look better, the ‘victim/s’, when it was clear they had targeted him to further her professionally, wanted him to do what he did, i.e., take the photos for a man’s magazine to further her ‘career’, and that of the mother through her, and then cried rape. Yet, neither of Geimer’s or Lewis parents, or rather criminally negligent mothers, were ever held accountable for their parental failures even the attorneys recognised in Polanski’s case, but did nothing, or that they had lied, and the resulting ‘immoral’ behaviour of their daughters they had allowed to form, even furthered. Polanski alone had to pay for it, simply for being the man, older, and/or ‘famous’, deflecting from the fact that in the case of Geimer, her mother took the easy way out by laying blame on him entirely rather than let her daughter admit to the sex and the rest and that had been it, case dismissed. Or rather should never have called the cops as Geimer wanted, but mom didn’t listen to her daughter when it mattered.

Once Geimer was away from her mother, she was much more talkative and relaxed, by Polanski’s own admission, clearly a sigh of her pressure on Geimer. Yet, had Geimer stood up to her, refused to lie, it had ended there. But, all she did was ‘act’, just like her bit-part actress mother seeking fame through him, put on a great show for the impressionable grand jury made of ordinary citizens, who were long biased against Polanski through the media furore. While in Lewis’ case her single mother didn’t prevent her daughter from prostituting herself, effectively paving the way for her daughter to end up a rebellious teenager by her own admission, it resulted in ultimately ‘blaming’ an old man many years later of ‘abuse’ that clearly never happened either. No, it’s called self-abuse, and taking responsibility for your own actions – no matter your age and/or gender. All through history we have encountered such cases, and only the man was punished. This case only highlights such tragedies, and that the contemptuous LA courts are a putrid haven of cutthroats who mis/use any il/legal means to destroy innocent people – trying to bring an old man down who had exposed their corrupt dealings, covering up their mounting misconducts by giving us some drug addled s/ex-‘actress’ to cry ‘abuse’ in the limelight of the media.

Society at large only grants anonymity for women who accuse men of rape because they consider such anonymity is thought to serve useful purposes, just as anonymity for men would serve just as important purposes, and so far only the UK seems to be implementing such vital new reformation after too many false rape accusations, with some women even crying rape out of boredom by now. Men accusing women of sexual abuse or other men of rape however see no such privilege levied onto them. Malicious accusers should serve the same sentence they attempt/ed to inflict on their victims, should repay the cost of any investigations to the accused and police/taxpayer, and then placed on the sex offenders register to ensure the safety of possible future victims, and/or return all monies they unlawfully obtained through later civil lawsuits. As it happened in Polanski’s case. It is ridiculous to claim on the one hand that anonymity for the accused is a ‘problem’ because that leads to a ‘presumption of innocence’, which it in fact SHOULD until he’s ‘proven guilty’, but on the other hand continue supporting anonymity for the accuser only, who may be nothing more than a liar as seen so often.

Even though women constitute only 10% of the US prison population. NONE of the 90.000 women who are KNOWN by authorities to file false charges each year are prosecuted, while many of these men they had accused in fact ended up in hell and no one released them to give a more realistic number of actual criminals being locked up. ‘Rapes’ are reported in the US at an astronomical rate thousand times higher than in Japan, with false allegations by women making American men now one quarter of al men in the world behind bars. Within the last few years the figure shot up by 330%, not because they have more rapists, no, but countries with ‘victim compensation programs’ have rape allegation rates up to twenty-four times higher than countries without them, i.e., ‘gold diggers’ and said false accusers. One third of men accused, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for ‘rape’ have already been exonerated by DNA evidence after years of unjust punishment. Every year we have several cases of cleared men, but the vile accusers got away with it.

Problem is, many US states in fact do not even accept ‘new DNA evidence’, to clear someone’s name, i.e., simply refuse/d to releases the falsely accused/convicted for whatever insane reasons, let alone pursue or prosecute the lying accuser/s. What’s more, many DNA chemists had lied in court that an accused matched the results, before they were in fact found innocent, or were excluded as suspects, by someone else after further investigations and years in prison, where they suffered longterm abuse and unjust hardship. Also, rape accusers in contrast are afforded all manners of ‘counselling’ and assistance funded by tax and tuition dollars besides, while no similar assistance is afforded to victims of other, much more violent and damaging crimes, least of all real rape survivors. Or maybe even not survivor, after they had been raped multiple times or were even killed, that to say in prison, i.e., men.

It’s all very fine to start having sex and then change your mind for whatever reason, but then just abort it and do NOT resort to crying rape afterwards like a bad-tempered little girl, or because you didn’t reach orgasm. Blame the man for being a lousy lover, or say what you want to enjoy it, but don’t cry rape. Making false allegations of rape and/or sexual abuse is not ‘sexual conduct’, it’s ‘l-y-i-n-g’ before the law, end of. ‘Rape Shield Laws’ introduced in 1974 simply exclude/d vital evidence of the victim’s past sexual conduct to actually make a more informed defence, so, how could that shield possibly extend to evidence that the accuser has previously made false police reports? What has ‘lying’ to do with her sexual history? Would this evidence have been excluded if she had made false allegations that someone beat her up, mugged her, stole her car, etc.? Of course not.

So, why does the content of a police report bring in an act that has nothing to do with her sexual conduct, namely, the act of ‘l-y-i-n-g’ to the law enforcement, under the protection of these Rape Shield Laws? Where the logic is eludes me entirely. But the again, that’s idiot feminist logic. Not women’s or men’s common sense. They argue that nothing from a woman’s history in any form sex related may be allowed into admission, anything that might point to her being a sexual predator, drug and alcohol abuser, a cry rape accuser, though anything to that affect from the man’s side is free to be used against him on top, to make HIM the sexual predator, and SOLELY responsible partner. In Polanski’s case that might have been devastating, with his plenty sexual encounters, but rare drug and alcohol use, which on the other hand in fact could just as well speak for him, since the more women he had, the lower the chance that he needs to rape anyone. So that kind of double talk ‘logic’ can backfire massively.

If a woman has no visible physical injuries, and there ARE if forcible rape/sodomy occurred, or even only ‘believes’ she has been ‘raped’, this in itself is even more farfetched since I would ‘know’, feel, see I was raped. It deeply incenses me is someone seriously states she ‘believed’ someone had ‘raped’ her – when she’s still fully dressed with not a hair out of place!? If someone was unconscious and/or drugged and clearly suffered physical abuse, there’s no mistaking ‘rape’ HAS occurred, (though mercifully the victim was unaware of it) unless she of course applied this new ‘feminist logic’, and then the most she can claim is ‘imaginable tort’, and declare unverifiable ‘psychological damage’ to balm her spoilt female attitude, and most of the time she can get on with her life since there was clearly no harm done, except to the accused of course. So, where is the logic that any woman who was actually raped, wouldn’t go to the authorities when her rape is clearly evident, as in physical injuries, like bruises and tearing or the slightest genital trauma, soreness and/or dried blood, as ALWAYS seen in forcible rape even if the victim was out of it, or, ‘just let it happen’, as Geimer once stupidly claimed? And most of all, to put away her attacker?

No one, who gets forced into sexual intercourse even by cooperating or passive enduring to lessen the trauma, has no physical signs of forcible penetration. The crucial difference between a real rape victim and a false accuser is that the ones who really are violated don’t wait until the next morning to find sympathy, unless severely injured and then need medical attention anyhow. Either they go into a foetal position because of a fragile psyche that their parents and ‘authority figures’ cultivated, or they pick up and move on with their spines straight, or they go directly to a hospital or police station with the evidence. Sometimes they fight back against their attackers and sometimes they don’t, but many times an active fight actually saved the attacked, and the real victims never go looking for someone to validate their ‘egos’. Unlike Lewis. Someone once observed that, American culture is saturated with fantasies of men as the conquering sexual hero and sexual aggressor, while women’s attractiveness to men is predicated on showing vulnerability and playing the victim. No wonder they keep insisting to be rendered ‘victims’, in order to be seen as desirable, while condemning the ‘hero’ for in fact wanting to ravish her.

So let’s not even go deeper into ‘rape fantasies’ feminists would never admit exist, since this theme is in fact deeply ingrained and intensely appealing to women in American society because it absolves the woman of responsibility for being, or wanting to be, sexual. I.e., therefore become ‘victims’ by ‘virtue’ of desires/repression/obsession to engage in sex, rather than just ‘have sex’ and not be messed up in the head and therefore cannot enjoy sex guiltlessly on a physical level. Being dominated and playing the ‘innocent victim’ has a certain sexual dynamic these women need to actually become aroused, and is of course much easier than ‘work’ on the sex. Rape fantasies are the struggle to deal with the forbidden pleasure of sexuality, which can lead to altering one’s self-perceptions to permit the pleasurable experience. One such alteration of perception occurs in the woman who considers all men to be rapists, in order to fulfil her own worst expectation by demanding that the man force his attention upon her. In some instances she may then self-righteously scream ‘rape’. Some women don’t spend the day thinking about their own [sexual] behaviour, but instead find and analyse it in the ‘evidence’ of ‘rape culture’ they invented themselves that shows up in ads, TV, films, social interactions, as the best excuse, i.e., ‘cause’, rather than take responsibility for their own desires. Of course, they would condemn men fantasising about ravishing a woman, but wouldn’t bat a lash if a woman would love to ravish a man, or a wo/man another wo/man.

Astonishing assertions like, ‘rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear’, is more than misandruous bullshit, or else we’d in fact be unable to work alongside men, have families, male friends, go shopping, on holiday, do anything at all involving ‘men’, and men wouldn’t be able to work and live alongside women in the first place, too occupied on scheming against them. This kind of fascist talk is vicious rape baiting and mass hysteria instigated and maintained by these utterly deluded feminists. It is correct that actual rape is a traumatising crime, but so is having being stabbed for a few $, and false accusations of rape are every bit as horrible for the actual victim, i.e., the man. They are a form of psychological rape that can emotionally, socially, and economically destroy a person or even family even if there is no conviction, especially for those of less fame and fortune than Polanski, though I highly doubt he never suffered his own stigma attached to him for life as a falsely accused rapist. Let alone ‘paedophile’ he’s labelled with on top in their glorious stupidity.

To think physical injury suffered once through actual rape, is greater than the mental/economical/social suffering sustained for life by a falsely accused, let alone longterm abuse suffered, is more than selfish, arrogant and insulting to the accused and genuine victims, especially if the man ends up in prison to get violated there on a daily base without escape for years, or even if he luckily will never see the inside of prison, those who engaged in lying about rape should be punished to the full extend of the law. But of course, there is no ‘law’ for such insidious liars. I know that in the UK, there are other charges that can be levelled against the false accuser, and, under the EU Human Rights Charter there are other avenues that can be legally used as well to find compensation. The US however, what a surprise, doesn’t afford any of those options, hence, more accused and brutal prison terms are handed down mercilessly none of these men deserve/d. That radical feminists wouldn’t think so is clear.

In the current due process climate, it is arrest first, then investigation, and then trial to establish the facts, therefore even innocent citizens have to spend time in jail, with not the slightest proof yet aside from the accusation of possibly even a mentally unbalanced woman, all before a proper investigation even starts. Due to the vast inroads that feminism has made into the current judicial systems US and otherwise, false accusations are a weapon used against men, and they are usually used to cover up the bad behaviours or irresponsible decisions of some women. Under our current legal system, the woman is allowed to change her mind the next day, the next week, the next year, or even decade, about what she previously consented to, and then cry rape. And you WILL be arrested, for as long as she is a convincing enough actress. See Geimer. Some people/attorneys defending false accusers with the, ‘her emotionally unstable’ (or ‘young’) client was ‘genuinely sorry’ for what they had put men through, is nothing but an insult ignoring the impact such lies can have on others, on the accuser’s and attorney’s part after the fact, her own family, many more involved, quite clearly giving not the slightest thought about the grave impact of such condemnable actions on the wrongly accused himself most of all. See Polanski.

Fact is, prosecutors systematically refuse to prosecute false rape accusers/perpetrators, and even victims’ advocates repudiate seeing falsely accused men as victims, and instead work to minimise and conceal the problem they create/d by creating more and more male victims, which all sooner or later will backfire monstrously. It has already, and if the law doesn’t punish these women soon, others will in a tit-for-tat vendetta targeting innocent women. It’s like a cancer they allow/ed to grow, and instead of preventing it to cause serious harm and root it out, they rather cultivate it to the bitter end. If a woman doesn’t get the sentimental attentions she feels she has coming to her immediately after having bestowed her ‘sexual favours’, or even decades later suddenly which truly boggles the mind, she cares about nothing except herself by getting deluded revenge on the man she sees as having scorned or ‘used’ her sexuality, and cares nothing for rightness, justice, fairness, law, harming the innocent, the functioning of society, family, or other such notions which may come naturally to most people.

Women, those who already in general care relatively little for any of that in the abstract, or selfish, pampered, arrogant little airheads, care strictly nothing for any of it when they perceive themselves as having been ‘wronged’ rather than get a life, grow up, but will exact what horrific revenge they can, and the more horrific the better. See Lewis, clearly a petty, self-centred, self-obsessed and cold-hearted liar wallowing in her self-pitying narcissism out for an old man’s blood. And what’s more, any prepubescent and/or adolescent can accuse an adult of ‘rape’ too, making him, or even her, a paedophile in a cruel instant without the slightest chances of proving otherwise. NONE. Next scenario, older man and pretty nubile minor have sex, parents find out. Guess what? ‘Statutory rape’, possible life sentence for the adult, while sweet little girl walks free to secretly sleep with the next idiot because mommy and/or daddy/boyfriend don’t like the fact that daughter was sexually active, and even told a grand jury about it. See Geimer.

And no, it’s not victim ‘blaming’, to ask for anything related as to the accuser’s ‘history’, sexual or otherwise, it’s alleged victim ‘questioning’, it’s truth finding, to see if the accuser spoke true when claiming only one or two sexual encounters before, e.g., since that would be in fact ‘l-y-i-n-g’ in a court of law, or perjury no one seems to think is a crime in that case. And best of all, since this belongs into the category of ‘sexual history’, if any accuser had HIV or any other VD, and the accused will be infected, he will never know until it’s literally too late. And, would you say that any genuine rape victim would not submit to a psych or polygraph test? I’d say that’s a BIG NO, since they would be found NOT to lie, while a false rape accuser would most certainly NOT submit to it. (Or take it thinking they can beat it and then be found out.) See Geimer, who was ‘spared’ such a vital ‘psyche evaluation’, since the attorneys knew too well she had put on a grand ‘victim’ show. Had the old judge played by the rules that had been it.

There was a case some years back in the US where a parole board seriously said to some inmate, he should serve four more years in prison for his so-called crime of having sex with a ‘no crier’, and then be released, stating for the record that: The ‘victim’ was not harmed in any way. No threats were made at the ‘victim’. The ‘crime’ contained no violence. And, best of all, the head of the parole board said that the ‘victim’ aided in the ‘crime’. Exactly as it was in Polanski’s case. So, there was NO ‘violence’, NO ‘threat’ of violence, NO ‘crime’ was committed basically, and why exactly was this man sent to and then kept in prison for even longer? And why call her ‘victim’, if she even abetted in the ‘crime’ that obviously never occurred? By all logic she’s a criminal too in my view, not any ‘victim’. Or better still, neither of them is, but only the man is inside! But no, let’s redefine what a ‘crime’ is, or a ‘victim’, and insult any real rape victim while real rapists run around freely, and guess what? Sooner or later no one will care about any ‘rape claims’ anymore with this kind of absurd logic.

And, why is ‘rape’ seen as the ‘worst of all crimes’, even if it was not at all forcible? While any intelligent mind would consider long-term sexual abuse, horrible torture, capital murder, war crimes or genocide far worse crimes? Now, if a woman were tied up and any part of her body slowly be pounded into mush with a hammer, piece by piece, as long as it takes to severely injure but not kill her, hours and hours or even days of gruesome torture, maybe leave her paralysed, or even brain-damaged, or some caustic liquid were forced down her throat to cause severe internal injuries, both causing terrible suffering, she would be awarded NO special ‘shield laws’ at a trial, NO special services, NO violent assault crimes organisations for victims of real physical attacks. But, if a man sticks his oh so offensive penis into a women’s oh so sacred vagina (especially designed for that mind you) ‘against her will’ and it lasts for only a few minutes, she is protected by Rape Shield Laws and awarded all kinds of protections and/or ‘compensations’. That’s nothing but the perverted feminists’ idea of ‘justice’, and gender based hypocrisy.

So, why does ‘consent’ to have sex, turn a natural act a normal woman would normally perform, into this complicated, potentially life-scarring event men have to negotiate in mathematical details before even undressing, calculate every possible scenario and ‘position’ not to be called a rapist afterwards, when only true rape or assault victims suffered any actual harm? And, while it’s a terrible tragedy when a woman is forcibly raped and her rapist is set free, most likely because the authorities have to deal with all these false claims, how often do feminists speak out for the men whose lives are shattered when they are unjustly accused of rape? Or when a man was raped? They NEVER do! No, feminists look gleefully the other way when men are ripped to pieces by sickening women who make false rape accusations and are violated by other men in their name.

And think of this, if you want to throw someone in prison for some pathetic, ‘perceived grievance’ that is not actionable under law, then you better be prepared to pay the piper when the man in question gets out, (if still in one coherent or cohesive piece) because his own sense of ‘revenge’ might visit that ultimate umbrage upon their accuser in full measure, even if it means that he’ll no doubt has to go back, and that cycle of violence and abuse will continue to the very bitter end. But I guess, feminists will hope for the man to be a piece of gibbering vegetable if ever released and in no state to seek revenge anymore. No, he’ll probably kill himself first to end his misery. If a rape claim turns out to be false, all the police do is close it as ‘unfounded allegations’, NOT ‘false accusations’ that should be prosecuted. Especially if an actual man is at the receiving end who was accused and most likely ended up in jail. Many of these false claims are in fact not even cases where the woman accused her partner/friend etc., but some fictitious stranger who attacked them, and oddly, most of these accused (in the US) are black or Hispanic guys – which sounds more like racism, than rape. False reports cause unnecessary fear in the community for one, and reports take personnel away from other vital calls for police support, increasing response time for real victims.

Of course, the next thing that happens after another false report is dismissed, some feminist advocate comes along and says, just because a report is considered false doesn’t mean something didn’t happen or that someone doesn’t need help. Something traumatic has happened to them to make them come forward and make allegations of sexual assault, and they are usually in some sort of emotional trouble. Yeah, they’re pathological liars if there’s not the slightest sign of ‘rape’, end of. See Lewis. If a false accuser however might end up in jail, all they get is a few months. But it’s not only the feminists’ fault they get away with it; it’s the prosecutors who routinely don’t ‘prosecute’ anyone who committed perjury – if they’re ‘women’. See Judge Rittenband, who didn’t care shit about Geimer’s and her mother’s lies, all three in fact knowingly perverting the course of justice, and her behaviour with her mother’s very own boyfriend outside the prosecutor’s office. I.e., he had his leg between hers embracing with erotic connotations both locked in a steamy, passionate embrace; not the avuncular hug of a grown man comforting a young girl, but an unmistakably erotic clinch. Her thigh was up against his crotch. That, coming from Polanski’s own former prosecutor, mind you. So much for an ‘innocent’ thirteen year old just having been ‘raped’.

Funny thing is, someone like Al Gore, who was accused of sexual assault in 2006, (and remember Clinton and his extramarital fling?) never made the headlines, (and is probably just another cry rape case seeking attention, since there’s no such thing as only ‘one’ assault or rape committed by a ‘rapist’) while Polanski is smeared all over the media over some three decades old sexual encounter with a teenager. And speaking of teenagers, how about adulterer Arnie, yeah, the ‘I’ll be back’ ex-Terminator dude who became Governor of California (where DA Cooley & Co sit who want Polanski’s in shackles before the court and his head on a judicial platter) – he had a longer affair with a minor in the Seventies, i.e., committed serial ‘statuary rape’, like Polanski only once around the same time, and, he apparently ‘sexually assaulted’ several women in his ‘crude approach’ to the female gender. But I guess, in both cases the feminist armchair moralists had nothing to say about their oh so ‘heinous crimes’, and their PR machine obviously did a better job to hide the fact of Arnie’s ‘youthful transgression’, since RP (‘Roman Polanski’) never had any PR. No, he had, no, has to endure a public relation with vilification till his dying day.

And another thing that’s been around for some while now, is the nasty ‘female condom’ – no, not the one that prevents pregnancies, but one with ‘bite. It’s a device like a femdom, but it has jagged rows of teeth-like hooks lined inside that attach on a man’s penis during penetration. Once it lodges, only a doctor can remove it. A woman might insert this atrocity in her vagina before going on a blind date, but then proceed to send off signals indicating her willingness to engage in intercourse. Perhaps she’s had a few drinks and has even forgotten she’s wearing the appalling device. If her unwitting date proceeds, he will be subjected to the surprise of his life when this 13th Century torture device clamps down on his penis. That is not rape, it’s the innocent man who’s just been brutally assaulted. Since hardly anyone in fact bought the thing, and evidently isn’t going to help stop rape, and, would only make matters worse for women, could actually chomp down on innocent penises, why not empower and teach women things that will actually help them avoid dangerous situations instead? For many radical feminists, that’s ‘victim blaming’. No, I call it taking responsibility.

Some women use sex as means of power and for blackmail, as in, I sleep with you to gain something, and if not, I’m sulking because you didn’t do what I demanded and accuse you of rape. Try to get out of that one. Equally, they use sex against men to maintain their handy victimhood as a strategy and tactic to achieve what they want, regardless of the outcome. Or, they become pregnant to bind the man to them, by emotionally tying him to a child. These women are emotionally immature, bullies and drama queens who turn the most minor of life experiences into a big deal but care little about others’ struggles, travails, and of course conversely joys. They use guilt and shame to manipulate, oftentimes using this guilt to force the person into unsavoury acts out of ‘love’. She makes you feel emotionally drained after spending any amount of time with her and is easily provoked and malicious. She may tell stories about having been raped, sexually abused, or was a victim of domestic violence in an attempt to gain sympathy. Or limelight. See Lewis.

Such women are controlling, but become outraged if you ‘check up’ on them or ask too many questions about them, and double-faced hypocrites. They use mimicry to cleverly masquerade as a human with a conscience and empathy, play their games, live in a fantasy world and cannot tell truth from fiction, are exploitative, always asking for favours but do nothing in return. They possess a tremendous amount of entitlement, i.e., are selfish and conceited, and treat others as if they are lesser than her, are envious of others and vindictive towards those who better their lot in life or are better looking, more talented, more successful than her. See ugly liar Lewis, and Polanski, her victim, and his beautiful wife and children she’s envious of. One could say, it’s the typical narcissistic, pampered little airhead who has no idea about reality, and granting carte blanch to such females to perform in any way possible without responsibility or accountability, we’ll end up with this type of self-indulgent, thoughtless, petulant and criminal behaviour.

Same goes for this ‘rape culture’ these feminist advocates of victimhood invented, indeed cultivated, just so to make us believe rape is rampant. But, contrary to popular feminist belief it is wrong to make up unjust and biased laws to support a woman’s ‘hurt feelings’ and get back at those ‘evil men’ and other women. And even if some men think rape is a lot worse than it really is, it’s by putting themselves into the woman’s shoes. But when they do so, they really, in effect, put their butts into the woman’s oh so ‘sacred vagina’ as the only place to stick things in, which makes it seem worse than it is, since it’s worse to most to have anal intercourse, and butts generally aren’t meant for penis insertion but to defecate. But vaginas are, and for nothing else in fact. That’s their sole purpose, other than bleed or give birth. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the time, women quite like it when penises go in there, or ‘toys’, so why use it against men, just because some use their penises against women.

What’s more, there are other extremely damaging myths alive in media and other public representations of ‘rape’, or even ‘sex’, or in fact in peoples’ own ill-informed and/or ignorant minds not even knowing the simplest dynamics of sexual intercourse, that rape [or sex] is easy to perform, and there is some physiological pleasure or gratification involved for the rapist, since then it would be about ‘sex’, not ‘power’, when it’s not. Both anecdotal and scientific evidence shows that a significant proportion of rapists have difficulty getting an erection, maintaining it, achieving penetration or experiencing ejaculation, or could in fact enter their victim/s, (hence, some resorting to ‘tools’.) Research undertaken in the US in the 1980s showed that over 10% of those serving prison sentences for ‘rape’ were even permanently impotent, i.e., weren’t in fact ‘real rapists’, since no erection equals no hardness = no penetration. Unless the victim is unconscious, sedated, restrained, scared stiff, or ‘lets it happen’, it’s simply impossible, and most certainly NO rape/sodomy occurred if there were NO physical signs of genital and/or other injuries. So in Geimer’s case, there’s NO chance Polanski raped let alone sodomised her even twice at not the slightest bruises or tearing anywhere. Any doctor would shake his head, and the physician who had examined her, did just that calling her bluff; hence no trial and all other counts were dropped.

In short, for men, ‘rape’ cannot be the ‘illicit pleasure’, the stolen ‘innocence’ that we see presented again and again in popular, highly uninformed culture. Physiologically, this is an act that is usually at best extremely uncomfortable, at worst, painful and difficult for the perpetrator, since the penis can be bent, the foreskin tightened severely, and the dry vagina or tight rectum cause more friction. Try it once, and you’ll see it’s impossible without causing severe pain and damage, for both, requiring vital lube even in consensual sex. Why then the myth of ‘male gratification’ and how easy it is to get his tackle inside? The pain inflicted on the victim, might be just as great as the pain the perpetrator suffers, which is only eased when blood is drawn from severe force. Why then would anyone perform an act that causes them discomfort, even pain? The rapist may be aberrant, but ‘rape’, ‘elicited’ [or underaged] sex itself is a biologically normal act, (no matter what feminists say) which is made ‘criminal’ only by the victim’s lack of consent. Legal or otherwise. Meaning, it can be very painful or difficult to penetrate anyone who’s dry, closed up, frozen up, or conversely struggling, and in general rather hard to find the right orifice, especially in the dark – many times even in consensual intercourse.

And, how often does the man need the female to ‘guide’ the penis into herself? Or when the penis slips out again, and s/he needs to guide it back inside? Or you need more lube? Think of it. I blame all those misinforming cross-section diagrams of the female reproductive tract that hang on doctors’ walls and are found in biology books, which portray the vagina as an ‘empty space’, a ‘large cavity’ with a ‘big hole’, just because babies come out of it sometimes. There’s little or no recognition that the vagina in its normal, non-aroused state is a rather small aperture whose rippled walls lie adjacent to one another, very much like the anus/rectum, a tightly closed canal that is no deeper than ten centimetres on average, and it only widens when getting aroused to accommodate the penis. (Like the slow process required to dilate sufficiently for childbirth after many months.) That’s why it is so painful and injurious to force anything inside if the woman is not aroused and therefore lubricated enough. Many assume that male ‘sexual arousal’ is necessary for rape to take place, no, anything can trigger an ejection, and few consider the complex physiological mechanisms that make sexual intercourse possible for women (lubrication, engorgement, retraction of the cervix, etc.) in the first place.

I’m sure feminists love keeping these myths alive in order for people to believe the dumbest ‘rape’ story, (see Geimer’s rape and ‘dry sodomy’ nonsense) or for men to believe their sacred temple is a huge hollow and easy to invade, who claim that sex and gender is a ‘social construct’ and doesn’t exist naturally, i.e., the gender itself, and their differences. Or of course ‘sex’, i.e., the vagina and penis that in fact fits just nicely into it. I always thought female + male = gender = sex. (Or any other ‘gender’ combination.) Guess not. In that sense then, there could be no such thing as ‘sex’, or this ‘rape culture’ to anyone who believes natural sex or gender difference do not exist – unless they include all ‘rape’ in that ‘culture’, i.e., that of men too. But then feminists don’t even acknowledge male rape exists either. These ‘people’ are sexist bigots and plain old-fashioned hypocrites, if we leave out the ‘gender’ term. Feminists hate the idea that others could enjoy themselves and have a normal sex life, even a kinky one, regardless of age or ‘gender’, while they go out there thriving on hatred, condemnation and screaming their way to their self-imposed, delusional victimhood in the land of misantopia. A fictional land based on lies, distortions and mistrust, and don’t forget the abuse of both sexes, or ‘genders’.

Arguments by ultra feminists against anonymity to the rape accused are a manifestation of their legalised hatred for men, saying, ‘it would hamper police investigations’, or prevent others from coming forward, when exactly that would encourage real victims to report their attackers, since no one would know who they are, and none of their friends would put one and one together to realise who the accuser could be and maybe threaten the accuser, or in fact, take the vigilante law into their own hands and attack the accused, as it happened many times, leaving an innocent man severely injured or even brutally killed. It only happened recently again in the States, where a vile woman accused her ex of rape, and after she had lured him into her clutches, goaded a teenager and young man into torturing him, leaving him near dead, repeatedly beaten and violently sodomised over twenty-four hours with a caustic agent laced broomstick, while she looked on in perverse pleasure. That’s in no way exaggerated, but shocking fact. Google ‘Renada Williams’ and there she is – one of many.

Such women are pure evil beyond evil, while the vile men who fell for her lies are nothing but perverted extension of her female depravity, made to commit worse atrocities against their own all in the name of misled ‘chivalry’, or of course, ‘rape’. Yet, the woman and teen were only charged with aggravated assault and sexual assault, while the other man escaped. Not even attempted murder, since, had they not been interrupted and the severely injured man could be freed, they had surely killed him in cruel sadism. The culprits in this case are nothing more than vigilante scum whipped into frenzy that cut into the action of a corrupted system that routinely does the same under a thin façade of legal decorum that is every bit as manufactured as this woman’s repulsive lie, and we learn absolutely nothing from it if we don’t recognise that what happened here, is not so different than what the law sanctions and justifies routinely in the name of justice, since it will be happening to many more men.

One way or the other, unless clear signs of physical injury and/or mental distress are evident, men have to learn to stop reflexively jumping to women’s aid in these situations to cause only more damage to innocent men. Or in fact, end sleeping around with every available slut offering herself. When it comes to rape, even the substantial number of them that are of the concocted variety, we pay officials to react with the same destructive mindlessness as those two repulsive automatons acting on behalf of this sick/ening woman. Rape vigilantism and genuine rape justice have simply become two different railroads, and the fact that blind/ed vigilantes actually believe they are going after guilty people without the slightest proof. False rape accusations are one of the worst problems faced by the western world today, because they are allowed to artificially create and maintain mass hysteria and anti-male biased ‘laws’, and while every country has a legal system which states that a person is ‘innocent until proven guilty’, therefore the accused should have the same right to the same privacy as the presumed ‘victim’.

Feminist activists have dominated the public discourse on rape for the past forty years, and more and more, ‘rape’, as now defined by (mostly US) ‘sex laws’ or in college handbooks, has become nothing more than a twisted game of vindictive ‘gotcha!’, with the intention of branding any male a rapist for doing what most people would think is not ‘rape’, according to polls, while in fact simply having ‘sex’. Common sense is sacrificed for robotic adherence to such highly damaging ‘rules’ forced on us, sending men into hell from which they cannot ever return. And another thing, why would anyone, who some decades back did not think she was ‘raped’, or ‘abused’ as in any scenario other than forcible intercourse obviously, today suddenly say so? Are these women so desperate to think they have to belong to the endless stream of real or imaginary ‘abused women’ suddenly, just because it’s ‘in’, or ‘feminine’ to be the weak female, rather than stand by their original convictions, accountability, strong womanhood, not pathetic ‘victimhood’? You only need to look at their actual life to know the answer, or why they suddenly want to blame others for their own failures. Or are liars at any rate. See Lewis.

A young man, who is engaging in consensual sex with an older woman, delays withdrawing for five to ten seconds (by her admission only), voila, he’s a rapist, convicted of a felony that will forever brand him as the most serious criminal worse than a murderer. That happened in the US (of course), and believe or not, some troll commented on that story with the following: ‘Personally I think that 5-10 seconds after she said “stop” would be a lifetime to the victim in that position, and certainly more than enough time to withdraw. (Sorry, what ‘victim’?) Also, I feel that your (the False Rape Society blogger’s) comparison is flawed: rape is rape, no matter if it’s a male or female victim, and the attacker in that position should be sentenced for violating the rights and dignity of the victim. (Clever to say, ‘no matter male or female victim’). Four years (the boy received) may have been excessive, (‘may’!? For not ‘withdrawing’ fast enough!? In the heat of passion perhaps?! What disproportionate lunacy to even think that is a crime and call the boy an ‘attacker’!) but this was probably bartered down from life etc, and perhaps the defendant’s lawyer was unable to find any way of reducing the sentence further for whatever reason. (What a blasé ‘analysis’! The courts should in fact never have allowed this lunacy of a case!) You could just blame the gender bias in favour of women in this case, rather than the prosecutor. Do something about it, don’t just sit on the internet and bitch about people who have been raped.’

Now, to dissect such imbecilic twaddle even further with others’ comments, in terms of the ‘harm’ to the individual, NOT ALL RAPE IS THE SAME. Get it? THAT’S the whole point! Only forcible intercourse is rape and SHE most certainly was NOT ‘raped’! And four years in prison for a crime you didn’t even commit (since she had in fact lied!) is far worse than a five to ten second bloody ‘delay’! These people will say or do anything for female victimhood status, and to even pander such outrageous bullshit is unbelievable! Tell you what, you pathetic little feminists you, let’s just have the laws reversed and see how YOU like going to prison for four years because you waited 5-10 seconds to get off a man in the heat of passion. Fair’s fair, right ladies? Oh, that’s right, no it isn’t. Because it isn’t about your imaginary ‘traumatic ordeals’ at all, is it? It’s about your in-built bigotry and hatred of men, your jealousy of men, and your never-ending need to blame someone-men-for YOUR bad decisions, ‘sex’, or simply out of spite. Some ‘writer’ commenting on the case declared that she doesn’t understand all the media attention for this ‘mundane perjury story’. ‘Mundane perjury story’!?!? The man’s life was destroyed no matter the case was turned over on appeal in fact, for some whining little female having lied to the cops and a court of law that cost him FOUR years in prison for literally fuck [all]!!

Wouldn’t it be nice if someone were to commit ‘mundane perjury’ against idiots like her, giving them a nice long four years to think about things while the outside world calls them all sorts of horrible names and laughs at the sexual abuse they undoubtedly will suffers in jail! To ‘people’ like that prison rape isn’t real rape at any rate, no, it’s the kind of rape that even feminists can celebrate and laugh about because it mainly affects men, liars like her and supporters thereof  have sent there in the first place! In another story, a couple engaged in sex after drinking: he, and he alone, is the rapist, because the one drink she had ‘interfered’ with her female ‘perceived ability’ to consent with 100% crystal clarity, and only the male is deemed to be responsible for any sexual acts, or rather ‘transgressions’. Meeting out excessive punishments for such a ridiculous ‘rape’ means that the innocent are often punished severely for crimes they didn’t even commit. Given its all too pervasive law and order attitudes, America has a long and shameful history of rape hysteria, predating the feminist revolution that has long turned it into an obsessed crusade to deem all men rapists and/or paedophiles. While they both exist, always bred by very often abusive or dominant women, most of those accused however were neither. See Polanski. Time has long proven, that real rape cases are NEVER, EVER just, ‘he said she said’ where the alleged rapist is the boyfriend, husband, acquaintance of the alleged ‘victim’. As seen in his case.

While feminists would argue that the majority of attackers are known to the victim, in a situation of ‘domestic violence’, however, usually fuelled by alcohol and/or drugs, based on many social, financial and/or emotional factors, it most times does not involve any sexual attacks at all, and many victims are in fact men. Ever more [created] rapists, and unfortunately, many falsely convicted of rape or such ‘violence’, are in prison in the US than anywhere else on Earth. In fact, many attackers ARE strangers, who might ‘know’ the victim or not, but the victim does not. I alone know of one female and one male victim whose attackers picked them off the streets at random, who did not ever know their prey. They both reported it after near fatal, prolonged assaults, but in either case the attacker was never found despite best efforts. In fact, unlike what feminists proclaim, [complete] stranger/‘acquaintance’ [forcible] rape, (which can include a [school]friend of a [school]friend of a [school]friend) is about half/half, not the majority being actually known to the victim. Also, the ‘stranger’ an assailant, the more brutal the crime/s. Conversely, ‘rape’ and/or sexual assault are more often perpetrated by family members like the mother, father, or their friends, and might not include physical violence.

I personally heard of only a few other cases and where the attacker was brought to justice, either known, a stranger, or mere casual acquaintance to the victims, but still, the feminists will pretend that there is a vast pool of unreported violence and/or rapes and/or perpetrated by their nearest and not so dearest, or of course were never reported, somehow justifying the actions of false rape accusers and ‘minimising the suffering’ of these poor victims who never were victimised in the first place. Do they really think, that having a man take ‘advantage’ of a woman while she’s tipsy, or took a little pill to make her horny, is worse than the possibility of life in prison, losing your home, your livelihood, or your projects due to mounting legal fees, or being unable to work per se because you’ve been branded a rapist? If anyone can say yes, stop reading now and ask a man who was [legally] destroyed and/or raped in the name of a lying woman who was not.

If you stopped reading, a single rape of a woman, would obviously be worse than decades of imprisonment, decades of gang-rape, decades of attacks they cannot ever escape, being forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life, being hated and spat on by your community, the vicious media, the ill-informed public, having your life destroyed for doing no crime at all. And finally, be bankrupt and detained in your own home as seen in Polanski’s case. All for committing the oh so heinous crime of having sex, or sleeping with your own underage girlfriend, or as in his case sleeping with a minor, like EVERYONE else is doing it right NOW on this festering cesspool planet called feminism and NONE of them will be endlessly vilified. Yes, if you believe that a woman or female teenager is more valuable than a man or boy, then of course, the ‘rape’ of a woman or sex with a minor is worse than a false rape accusation that destroys your ENTIRE life.

Prison rape however often goes unreported, obviously, since no one cares, and inmate victims often receive inadequate treatment for the severe physical and psychological effects of such prolonged sexual assault, if they receive treatment at all, causing only more physical and mental problems, at the increased risk of contracting fatal diseases in the course. Prison rape endangers public safety as well, by making brutalised inmates more likely to commit crimes when they are released, as 600,000 inmates are each year, or infect the next victim, thus self-perpetuating and creating a vicious cycle of violent abuse and brutal crimes. Hence, the US sporting the highest crime and incarnation rate in the world. Victims of prison rape suffer severe physical and psychological trauma that hinder their ability to re/integrate into the community and maintain stable employment and/or relationships upon their release from prison.

They are therefore more likely to become homeless and/or require government assistance, might end up rapists themselves in severe cases and/or criminals otherwise, are many times hounded to total destruction by society, if they don’t kill themselves beforehand, mentally destroyed, and/or physically damaged for life that might have been a good life before that fatal sex. Members of the public and government officials are largely unaware of the epidemic character of prison rape (and/or false rape accusers) and the day-to-day horrors experienced by these victimised inmates. Since they cannot escape this systematic abuse, their life is infinitely more traumatising than that of any rape victim who suffered a single attack, however violent. But such logic and facts eludes the dazed and confused feminist brain.

One very tragic story like so many goes; in 1973 a harmless young student protester couldn’t pay the measly $10 bail after being arrested at a pray-in at the White House. In the Washington DC lockup, he was almost immediately attacked by fellow prisoners, sodomised and forced to perform fellatio while being nearly beaten to death for three solid days. He was raped all day and all night by dozens of men till he was a bleeding piece of pulp, brutally held down and unable to even scream in agony. No guard came to his rescue, the uncaring doctors patched him up half-heartedly, he never recovered and killed himself soon after, too traumatised and injured. Such is not even a rare tragedy, and he wasn’t even a criminal, not even a falsely accused or real rapist inmates target for that reason, no, he was just a young man let down by the criminal system, the criminal guards, to be abused by real criminals inside. Other more ‘lucky’ men, are sold between inmates as sex slaves, forced to do all kinds of other jobs for their ‘owner’, i.e., pimp/‘protector’, and have to serve them at will. Or even others and the guards.

Men beaten and dragged into the ‘covered wagon’ (a ‘blanket tent’ set up to deflect view) are set upon by dozens of men. They have all their teeth knocked out, are forced to perform fellatio for hours and hours in agony while being savagely sodomised until they literally gush/ed blood from both ends, gagged and passed out. Even if the guards were able to detect what’s going on (and they most certainly know what’s going on) they would not do a thing. Many died that way, and no one cared. Where is the outrage for these savagely mistreated victims systematically being abused over days or years, worse than even a non-incarcerated onetime rape victim, when more rapes occur in US prisons than outside? These violated men are wrecks for life, if they ever survive, or sanely. The numbers of male and female rape victims combined outside prison walls are far fewer than the attacks on men committed by men combined in all US penitentiaries in the name of women.

That is truly shocking. Not a young girl having sex with an older man.

Today, in most US states, the judge now informs a rape trial jury that:

(1) An allegation of rape does not require any evidence of corroboration;

Nice, so I say you orally and vaginally raped and/or sodomised me, end of story.

(2) There is no requirement for medical evidence;

Perfect, and since I won’t show any forcible rape and/or sodomy anyway, no problem, it’s not required to be evident anymore. (And it WOULD!)

(3) There is no requirement for DNA evidence;

So, in that case I can accuse even a stranger who was nowhere near any ‘victim’, or, say it was from my ‘attacker’, when it was from someone else. (Very much as in Polanski’s case, where they secured the girl’s panties with ‘semen evidence’, though there was no semen/saliva/blood found inside her vaginally and/or anally. Meaning, it was corrupted ‘evidence’ and from another man she had slept with before or after, since the panties were brought in only two days later. It’s inadmissible ‘evidence’ at any rate.)

(4) There is no requirement for a second witness;

So, someone like the caretaker who witness the girl drinking that champagne on her own free will, and Anjelica Huston, who testified that Polanski’s ‘victim’ showed NO signs of the usual emotional trauma, let alone ‘rape’ and/or ‘sodomy’, or her proclaimed ‘fear’ of him, or her previous ‘reluctance’ or or or, are conveniently rendered irrelevant. NOTHING to support Geimer in any form. (Before Huston was in fact intimidated by the cops to testify against Polanski in exchange for dropping cocaine charges, but didn’t need to, (since there never was a trial on the mother’s ‘pressing’ wishes), which was just another factor forcing Polanski into that plea.)

In short, in the oh so ‘civilised’ US the only requirement for a rape conviction was, and still is, the bare allegation made by a complainant. Voila, you are now officially a rapist. Even if Huston had witnessed her having casual sex with Polanski, (or even if she saw the girl seducing Polanski) none of that could ever be taken into account, which would clearly exonerate him of anything else she had had accused him of later. Even the manner in which the jury is selected today is tainted with this insane attitude that ‘evidence’ does not matter, witnesses don’t matter, credence does no matter, let alone any ‘justice’. In many states, prosecutors can demand that during the selection process, each prospective juror must agree that he/she would not require corroboration of a crime. Got that? NO ‘EVIDENCE’ REQUIRED! If the juror disagrees with this demand, he/she can be excused, ergo, the jurors will ALWAYS be FOR the ‘victim’ only, even is she never was raped in any form. Now THAT is ‘justice’!

I wonder what happens if a woman is accused by a young man that she had raped him, with her own body or some sex toy, while intoxicated or not, restrained or not, unconscious or not. I’m sure the feminists will scramble to her support and twist and turn it to MAKE it ‘consensual’, or of course the sole ‘fault’ of the man she did any of it, or better still, twist it around some more to make it appear that he had raped her. Wait for the day that NO genuine rape victim will be believed anymore unless too obvious physical signs say so with this type of insanity. As you can see, many state legislatures are effectively creating new ‘victims’ artificially, by keeping out the sexual history of the complainant on the issue of consent, if she had lied before, while however allowing into evidence the sexual history of the defendant. In effect, purposely creating imaginary victims to create even more however real victims through their lies.

If it happens to be a minor, it’s even more irrelevant that NO rape and/or sodomy e.g. took place. Or, if she had drunk, or she seduced the adult first and even said so. It’s all irrelevant, and therefore the handy plea bargain comes into play especially designed for that, (rather than in fact present all facts) so a man can STILL be condemned and end up in jail, and he can STILL be raped there in her place. This is sheer sexist politics and not based upon relevancy or any kind of vital evidence and even more essential, justice, let alone any moral fibre the law should be based on. This kind of extremely biased legislation is systematically making it easier to obtain false rape convictions, and while those guilty of actual rape should be convicted and are in fact easy to identify by concrete evidence or one attack too many, those who are accused of it and never did the dastardly deed, should be allowed to defend themselves adequately in court to weed out false accusations and be declared innocent.

The members of such kangaroo court juries are the triers of ‘claims’ not ‘facts’, yet treat them as such. They first hear the account of the complainant, and if the defendant elects to testify, they hear the testimony of the defendant as pointless as it is by now. While in Polanski’s case the medieval evidence was brought before the grand jury, to declared no drugged rape and no sodomy had taken place and there never even was a count for alcohol plying, therefore the plea deal was struck, since this was the classic ‘she said he said’ situation in which jury members would have decided what they ‘believe’ is the ‘truth’, not what the ‘facts’ are, liable to be highly biased for various reasons, and therefore they had decided to cut it short with the deal mainly on the mother’s pressure. Never mind the corrupt judge had his own ideas, who in fact had his own teenage liaisons while he was in his fifties, and later married a hardly age of consent old woman thirty years his junior. So much for double standards US court style, while sending Polanski down for doing exactly the same.

Now, in an attempt to provide greater ‘credibility’ to the complainant, or rather the false rape accuser, since hardly any visibly injured and clearly abused female needs any further evidence or credibility anymore the real victim would always show, and thereby tipping the scales of justice in favour of false convictions even further no matter how unjust or innocent the accused, two women, of course, wrote a ‘psychological description’ of what they termed the ‘Rape Trauma Syndrome’ in 1974 – which is mind-boggling the least.

For example, if a woman recants her story and admits that she was not raped, the prosecution can put a supposed Rape Trauma Syndrome ‘expert’ on the stand to testify that this ‘behaviour’ was in fact, ‘consistent with being raped’, as illogical as it sounds. The implication is of course in order that the original rape story should be believed even if not true. This demonstrates the legalised abuse of the Rape Trauma Syndrome as a confirmatory bias-based description of pure make-believe. This highly multifaceted ‘syndrome’ demonstrates a built-in prejudice towards confirming that a ‘rape’ happened even if it had not, plain and simple. In a process like this, ALL ‘symptoms’ lead to the same conclusion that, ‘IT HAPPENED’. Other descriptions found in the Rape Trauma Syndrome explain that if a woman immediately reports a real, OR even false, crime, such action is ‘also consistent with’ the ‘typical reactions’ of a rape victim. The paradox is staggering to put it mildly.

And best of all, this same so-called ‘syndrome’ explains that if the woman waits for years to report, that is ‘also consistent with’ the ‘typical reactions’ of a rape victim, completely ignoring the fact that she had a life in between, sex with several partners, even children and a family. To talk about a suffered rape which was reported or not, the attacker was locked up or not, yeah, but ‘report’ it only decades later, at NO evidence? There’s no logic in that unless the accuser has ulterior motives. The Rape Trauma Syndrome ‘experts’ also explain that if a woman becomes flirtatious, or promiscuous, see Lewis (long before she met Polanski in fact), such behaviour is also consistent with’ the ‘typical reactions’ of a rape victim, But, if the woman is withdrawn and shuns from sex, and is in fact more likely, that ‘too is consistent’ with the ‘typical reactions’ of a rape victim when they’re clearly total opposites.

Even if one considers different people reacting differently, but the majority in fact reacts more alike than not, especially in traumatising situations, to accept total opposites as being applicable for something the victims suffered in the same way, felt the same shock and pain, were equally ‘traumatised’ to the given certain degree of injury, is utterly illogical. But they even say, should the woman cry when testifying, such behaviour is of course ‘consistent with’ the ‘typical reaction’ of a rape victim, while, if a woman does not cry, even that is ‘also consistent with’ the ‘typical reaction’ of a rape victim. The list of conflicting descriptions covers basically every conceivable behaviour that a human being might have over the course of a lifetime. As you can see, this makes ANY ‘behaviour’ irrefutable ‘evidence’ that supports ALL charges of ANY alleged rape victim. In effect, the accused stands ZERO chances to be found innocent, and ANY allegations are FACT, even when they’re NOT.

I wonder what they call someone who sued a man a decade after a never proven, or in fact not even previously declared, and physical and/or mental ‘abuse’ suddenly was proclaimed, when they really just milk the ‘compensation culture’ born from the ‘rape culture’. While in the UK the government is clamping down on such frivolous claims, arguing, the misperception to sue everything and everyone in sight for the slightest ‘injury’, especially if ‘imaginary’, for extortionate amounts of money, undermining personal responsibility and respect for the law, this creates unnecessary burdens through an exaggerated fear of litigation, since it may be difficult to disprove the existence of certain claimed injuries, such as ‘ emotional distress’ Geimer e.g. sued Polanski over, increasing the likelihood of perjury by plaintiffs feigning such ‘torts’, the US is in/famous for doing the exact opposite. It’s lunacy beyond lunacy in case of a false report.

In many US states, the sentencing laws have also become much more restrictive and severe. For example, in California the law used to state that a defendant could be sentenced up to eight years on one count of ‘rape’, with two years for each subsequent count. That law was changed to punish the convicted with an eight-year sentence for each count now, not three, or four, no, a massive six-year leap, and all counts are to be served consecutively. In other words, two counts of ‘rape’, even if NO signs of ‘rape’ ever existed, can be punished with a sixteen year prison term instead of an eight-year, plus two-year add-on, for a total of ten years. More disturbing is the prosecutor’s ability to turn a single alleged rape into numerous counts, because different sexual acts during one encounter can now be considered separate crimes.

For example, the falsely convicted could be sentenced to eight years for intercourse, eight years for ‘rape’ with a foreign object (e.g. a finger), and eight years for alleged sodomy even if NO signs are evident. And believe me, any forced or ‘dry’ sodomy IS ALWAYS visible and very painful. If not, try it out for yourself, and see how ludicrous Geimer’s claims were that Polanski had sodomised her even twice, and that without the slightest signs of damage, pain or the least visible soreness, which effectively makes her the only woman on Earth to have survived such a repeat attack utterly unscathed, and Polanski the only man to have managed that without any vital lube or other needed preparations, not to have her thrash and scream like hell. Besides, there’s absolute no logic in sodomising someone and then still withdraw to ejaculate outside, since no traces of semen (or saliva) were found anywhere on or inside her, despite claiming he had ejaculated over her back (but at one point said he had sodomised her from the ‘front’). Funny that teens always think they’re so clever, only to be found out to be big liars when science discredits their every, or adults’, fabrication.

Polanski could have looked at fifty years simply for sleeping with a minor (if the prosecution had asked for it, otherwise it was max twenty no one however asked for either but be set free on probation, while violent assault doesn’t get you half that) – or, if taking the single counts in the same ‘add-on’ manner on top, despite NO proof, it might have given him twice that. In the case of sleeping with a minor in California today you’re in fact [still] better off, since that gives you a ‘mere’ one minimum or two years maximum for unlawful sexual intercourse. Hence, the plea bargain to plead guilty to only one count for sex with a minor no matter how many counts were brought in originally that were found doubtful and therefore dropped. Though, any other ‘add-on’, if true or not, can still be taken into consideration if a trial took place and the jurors said so, or, if it’s not going straight to probation as it’s in fact statute, or otherwise you’re fucked. Most likely by another inmate, so don’t drop the soap. If it weren’t so horrible, that ‘prison joke’ might even be funny.

If the complainant alleges that the accused stopped the ‘rape’ and then started over, as it was in Polanski’s case and Geimer had claimed that they were interrupted by Huston while he sodomised her, instead of actually calling on her ‘help’ mind you to stop him, and then returned to ‘finish’, (though it clearly never happened either way so there was no need to call on help), each new act now becomes an additional count. A simple touch or kiss got you years already then, unless the count was dropped, let alone any actual intercourse no matter how long it took. That’s why Polanski faced a count of ‘lewd act’, for the kissing and caressing he had admitted to, or ‘oral copulation’ (then termed ‘perversion’) for the cunnilingus (NOT penis to mouth as in fellatio) he however had refuted and could never be proven anyway at no saliva traces. Extreme sentences of thirty or more years have become commonplace these days as a result of the utterly unacceptable changes and clearly arbitrary add-ons, (while some murderers don’t get that since the act of murder is only ‘one’ count, and only the level of brutality is reflected in a longer jail sentences termed as aggravated assault, and then are released on parole at one point). Or of course true rapists, who used real brute force and inflicted real physical and mental injury. But who cares about any proof or justice. The US ‘vengeful justice system’ is not compatible with real justice, still stuck in the Dark Ages with death penalties, absurd three hundred years prison sentences for multiple sexual acts with your own girlfriend.

Someone who looked at the police records of two large US mid western state universities, over a period of years, found that of the total 64 rape accusations, 32 (50%) were eventually recanted, i.e., were false accusations, and not because they saw no chances of winning since there never was rape and the other cases were prosecuted. Unlike the city police in other studies, the university police did not use polygraph examinations, the investigations were all performed by female officers and the accusers recanted themselves at one point. This extremely high figure is however slightly lower than the total number of false accusations in contrast reported to any city police setting it as high as 65% in places by now, and, it is obvious that many of these false accusations or those on campus still resulted in convictions. In 2007 in LA with 3.8 million people, there were 718 violent crimes and 26 forcible rapes per 100.000 people – whereas in NY with over twice the population, there were 614 violent crimes and only 11 forcible rapes per 100.000. Now, if that can be seen as ‘rampant’ rape, but in contrast a whopping 90 000 cases were actually reported, means the majority evidently are false accusations, yet in both cases the majority of men were sent to prison despite being innocent of ‘actual rape’. So to say, rapes are ‘very rarely reported’ to law enforcement is obviously just as false at that number of overall reports.

Different categorisations and maximum punishments for ‘rape’ under [wider] federal US law outside the one Californian example, now state:

Both: ‘Rape using violence [and] or the threat of violence to override consent’, and, ‘Rape by causing fear in the victim for themselves [and] or for another person to override consent’ > Unlimited fine. Imprisonment > 0-unlimited years. Life imprisonment > yes.

Meaning, even if it was not ‘forcible intercourse’ as described by law to be ‘actual rape’, it now says, ‘rape’ is: ‘forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal or oral penetration by the offender (s) (NOT only [forcible] vaginal intercourse anymore). This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a finger, or ‘sex toy’. It includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of ‘rape’.

So, someone who merely ‘attempted’ to ‘rape’, i.e., ‘threatened’ the ‘victim’ of actual ‘rape’, (if true or not) is thrown into the same basket as someone who ‘actually’ forcibly raped someone which once was the sole description of ‘rape’. Murderers and torturers should get life, not anyone like that. Therefore, the overall number of ‘rapes’, has obviously increased since it now includes other [un/wanted] sexual contracts/acts outside the actual [forced] intercourse. (Even if true or not, unless physical evidence backs up forcible intercourse outright.)

‘Rape by giving a drug or intoxicant to a person that renders them unable to give consent’ (that on top of any physical/actual ‘rape’ and according to the degree of incapability) > Unlimited fine. Imprisonment > 0-15 years. Life imprisonment > no.

‘Statutory rape  involving an adult perpetrator’ > Unlimited fine. Imprisonment > 0-15 years. Life imprisonment > no. (That even if the minor consented, or initiated it, and also said she did so. No matter, the adult is the only one punished. No justice in that at all.)

‘Statutory rape involving an adult perpetrator with a previous conviction’ > Unlimited fine. Imprisonment > 0-unlimited years. Life imprisonment > yes. (By ‘previous conviction’, it could well mean on the base of a former false accusation, or in fact any other non-sexual, or non-violent crime, while someone, who brutally murders another, also gets ‘life’. Great balance that.)

‘Statutory rape involving a perpetrator who is a minor’ > Unlimited fine. Imprisonment > 0-15 years. Life imprisonment > no. (So, a teenager who slept with his own girlfriend of merely ‘one’ year his junior, can end up in prison for up to 15 years! But NOT the other way around! Girls ALWAYS walk free! So much for ‘equality’! So, why was Geimer’s older boyfriend not done for SR? Or her mother’s much much older boyfriend? Their names weren’t ‘Polanski’.)

‘When a person causes the rape of a child under 12 > Unlimited fine. Imprisonment > 0-10 years. Life imprisonment > no. (Which falls under the ‘paedophilia’ type of sexual contact (and in itself is not unlawful, only acting on it is) since 13+ year olds are considered adolescents before the law before reaching [individual] age of consent, if it is against the child’s wish, and even if not.)

‘When a person causes the rape of a child under 12 by a third person’ > Unlimited fine. Imprisonment > 0-20 years. Life imprisonment > no. (That’s pretty self-explanatory, i.e., I tell you to rape some child and if you do it I get locked up for it too – But, why the one who only instigated a rape of a child can get more than the actual rapist, is beyond me. (Unless it’s a number switch.) I got all that from an official site, so why is the law for someone who causes a woman, or man, being raped by a third party missing?)

However, if a false rape accuser forces others to rape an innocent accused adult or adolescent, she’s not getting a day in jail, and the actual perpetrator/s not much behind bars either. So, why is their horrific act minimised when it clearly is the same kind of violation perpetrated by someone else as shown? And, it also means in both cases, that if a child gets raped, even if violently, which I personally consider much more depraved than when an adult woman (or man) gets violated who could stand a much better chance at defending herself, (or deal with it better physically and mentally), the perpetrator is looking at less time than a rapist of an older victim when it ‘morally’ should be the other way round. So in that case, someone who either forcibly, or not at all, ‘raped’ someone can be inside for life, in effect being the ‘same’ as a real rapist, while someone who killed even brutally, tortured and maimed a child, woman or man, might ‘look’ at life, BUT can be paroled at one point.

All in all, what it boils down to is that ALL sex gets mindlessly punished and the once established line between actual forcible [vaginal] intercourse being seen as ‘rape’ only, unwanted or consensual (over or underage) oral and/or vaginal, and/or anal sex now too declared ‘rape’, is utterly eradicated as separate acts. And, looking at the punishments for the gender and/or age differences, only the act of an adult woman getting raped is seen as ‘true rape’, while a perpetrator who raped a man or truly defenceless child in the same way, gets less. What a surprise. And, by putting attempted rape, violent or even only verbal threat/s of rape (real or false), into the same bracket as actual forcible intercourse besides, (or even murder in regards to punishment) it minimises the actual violent act/s completely, (or the murder) equates it with a non-intrusive (or even harmless) act, and both in fact get the same penalty. Just like sex with a minor puts the man into the same basket as a violent offender who actually hurt someone. Where the logic let alone fairness in all this is eludes me entirely. But then I’m not used to illogical US anti-sex laws.

Technically they should streamline the age of consent laws as well as rethink these insane blanket sex laws, and in fact treat each case on a more individual basis. Meaning, each underaged pubescent teenager should [also] be evaluated for their physical development and/or mental maturity no matter their actual chronological age. I. e., if a teenage girl, who is fourteen e.g., clearly is so well developed to be taken for an eighteen, twenty year old, as it happened in Geimer’s case, and her mental aptitude is matched, (since her mother said she’s very precocious and Polanski and the others thought her very mature and much older than she was) her own culpability in the act/s and course of event/s should therefore be taken into account.

That in order to not so much punish the minor for the sex, but alleviate the adult’s part in it in accordance with the minor’s own experiences in sexual matters, own willingness, own overall actions, own extent of ‘informed consent’, and/or own drugs/alcohol related knowledge/use. In effect, everything the Rape Shield Laws make impossible to see taken into evidence, including if they had cried rape before. That alone would be fair to the defendant without undermining the potential victim’s actual part in it, since it clearly took two to tango, and not turn the minor automatically into this pathetic little, oh so conveniently helpless ‘victim’, no matter her own actions/desires and family background shaping her sexual experience on her way to answerable adulthood. But that would be intelligent and accepting responsibilities long before the law suddenly allows/forces them to do so, and not let her get away with it, learn zero up to the point of official age of consent, and only the adult pays for it even if the minor seduced the adult.

Now, in contrast, some even more deluded US feminists seriously proposed this even greater lunacy, spitting right into the face of fairness as the final nail in the coffin of any shred of justice left:

“The presumption of innocence, as it is not specifically iterated anywhere in the [US] Constitution, will NOT attach to ‘sex crimes’. (While it is shamefully true not to be encoded in the US Constitution, the concept of the ‘presumption of innocence’ however is one of the most basic in our system of justice. This basic right comes to us from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is universally considered common law. The concept is embodied in several ‘provisions’ of the Constitution though, such as the  right to remain silent and the right to a jury, and, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial, at which they have had all the guarantees necessary for their defence. In practice, the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the state/accuser prove the charges against the defendant Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of all criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. I wonder what happens if ‘THEY’ ran out of luck with these fundamental ‘human rights’ they want to ditch. And, why ‘exactly’ should it not attach to ‘sex crimes’? When murder or torture is much worse? I personally would feel much more traumatised if I had some caustic agent poured all over me, or were set alight, maimed, cut to ribbons causing visible scarring and terrible suffering, rather than endure a single attack of forcible rape no matter how brutal.)

“Instead, all individuals will be presumed to exist in a state of ‘non-consent’. As such, defendants accused of sex crimes will bear the burden of proof, and will have to prove their innocence. (Which is entirely contraire to what the law in fact says, even in the US law books, where it by principle falls on the prosecution needing to prove the defendant guilty, as opposed to the defendant [only] needing to prove himself innocent.) There is a danger inherent in such a system that a few innocent men will be punished, and this is quite unfortunate. (‘Few’? Not according to statistics!) It is not, however, more unfortunate than men raping with impunity in epidemic proportions simply because their victims are unable to prove to a room full of misogynists that, despite the ridiculous presumption of a default state of consent, they did not consent to a sex act. (The only ‘epidemic’ is false rape accusers, NOT rapists, and it’s called ‘misandrists’.) Victims will decide whether a crime has occurred, and defendants will not.” (Excuse me? And there I was thinking a defendant has a fundamental right to decide on his own fate, or who exactly the ‘victim’ is. Guess not.)

“This might frighten men, some of whom will claim that women will use the law to punish men out of vengeance. (Must be true then!) That might happen once in awhile, but our job is to protect the largest number of people possible, and false rape accusations are about a hundredth as common as rapes that go unpunished (Actually, it’s the other way round, and no one seems to care that innocent men are being ‘made guilty’ by that kind of fascist talk or practice and being raped en masse by now.) Any defendant convicted of rape will be assumed to have proven he is incapable of responsibly exercising his sexuality in society. (Really? So, what about all these ‘irresponsible’ ‘women’ who cannot do the same, hm? Do they not exist? ‘Promiscuous’, lying, drug addicts like Lewis? Guess not. No, she’s an innocent saint no matter what.) As such, the penalty for rape will be immediate and irreversible castration.”

No matter if guilty or not. No matter if actual rape occurred or not – one more innocent man scarred for life – physically and mentally.

I’m sure any intelligently minded man or woman will regard this in horror, see it as the sheer madness it is on top of the escalating insanity we’re dealing with already – it’s utter misandry gone overboard, manifesting itself in the final insult to the principles of fundamental justice, and the right for all accused to be seen ‘innocent until proven guilty’, next to the right of proper defence, not being ‘made guilty’ from the very onset by such sickening lynch mob fantasies and laws. As seen with Polanski.

Sometimes I think, these pathetic women revel in their self-imposed status as ‘poor little victim’ one has to pity, since it’s easier to whine and cry on and on in a brain-numbing mantra of pathetic sulking and petulant aggressions, shift all responsibilities into someone else’s court, while in the same breath they delude themselves into being liberated and assertive. Sure, if your petty little world consists of what fancy new shoes and dress to wear for another party to get pissed, make a pampered ass of yourself, then have sex with some gullible male who fell for your flirty pouting and then cry rape because he didn’t like your shallow world view once sober, or your drunken performance in or out of bed.

It is also my own contention that false rape accusations are simply arbitrary vigilante actions, that of a more insidious sort which manifests itself in other lynch mobs. False accusations are vigilante forces using legal mechanisms, which are designed to bring about their own brand of ‘justice’, for the ends of personal vengeance and to deliberately bring about injustice in order to avoid responsibility. They are often committed by those women who feel ‘wronged’ in some way, are in fact, ‘incapable of responsibly exercising sexuality in society’, although the men who are accused of that are typically innocent of any crime. It is to be expected that feminists will defend a woman’s right to run to the courts if she should feel the slightest bit ‘upset’, or her pretty hair was ruffled, and that a man should pay the price out of all proportion for her own actions. See Geimer.

And see liar Lewis, coldly saying, ‘Polanski should get what he deserves’, a typical call for ‘vengeance’, not any ‘justice’ she ab/uses as lever purely in order to influence an already deeply corrupted case, an unsound arrest and extradition request. These deluded women, who cannot separate their subjective emotional states from an objective, grounded conception of true justice, should simply be humiliated, exposed of lying. Made to pay for their lies. They should be laughed at, scorned and shunned by all who believe that the law should serve all people as best that it can, not for personal vengeance games, and should take every precaution to never punish one who is innocent. This is a matter more important than punishing the guilty few. It is ironic, if not sickening, that feminism, a movement and an ideology which so frequently touts its commitment to liberty, ‘equality’ to men, violates and desecrates the principle of respect for the freedom of innocent men, abuse men worse than men have ever abused women.

Of course, hardcore feminists will disagree with this, but truth is, this is nothing short of the unacceptable breakdown of justice per se, only intelligent people in fact recognise, especially in Polanski’s case, civilised (sexual or otherwise) conduct. No, it’s the mindless instrumentalisation of it all and of man per se by means of biased laws coming from the deepest dark ages, with crooked DAs like Cooley mindlessly pursuing this case for personal gain, and the future we face when we allow the worst of criminal atrocities to be minimised and trivialised as ‘little white rape lies’. Quite frankly, women have lost the right to be believed when they cry rape, causing untold damage to the falsely accused and any real rape victim, who will, unless physical evidence can prove they were violated, soon not be believed anymore, which is even more tragic. The breakdown of the judicial system is an anathema to all fair justice per se.

If such hard evidence cannot be provided, these women should never be believed, they should be sent to prison in disgrace. The costs to innocent people, when we believe women simply because they are women, a minor, or claimed they said ‘no’, are simply too high. Feminists will cry about rape being an under-reported crime, but the truth is, that ‘rape’ is the only over-reported crime in the western world. It is generally estimated that up to half of all reported ‘rapes’ are completely fabricated, and any other ‘statistics’ like ‘2%’ are delusional, just like any actual rape figures are delusional. And, it is feminists who have fomented this deluded culture where this can occur, by crying over and over that women never lie about rape, despite centuries of proof to the contrary, that they must be believed, while they remain completely silent in the face of legal atrocities like these.

To cry rape is a centuries old practice, and it NEVER served any justice, and day by day we see more cases emerging that women had lied, especially in the US, and then they say the woman was ‘ill’, or whatnot else, to ‘justify’ her lies, have pity on her, scramble for the Rape Trauma Symptoms manual. Or, even more sickening, they argue that if women who cry rape are prosecuted, it will deter real rape victims from coming forward. Not likely. I would be surprised if there is a single real rape victim who hasn’t, or won’t, report the crime, considering how easy it is these days. Obviously there is no shame in reporting rape, since women who have not even been raped manage to report it all the time. Every single day, hiding behind Rape Shield Laws designed to make every man a rapist. Men like Polanski.

I know for certain that radical feminists will actually be happy to hear of this atrocity, because a man was harmed, they get off on this kind of thing. The more suffering they can inflict on men, the more they enjoy it, because they are sick and defective people in their self-repressed and self-obsessive crusade, which renders them the oh so helpless victims they can mould into like whining children, rather than empower themselves and be equal to men, take any penalty like any man. They are the same sick and defective people who peddle lies about rape, demonise all men, criminalise innocent men, and say nothing when the effects of their hatred lead to atrocities of these men being raped by other men, of course, confirming that ALL men are rapists.

In fact, they will keep on insisting that women must be believed and rendered victims, and that all men are rapists. It’s called pathetic irresponsibility, and it’s called sick masochism and legalised sadism. And that is why feminists are worse than rapists. While rapists are sick individuals committing individual crimes who will sooner or later be caught because they cannot stop, escalate their attacks, these sick feminists have institutionalised and systematised all kinds of legalised abuse against men as a whole, including, but not limited to, actual rape and sexual abuse on a grand scale who in contrast will never stop. A good number of feminists belong in prison for what they have done so far already, and should only be permitted back into civilisation once they have been reformed.

It is a biologically driven desire to protect women by playing hero for them, any of them. At times men play that role so well that they look at a lying, drug addled hooker, and imagine that she is actually a damsel in distress, needs their help and love. See Lewis, a sad and embittered ex-lover of many men, who comes back with a sick vengeance set against the weakest man she can find. Then, her sickening feminist attorney goes after an old and innocent man who has never committed a crime in his life, other than sleep with a willing minor, an oh so heinous crime indeed, and both these sick/ening women seek out to do everything they can to destroy everything about him in even more sick/ening pleasure. These revolting pests created things like Rape Shield Laws in the name of women so that even when the accuser is a defective, lying, drug addled hooker, it can’t be taken into account by jurors in determining her credibility, and there goes another innocent man, sent into hell.

It has long been proven that the Rape Shield Laws failed  the real victim and punished the innocent, yet feminists will host rallies and instigate other fomentations, scramble around frantically for counter-arguments to indicate that she actually WAS raped or ‘abused’ at not the slightest PROOF, even broadening the definition of ‘rape’ or ‘abuse’ to make it applicable. Or they simply lie, or bend the term ‘paedophile’, or that somehow men are to blame for her false accusation, along with everything else, like her drug addiction and bulimia. It’s like men blaming their rape victims for their own rape in fact. While in the same breath they detest all prostitutes, thinking them as degrading themselves to all these ‘evil men’, they yet use her illusory ‘victimhood’ for their own causes. Just like they use/d Geimer as their doctrine of ‘drugged and raped and sodomised’ abuse that never was, while giving no thought to her own wishes today of that Polanski should be set free. No genuine rape victim would ask for that, since even false accusers wish hell on their innocent victims.

Worse still, they say, a rape victim can forgive her attacker, while forgetting that NO genuine rape victim would ever ‘campaign’ for the release of her accused like Geimer has, ever since Polanski evidently escaped the clutches of the already defective and corrupt law. She might ‘forgive’, true, but not ever miss the ONE opportunity to see the man finally be brought to ‘justice’ for his oh so heinous crime of having slept with her. But that’s of course the catch, since she knows he didn’t rape and sodomise her, no matter what she said as a teenager, or was made to say simply for her age. But she never wanted him in prison and cannot condemn him for something he never did, and most of all that he has already paid for it all ages ago and ever since, as the typical example of legalised cry rape insanity. All for her petty little lies as a teenager, making herself out as this innocent little victim she never was. Polanski’s autobiography, which goes into great detail about the event/s, makes it clear why so many rather believe his side of the story, compared to her very convoluted and ultimately unproven claims.

Especially in view of her later declarations of only ten years back, saying in a US TV documentary, “He had sex with me. He wasn’t hurting me and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that.” “It wasn’t rape.” So that alone is most certainly NOT ‘rape’, but in fact a rather blasé take on her own serious claims she had levied against him as a teenager, and insult to his decades-long public abuse. How can anyone say, ‘it wasn’t rape’, ‘he wasn’t hurting me and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that’, but insists on having ‘cried’ and ‘begged him to stop’? That’s contradictive and illogical Polanski nor Huston corroborated in any form. To make someone cry and beg to stop and he doesn’t, that IS ‘mean’. So in that case, she indeed had lied she had shown growing ‘reluctance’ and ‘resistance’, since ‘rape’ DOES ‘hurt’, just so to render her own actions as entirely invalid. Also, if the doctor couldn’t find any signs of ‘force’, it’s as she said, ‘not forceful’ [or] ‘rape’, but ‘intercourse’, and she plenty lubricated not to show. If the adult woman later says it wasn’t ‘rape’, who are these deluded busybodies of today wallowing in their repetitive rape and sodomy rhetoric to argue otherwise?

Geimer had plenty opportunities to just get up, leave, walk out that door, and not give us this, she ‘cried and begged’ nonsense and not act on that in contrast, in order to render her active participation in it null and void. If she let him pull down her panties as she claimed, though she was in fact still undressed after drying off together, THAT would have been the time to really tell him off. NOT let him proceed to kiss her, caress her, lie down after going into another room al/together, and then let him enter her as he put it. At no protestations and/or pain unprepared intercourse would most certainly cause, this doesn’t look like ‘reluctance’. At no signs of  ‘force’, verbal or otherwise by her own admission, when she later said in that same interview, she ‘let him get it over with it’, that too doesn’t sound like she’s in fact suffering any of it, actively refusing his actions, or in any mind to really ‘stop’ him. NO one ever said that Polanski was sexually violent – or that females had to ‘cry and beg’ him to ‘stop’ or were ‘afraid’ of him – which in Geimer’s sole case is a clear sign of her having made all that ‘reluctance’ up in order to nullify her every own actions from start to finish.

Even though a minor is naturally capable to decide to have sex with someone older, for being very mature, knowledgeable and/or experienced, the law working on the basis that the female, or minor in general, is unable to give consent even if verbally given, and is therefore simply disallowed to consent, it is of course highly controversial to many teenagers and adults, rightly decrying such ‘legalised oppression’ to have sex with whom they choose no matter their partner’s age. The state has no right to tell them or us what we may do with our bodies, let alone interfere in what we do in the bedroom – as long as we are not hurting anyone else. But such logic and freedom is all but illusionary. Rape Shield Laws sought to revolutionise rape trials, two decades after their adoption by most states and the federal government, however, they have given rise to a debate in which neither side was satisfied with them. Polanski clearly fell victim to this law, and advocates say they have not worked as well as desired, while opponents argue that their effect has been to deny defendants a fair trial. As seen in Polanski’s ‘classical’ case. The legal future of these revolutionary laws hinges on a difficult question: how can courts protect (genuine) victims without curtailing the rights of (genuinely innocent) defendants?

These laws restrict or prohibit the use of evidence respecting the sexual history of potential rape victims and the alleged victims of other sexual offences. (Or to allow prior history of drug and alcohol ab/use and/or habits submitted into the records.) Before the enactment of Rape Shield Laws trials often focused on the ‘chastity’ of the victim to determine whether the alleged victim was actually raped, unless physical evidence had been presented to prove forcible rape. Rarely is physical resistance formally required anymore to show non-consent these days. Furthermore, requirements that the victim’s testimony be corroborated and that jurors be cautioned to give this testimony special scrutiny have largely disappeared. Hence, the inability of Polanski’s lawyer to present his crucial findings of Geimer’s prior sexual encounters/habits outside those she had admitted to, although, for Geimer not to declare her true sexual history Rittenband simply rendered inadmissible, he should have held her in contempt of court, or allowed the clerk’s eye witness report of Geimer’s ‘unchaste’ behaviour outside her own attorney’s office, which clearly proved there never was any ‘rape’, or anything related to her drug and alcohol history clearly her family’s fault.

Or anything related to her family’s own background of drug habits as a direct influence on her in general, to find a correlation between her non-refusal to take the Quaalude, or the champagne she ‘liked’ by her own admission. I.e., the illegal drug distribution and drug use of her mother’s boyfriend, that of the mother, and her sister’s institutionalisation for Quaalude abuse, to demonstrate drug abuse and habit in an environment of using drugs freely. I.e., give Polanski more grounds that Geimer willingly took the Quaalude and champagne herself without his direct request or forcing her to swallow either, just as he had claimed. Therefore, the prosecution knowing of their very lax approach to drugs and sex pervading her family background, the prosecutor obviously had a hard time to prove otherwise, or Geimer’s ‘innocence’, not being a virgin anymore, not being unused to alcohol and drugs, or he had gone for the drugged rape count as plea deal, not simple underage sex.

Though there was no count for the plying of alcohol, this of course was attributable to the sequence of events from obtaining the alcohol (from Jack Nicholson’s fridge) to her voluntary taking it in the company of Polanski and the caretaker, and the fact that the bottle was still half filled the grand jury seems to have understood and substituted a crucial ‘witness’, and that she could not make up that he had ‘coerced’ her into taking it in any form. Hence, no intoxication to the level she had claimed, or credible accusation that he ‘gave’ her the champagne she could have refused at any rate. Which of course was just another means of nullifying her own participation in it entirely. Or rather fabrication to that end. But, since Geimer had admitted to Polanski that she ‘liked’ champagne, HE was in fact subtly being ‘directed’ by HER to go for the champagne rather than anything else, not vice versa. She could have chosen any other drink available she even mentioned in her testimony, ‘juices and stuff’. And then they say only adults are manipulative.

The fact that despite her being a minor, her family obviously freely allowed her access to these legal or even illegal substances, they clearly were in breach of several laws themselves long before Polanski had met her mother or Geimer a year later, and no one seems to have seen as important to be prosecuted alongside Polanski. So in that respect, Polanski most certainly had no part in her drug and alcohol history or preference for champagne and knowledge of Quaalude, (since he even had to ask her if what he found in Nicholson’s bathroom was Quaaludes she then confirmed, and most of all said, “I took it”, NOT that he literally ‘gave’ it to her, she still could have refused) or for her to consume both with her own hands on her own fee will since she never said he had forced her to take it. They also weren’t held responsible for her having had sex before like they should have. But of course only the older man was. It’s a natural and healthy process to have sex, and some do start early. Whereas taking drugs to the point of institutionalisation and consuming alcohol at an even younger age and becoming drunk she had told  the court panel about, apart from lying, is not.

When no two adolescents would react or behave in the same way and someone however really had informed consent, acts maturely, knowledgeable of what she was doing, this kind of implicitly ‘non[-informed] consent’ and blanket victimisation dogma is a very generalising view and blanket exercise of the law many find unconstitutional, since it takes away the constitutional freedom of choice to have sex with whomever one chooses, engage in any sex act they want, drunk or not, unless it involves prepubescent children who undoubtedly have no ‘informed knowledge’ of their situation, no matter they might ‘like’ it, ‘persuaded’ into it or not, other than showing clear signs of distress/injuries and unwillingness to participate if it was forced on them. Therefore the statutory rape sections unjustly punish the perpetrator without regard for the implicitly non-consensual status of the adolescent minor, even if they had initiated the sex, though is not as harshly punished as forcible rape, and depends on the age of the minor. It shouldn’t be ‘punished’ at all.

Hence, if she had been fourteen already, the count of sodomy had been disallowed unless found as forcible, since it was only unlawful to engage in anal sex with someone below that age when the adult was more than ten years her senior. So someone her own age may penetrate her anally, but vaginal sex was or is unlawful in the US under varying state ages of consent – simply to avoid underage pregnancies as they put it – which is a rather imbecilic and impractical approach, since teens will always have sex and simple education and protection is a more intelligent way, than punishing people for having underage sex. Or becoming pregnant. That makes no sense to me at all, and I for one am glad to live in the UK, where young women are handed the Pill on our free health care system, even without consent from their parents, and not men of all ages being sent into prison hell for sleeping with them. The US sex laws are very damaging, needlessly punitive rather than supportive. So, how do you expect a minor to grow up and finally assume responsibility if the law says you’re incapable of giving informed consent, you’re a little victim? Guess they prefer their powerless victim status.

Indeed, in parts of the USA they are old enough to get married, but in fact aren’t allowed to have sex, which is the really intelligent part. Adolescents CAN consent, if the ‘law’ however says they can’t, the law is simply at far-reaching odds with REALITY, since teenagers will always have sex and should have the right to have sex with older partners too. Plus, having a vagina doesn’t give one half of the participants in any sexual contact case the getting a pass on truth card. That feminists, who imposed all these perverted anti-sex and collectively damaging Rape Shield laws on us to give the man ZERO changes of any defence in any rape accusation, will disagree on that is clear, since only the male is punished for getting them pregnant, or sleep with them, despite being married, or for having casual sex they can twist into rape. Great development that, and with feminists pressing for any female to be considered a ‘child’, and in any sex case be found innocent and exempt of any culpable involvement and responsibility, let alone face punishment if they cried rape, that’s just another step towards the insidious, female partner equals innocent little child and male partner equals punishable perpetrator by default dogma. Great women’s lib ‘equality’, ‘girls’. Why not ban heterosexual sex altogether or become lesbians, since they couldn’t care less about gay sex.

Issues surrounding rape and the law have been fiercely debated for years not only in the States, and one controversial ‘reform’, which has been in effect in most states in recent years, has been the removal of statutes requiring that rape victims physically resist the attack at least once. Prior to this widely open for abuse/misinterpretation reform, victims of rape were required to display clear signs of the slightest injury, i.e., vaginal and/or anal trauma etc., or other physical injuries, in order to prove that they did not consent to sexual relations, which would be logical. Rape Shield Laws now however solely keep the focus of a rape prosecution on the actions of the defendant rather than (also) the (prior and/or relevant) actions of the alleged victim to share responsibility, which was unconditionally in favour of the ‘victim’ to ‘spare’ her cross-examination and in genuine rape cases, perhaps relive her ordeal. Or in fact, to be found out to have lied.

By the 1990s a very serious backlash against the laws had developed since ever more men were found innocent years later, died in prison, were destroyed in prison, ever more false accusers recanted or were found out, and that after the accused had been in prison for months already, was attacked or not, and even when released, his life was destroyed either way while the lying accuser got away with it. Defence attorneys, law professors, and civil liberties as well as men’s rights advocates maintained that the laws were unfair to criminal defendants. Or men in general, since females accused of rape/abuse are treated much more leniently to begin with. Their main arguments: restrictions on the admission of all relevant evidence undermined the defence attorney’s goal of providing their best defence, and more significantly, such restrictions deprived the defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to a full defence, including confronting his accuser and presenting witnesses in his favour.

As seen in Polanski’s case, who had been forced to plead on many levels to the ultimately only applicable count of unlawful sex, simply for Geimer having been a minor, after her refusal to face him in court to prove her claims, a jury to hear his side in any form, or take physical evidence into account. Though the overall ‘evidence’ had already discredited her main claims down to all but counts two, and that purely for Polanski’s in fact having admitted to them himself, and not for having been ‘proven as fact’. If he had not admitted to any of them, which he initially did and pleaded not guilty on all counts first, no evidence the prosecution had could have proven otherwise. Hence, no trial at no evidence of oral copulation, rape and/or ‘double’ sodomy, no proof of impairing drugs or alcohol consumption involved that rendered Geimer incapable to resist sexual relations with Polanski the way she had described, physically and/or verbally, regardless of her claims that she had told him to stop, or ‘given [him] some resistance’ he had refuted, and logic of sequence of events permitting, never happened.

Since she therefore did not even seize the slimmest opportunity to remove herself from the scene over the course of hours, the mother clearly had no other choice than to press for that plea deal realising that she had lied. Or told her to lie, with the evidence however resulting in the same plea bargain. It indeed is truly a frustrating ‘he said she said’ word against word scenario, as seen so soften, these Rape Shield Laws have exploited to the point of doing real harm to innocent men, when faced with brutal sexual assault in prison as a result of rigid laws. While defence attorneys continued to introduce evidence that the Rape Shield Laws were designed to bar efforts to establish the wider course of events to establish the truth, they could succeed if the evidence was introduced ‘creatively’, chiefly because state laws left judges wide discretion and unclear direction on what to consider admissible evidence or not. As seen in Rittenband’s case, not allowing any mentioned crucial evidence, intent on ‘spinning out’ the case to satisfy his own public ego.

utalised to become real criminals with plenty of them innocent to start with). Opponents of Rape Shield Laws fully acknowledge/d that women face traditional obstacles in rape prosecutions, but saw the laws as a very inadequate and ultimately even damaging ‘remedy’ if they denied defendants due process and sent the innocent to jail, merely providing ‘protection’ to accusers, while defendants suddenly found themselves in serious danger of being sexually assaulted themselves while inside. Which in itself is a very disturbing daily occurrence in US jails and prisons, and hardly any of the staff member perpetrators will ever end up in their own cells, with inmate assailants already incarcerated at any rate. That many people deny or don’t care about these facts, or freely apply double standards in Polanski’s case and that he should face such disproportionate punishment and dangers, is legally unfair and simply unacceptable in general. To anyone. There is absolutely no evidence that prison sentences ‘reform’, ‘deter’ inmates or ‘cures’ anything, other than overpopulate America’s prisons full of them where they are being brutalised to become real criminals with plenty of them innocent to start with.

The entire justice system is antiquated and so are those handing out these disproportionately punitive sentences for minor sex offences, with women committing the same crimes hardly being handed down the same punishments. Frustrating critics of these changes in the law is the fact that appellate courts have consistently upheld Rape Shield Laws, despite finding that many trial courts have applied the laws unconstitutionally, and from early enthusiasm to increasing scepticism, many men were unjustly punished, and more civil suits were lodged to milk the system. Their initial intention was to remove barriers that prevented women from reporting rape and winning more convictions. By now both proponents and opponents believe reform is needed, yet they disagree on what form it should take. Proponents want to strengthen Rape Shield Laws to increase protections for women, while opponents counter that the laws are already strongly biased against defendants, depriving them of fundamental liberties, and ultimately sending more innocent men to jail on a mere word called, ‘no’, the ‘victim’ might never have uttered. And of course for the blanket condemnation of those who engage in consensual albeit unlawful underage sex, where only the adult is punished for it without regard, which is most certainly unjust.

So, unless the accused of rape (or underage sex) is able to prove quadriplegia or clinical death at the time of an alleged attack (and often even when men can, sarcasm here), most of us will sit and wait for the orgasmic moment that the gavel comes down on his head to declare him, GUILTY! When those falsely accused are convicted, and many of them have been and will be in this bleak future, they are sent to prisons where they are regarded as the lowest of the low, and are often subjected to the very tortures for which they were wrongfully convicted over a period of years. They might be left rendered severely injured physically and most certainly mentally, even killed, and if not inside a jail, then outside, unable to continue, wrecked for life, and kill themselves. It happened often enough. It’s the feminist perversion of our entire society, which has diminished the importance of truth as compared to doubtlessly required sensitivity shown to a potential victim, and has corrupted justice in favour of a cruel, self-indulgent sense of gender-based vindictiveness which is simply sickening.

A typical account of a true rape attack is terrible, it might take years of grief and agony to recover but most will if the injuries inflicted have long healed and the affected mind can move on. So what is the typical picture of a false rape accusation? Here it is.

Indefensible accusations. Injustice. Forced to confess, or accept a fatal plea bargain. Economic disaster. Jail time, with most likely brutal rape and other atrocities done to the man. Endless terror. Possible probation if he’s still alive. Then ankle monitor, sex offender registration. Being seen as a criminal lower than a torturer or murderer. Loss of friends. Loss of work. A life of dread and fear of attacks. Endless persecution. Vile media abuse. Years and years of registering with police. Haunted. Reviled. A man without a country. A man that can’t leave the country he fled to. Others when moving have to reregister. When they travel, they have to register. When they apply for a job, they have to explain and most likely won’t be believed. Afraid to have a wife, afraid to bring a family into their private hell. A never ending LIFE SENTENCE. You can NEVER put it behind you unlike a rape victim who was attacked ONCE unless severely injured or even killed. Which fortunately is very rare, no matter what feminists say, let alone the unscrupulous and vile rape accuser who got away with impunity. You will NEVER be allowed! The punishment is never-ending, cruel, unusual and for LIFE! See Polanski!

Helping genuine rape victims is a wonderful thing; fomenting false accusations by suggestion every rape claim must be true, which means the male who was accused MUST be a rapist, and denigrating the victimisation of the falsely accused by pretending they are a myth, is morally corrupt, criminal and utterly unacceptable. Looking at ‘rape crisis centres’, they all say it’s a myth that there are false rape accusations, women cannot rape and that if no force was used it’s still rape. I don’t think so. Up to now in England we had a law called, ‘the Morgan ruling’, which said, ‘to convict a man of rape first of all, the prosecution had to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the woman was not consenting, that a man is not guilty of rape if he believed she was consenting.’ Right, and then they conveniently abolished and replaced it with the concept of ‘reasonable steps’. i.e., deciding whether a ‘belief’ is ‘reasonable’ is done by considering any ‘steps’ he has taken to ascertain whether she consented. So, HE has to carry the burden to do ALL the ‘steps’, then ‘believes’ she consented, and then she said she had not, and who will be ‘believed’? Only SHE. Great ‘equality’ that and sharing of responsibilities, where only the male has to shoulder all the onus of accountability, and even if he has, if she said he hadn’t, he gets slung in prison. That’s simply unacceptable. How did we ever get to the point where so many are falsely accused and unjustly punished?

The answer is feminism. Feminism, which built upon the chivalrous myths of male guilt and female innocence to its own advantage. Feminism, which continues to propagandise on these very myths today. Feminism, which explicitly declared that all men are violators and all men are victims. And there I was thinking that women would love to be empowered, be regarded the same as men, and not some poor little helpless girls, rendered ‘victims’ of these very men. Guess not. Those who embrace this oppressive movement see life as an epic battle against forces of evil and their world is pure black (men) and pure white (women). They need to feel, even if they are not, that they are victims surrounded by sinister men bent on their destruction, must play the suffering oppressed, wallowing in imaginary self-pity, while in fact owning all the power there is and the vast majority of men seem quite happy on not doing them any harm. Yet these sad females need to believe they know better, especially through third-party violence enforced by the laws they forced on us all to be used against men exclusively. They need to sanctify their paranoid belief, a false belief that lies at the core of their misandruous ideology. They seek total cultural and political domination by using the space of ‘women’s rights’ within society to destroy the space of men’s rights.

The intolerance they promote and the refusal to permit any dissent are on display within their inner sanctums of victimhood. You only need to look at these women’s programs, discussing how to look pretty for men, sad fashion followers with no character or brain, or when they talk about Polanski. Then the pure venom they spew of absolutely misinformation about the case is staggering, yet they need to vent their ignorant outrage. These shallow pastors of misandry set in pretty make-up sporting false claws and seductive hair have established their despotic agendas of femaledom, and they seek to replicate these little tyrannies on a larger scale. In its more lucid moments, the movement has coalesced around grotesque statements regarding all men as rapists, or paedophiles. Or all men as worthless, or that men cannot be victims as men, or even be raped, and probably think that these men getting raped in prison right now by other men is fun and they deserve it. I wonder what will happen if one of their own family members or friends is accused of rape and were abused like that. But I guess, feminists don’t have too many male friends anyway.

Hardcore feminism is the linchpin of a legal and cultural system which enables false rape accusations and of its damaging continuation. The two are intertwined so as to be inseparable. Feminism is about unabated hatred of men and boys and normal, intelligent and strong women. Beautiful and intelligent women like Polanski’s third wife, a strong-minded and supportive woman no one can make weak or boss around, not even Polanski himself by his own admission, which, and whom he admires. Polanski detests pathetic females playing the poor little victim, and none of his longer affairs were dumb airheads. They were liberated and liberal characters like Nastassja Kinski, who was a free thinker and free lover, whom he had mentored beyond their once sexual bond, and for that they were grateful resulting in lasting friendship. Unlike Lewis he too mentored, had an affair with, and look what she made of it, became a lying drug addict and has-been porn starlet. A typical ‘clientele’ of a typical sensationalist ‘lawyer’ sleazeball Gloria Allred likes to represent.

Some of the more forthright feminists even openly advocate the disfigurement or ‘culling’ of men like Polanski, redolent of Nazi ideology he in fact had escaped. Radical feminism benefits from human error, misery, and chaos. It divides and destroys. Like Nazism. It destroyed his family when Polanski was a child, and now it destroyed his adult life through its anti-male, anti-father, anti-child, anti-mother, and paradoxically utterly anti-woman doctrines cemented in anti-sex laws, after some hippie ‘family’ went on a killing spree that destroyed his wife and unborn child. Feminism is an insidious ideology manipulating itself through fronts like women’s studies, women’s issues, women’s shelters, social services and counselling they simply hijack for their own agendas. Sure, there is abuse of women, unacceptable sex trade and sex tourism, but there is abuse of children and men too, and the actual figures don’t say that women are MORE abused than men. On the contrary, by now men are the abused in our western society, and more women abuse children, not men, and then these women wonder why men become misogynistic chauvinists in return.

While many women don’t commit the most violent offences by mere physical force, unless they’re possessed by rage or drugs and can take down any unaware man, or of course child, they do so in other cunning and cruel ways which has just as devastating effects. Or, they simply use other men to do their own the greater harm if they don’t deploy other typical ‘female weapons’. It’s a self-perpetuating vicious cycle they have created themselves, and by the looks of it, love to suffer it too in masochistic pleasure. Feminism is founded on half-truths like victimisation and exploitation. The work of some women, like mothers confined to households to manage their families, is scorned by feminists because the feminist agenda gives no importance to the family. Also, the contributions or sacrifices made by some husbands and fathers or men in general are totally ignored. And in this world of half-truths the exploitation of men, women and children by the powers-that-be is ignored because it does not fit in with the dictatorial feminist agenda. Feminists still claim to want ‘equality’, which it was at one point but is no longer ‘needed’, and now ‘equality’ means to them, ‘preferential treatment’.

The notion of the American woman (or most any other female from a western country, since I doubt they care much for oppressed Muslim women to be abused who suffer typically lesser freedom and rights) as a powerless ‘victim’ is one of the most absurd notions ever foisted upon anyone. American women live, on average, seven years longer than men. They control 86% of all personal wealth and make up 55% of current college graduates. Women have long taken up plenty seats in the political arena, so they can hardly claim to be left out of the political decision-making process. They win almost automatically in child custody disputes no matter their character. Women are the victim of only about 35% of all violent crimes, including actual rape, and only about 25% of all murders, yet, because of our society’s exaggerated concern and respect for them only, special legislation has been passed to punish ‘violence against women’ as if it were a more heinous crime than ‘violence against men’ or ‘violence against children’. And, a massive 80% of all suicides are committed by males. I wonder why.

It is also not true that women are the ‘weaker sex’ they want to make themselves out to be. Fact is, boys are much more fragile, both physically and psychologically than girls, and hence require greater medical and psychiatric care, simply because the female body was built for the trauma of childbirth, pregnancy, nurturing, NO man could handle. Men succumb to a larger number of diseases in much greater numbers than women do throughout their lives. The greater susceptibility of boys and men to diseases explains why more boys die in childhood and fail to reach sexual maturity and why men’s average life expectancy is shorter than women’s. If we claim that equality is less important in cases where people could lose out by being ‘equal’, then we destroy the principle that ALL people are equal at all times, i.e., men and women, NOT women ABOVE men, or below portrayed as ‘victims’ when it pleases them. We cannot object to the high rate of false rape accusations without opposing feminism, and we cannot ‘ease up’ on feminism without ‘easing up’ on a system which feasts on the suffering of innocent men. Men like Polanski.

Oh sure, we know Polanski didn’t rape Geimer, and that by her own admission. Ergo, she too is a ‘false rape accuser’ plain and simple, since she had accused him of all sorts of horrible things over three decades back when she was a teenager that could never be proven, then saying the very opposite later where only the ‘non-consensual’ factor remained for her former status as a minor. And even Lewis never said he ‘raped’ her, conveniently calling it ‘sexual abuse’, but forgot to tell us what exactly happened, or rather never happened. But you know what? He’s a ‘man’, and they’re all guilty of crimes dating back thousands of years. They’re collateral damage, collaterally guilty for what others did to her, or she rather did to herself, blaming it all on Polanski now, toss any responsibility into the fetid media wind. Accuse and charge him anyway. Evidence doesn’t matter. Justice doesn’t matter. Right and wrong doesn’t matter. Feed you own sick ego, where charges are still pending because feminism is the primordial hatred of men, and she’s the best and ugliest example par excellence.

And, what exactly is the purpose of publicly naming names once someone is accused? Smear his name all over that media in sick pleasure? To shame and humiliate a male long before he might be found innocent or [made] guilty? Why would a woman to her mother, the police and an entire grand jury cry about rape: ‘revenge’? ‘Attention’? Geimer’s boyfriend said he didn’t believe her when she said Polanski had sex with her. In the UK we had a woman some time back who cried rape by a stranger, only to be found out she lied out of boredom wanting attention, took up vital police time and recourses, cost taxpayers money. And she never paid for any of it. Or, is it to ‘explain’ away a consensual encounter a partner might disapproved of, or simply because someone was a minor? Make her the innocent party by default times two, for her gender and her age? For women who have actually been raped, naming isn’t necessary for therapy, and it doesn’t help put a real rapist behind bars either. If a woman claims a male raped her, doesn’t it make more sense to encourage her to go to the authorities rather than shout his name from the highest mountaintop, or go to the media to proclaim her pathetic lies in case of a false claim? Wouldn’t this help other women? Guess not.

On the other hand, others argue, if a real sexual assault victim’s name were made public alongside the accused, then, before long, there would be no ‘shame’ associated with being a rape victim, only more sympathy. So, telling genuine victims that they should be hidden is tantamount to telling them that they should be ‘ashamed’, that they have something to hide. Some argue that justice for both men and women would be better served in many ways by demanding no anonymity for both women accusers and the accused, rather than demand anonymity for male defendants, which however would take away many a stigma and public persecution for one. Have it both ways or neither way, otherwise it’s simply sexist, unfair and highly damaging. Withhold both their names, or publish both, which might just deter some false rape accusers to start with, since they cannot hide behind their cushy anonymity any longer, not smear the man’s name only all over the local press when he’s a nobody, or all over the global media when he’s ‘famous’. Someone like Polanski.

But, apart from these ill-informed petty little online voices not being too intelligent cross-representations of the wider public to begin with, tactfulness and discretion isn’t the feminist and law’s view and approach in such matters anyhow, only when it comes to ‘women’s issues’, descending on the male with verbal bile in blind attacks like a pack of hyenas and not the slightest concern that he might be ‘innocent’. Wonder what happens if it were their own grand/father, or brother, or… Or only engaged in the oh so heinous act of sleeping with a minor, like so many did and do and forever will do. It’s bureaucratisation of sex WE should own without harm or guilt feelings, not the rigid legalisation telling us of what people of different ages should be allowed to indulge in. But no – they’re ALL rapists, end of. Found innocent of actual rape later doesn’t matter, that he suffered decades of abuse doesn’t matter, and the fact that real rapists are running around freely for vital recourses being taken up to pursue someone like Polanski, is of course of no importance either. I call it vindictive lunacy.

But nabbing real rapists isn’t really the goal, is it now? The goal is to empower feminists by perpetuating the cult of fictional ‘victimhood’, where a female accuser need not bother subjecting her claim to time-honoured proof in a court of law, and where a male falsely accused of rape is forced to watch helplessly as he is branded a rapist in the public square. Or the lynching media, especially if someone is ‘famous’. It’s the most horrible thing a woman can do to a man – short of being called a paedophile or murderer. If men had publicly displayed the names of their false rape accusers on t-shirts, how long do you think the public would have allowed that? Not seventeen years as it happened at a US uni, with brainless girls proudly promoting t-shirts of ‘alleged rapists’, not even actual rapists. No, only the falsely accused men now branded rapists for life.

The other day a young actress said she felt raped by the prying media, only to be scorned and was forced to apologise, while anyone can feel ‘raped’ symbolically speaking, and to say it insults the genuine rape victim is farcical overreaction. Besides, these feminists proclaim that they had been raped too, either actually, or mentally. So why not anyone else. But then no real rape victim would say that, only these overzealous feminists, since even a landscape can be ‘raped’ metaphorically speaking. Someone coming to her rescue said to rebuff them: “That whole system of Internet journalists, where no one is called to account, is almost entirely about hate. (How true!) All these people get away with doing it because they have no responsibility to anyone. There are so many little nerds behind their computers, on their little blogs.” Indeed, and I’d call them pathetic little haters or petty little moralists rather than nerds – ignorant, stupid little voices with too much time on their hands disseminating venom to vilify others hiding on the www not even having the full facts.

In fact, I have noticed that most of Polanski’s vocal detractors aren’t even half his age, never even saw any of his films, have no first clues about his life, let alone the facts of this case, yet keep ranting on about it, calling him a monster and whatnot in their glorious stupidity. When it comes to insulting someone like Polanski in the most disgusting name-calling battle ever seen even from the lips of his current prosecutor, no one cares, when it is clearly hate speech, and/or racism. Even prosecutors get away with it. But no, in his case it’s a time-honoured practice to demonise and slander him some more each day I see re-enacted all over the place and mainly on (US) feminist shows and blogs. These sad women are just too thick to see what’s going on here. And then there are equally sad men who parrot their overzealous lies in their pathetic ignorance, both relishing rolling the words ‘he drugged, raped and sodomised his victim’ on their filthy tongues, as if a genital, and most of all anal fixation had taken hold of their oral orifice to spew pure filth, since all they can think of is in fact what comes out of that passage – pure shit, because these people are full of it.

The other week I perused a German feminist’s article from last year who ranted on about Polanski right after his rearrest, (I refuse to name not to soil my blog, as the most prominent figure of these radicals there, Germans all know) who was just as deliberately lying and defiling him not only as the older man who, to her, raped a minor, but a very sexual man who preferred younger, prettier flesh, citing the same old blather of his predatory behaviour as these overzealous US blogs and downright nasty articles, and that he lured his victim/s into his insidious clutches and his oh so ‘heinous crime’ of ‘violating’ a ‘child’. I wonder if they call their own sexually active teenage daughter (three weeks short of turning fourteen) who takes drugs that make her horny, likes champagne that makes her even more uninhibited and looks like a twenty year old, a ‘little girl, or ‘child’. No, they’d call her a young lady, a very mature teenager they proudly parade as a younger, precocious and liberated self.

She even has the audacity to promote her own website with the header: ‘Polanski should face justice! But to date all the director does is pity himself’. Actually he doesn’t, he only bemoans the corrupt US legal system that brought him where he is today – a prisoner in his own home. Stupid woman wouldn’t mind seeing an old man incarcerated over some sex three decades ago he paid for already. This isn’t freedom of speech, this is lying and clear hate speech, which I thought was illegal in Germany too, but I guess not when it comes from ugly feminist lips. In Panama of all places, people, who were found guilty of any crime/s for any length of prison term, are automatically entitled to house arrest when they’re of advanced age on humanitarian grounds. That of course could never happen in the oh so civilised US, where people Polanski’s age are incarnated like everyone else with hardcore criminals, who might only be inside for some non-violent misdemeanour.

These women are full of bitter hatred and hypocritical bigotry, i.e., crap, to put it bluntly, not having the slightest facts of the case besides, and if they do, twist and turn it to their own advantages. She didn’t even notice that it was utterly illogical for Geimer not to call on Huston’s help – but then again, that’s real logic, not the logic of feminists that render all women helpless victims. She even received two Bundeskreuze, believe it or nor, ‘cross of merit’ meant usually for soldiers or other ‘dignitaries’, and I’ll be damned to see the ‘merit’ in being responsible for her feminist waves eroding Germany’s own sexual sanity since decades too now. These insidious women literally lie, and worse still, they think they own the right to fabricate more untruths where and however possible like politicians do at not the slightest repercussions, and that in order to poison and manipulate the already gullible enough public some more, even saying he admitted to the drugged rape/sodomy, or pleaded to it, while in the same breath proclaim he never said sorry for it.

Why should he, if he’s innocent of what they’d love him to be castrated over. Embellishing on the actual facts on any ‘rape’ case like they embellish/ed on the rape statistics is second nature to these unashamed liars, just like the girl in Polanski’s case herself embellished on the actual events, leaving not the slightest room for her own culpability in the entire drama. No, the girl is absolved no matter what, and even if she had been of consenting age, the outcome would have been exactly the same – only the man is guilty – and most likely had even faced the same racist judge and his arbitrary court antics. But these women care about the unacceptable breakdown of the judicial integrity even less than any ‘justice’, while everyone keeps on about that he admitted to all he was accused of – NO HE DID NOT. I bet you, if he were their own grand/father, they’d be pleading on their knees to let him be after all this time. These people are disgusting hypocrites.

The best lie I’ve heard so far in regards to the Oktoberfest photo that had incensed the old judge so much that he demanded Polanski to return from Europe after ten months of stringing him along to sling him inside of Chino in a vindictive show of power abuse, is, that this German activist seriously stated, Polanski was shown with another minor on his arm in the photo, while it in fact was cropped and none of the ‘girls’ on that photo were in fact minors, with him, let alone arm in arm. These pretty young women in their twenties were the partners of his friends who had invited him there to take a break from filming to stay in the money to pay his legal counsel, and if people never saw that in/famous photo, (that it was deliberately doctored by that slimy DA Wells who gave the judge the idea to send the ‘little Pollack’ to Chino in the first place), they’d simply believe it. It’s outrageous Nazi style propaganda no one seems to have any trouble with. The best fabrication was, that she seriously stated, ‘when he did not succeed to make the girl compliant, he raped her anyway, orally and anally, and then kicked her out the door, where she climbed into a taxi, crying’. Are these people deluded? Polanski drove her home in a perfectly non-crying state, never orally or anally raped her, where they looked at the pictures he had taken of her before. ‘Taxi’!? That only shows she has ZERO clues about the case, or simply LIES.

This German ultra feminists also lied some more without reservations by saying Polanski went on to shoot more nude photos of minors afterwards, in reference to the Vogue assignment he in fact had done a year earlier with Kinski, where no one is nude, except him actually, sunbathing on sunny Mediterranean beaches where they took these commercial photos to promote luxury items. In fact, this 1976 Vogue by Polanski with Kinski, I own, shows several full frontal nude girls who are far below any age of consent with only a flower leaf covering their pubic area, shot by another photographer, and yet no one called him a paedophile.  This kind of photography was normal, and no one came to harm. I’m only mentioning all this to illustrate how callously feminists go about destroying someone’s already tainted reputation with sick/ening pleasure, after corrupt lawmakers had done their own damage already, and for people who have no motivation or means to find out the truth (readily available ‘out there’) not knowing better, the added injury done to a man or artist like him is permanent.

But, I was so pleased to read that the few comments on that inflammatory article in fact put that lying activist right into her deserved place in regards to these points, i.e., shamed her, or the repetitive lie that Polanski had admitted to the rape, (as if anyone would actually proclaim they ‘drugged, raped and sodomised’ a ‘child’, least of all someone who in fact hadn’t violated anyone, and I always wonder/ed if these people are generally thick to repeat such carp or just when it comes to spreading lies about the case or Polanski, thinking we would seriously believe it – they musty all think we’re as stupid as they are). So in fact, people DO know better and fight back, but, guess what, these pro-Polanski comments were shortly after deleted – no surprise there. It’s nothing but public manipulation on a grand [Nazi style] scale. Even newscasters say he admitted to all the counts – again, NO HE DID NOT. And, he pleaded to the one count that is ‘on the table’, NONE OTHER ARE. Once a plea deal is struck, the other counts are dropped, and time was done for it, that is IT, end of the judicial story, no matter how much these idiots love to believe otherwise. The count of flight wasn’t even included in the extradition request, so that’s that.

Though I believe in the right to delete comments on your own blog you don’t like for whatever reason or are off topic, but when it comes to official sites and [news] articles, they should adhere to the facts, leave comments as they come in, and not present people’s right-wing opinions as the only truth and allow any negative responses to inflame more blind hatred. If more clever, young people like these countering such pathetic lies with better knowledge, common sense and logic, or believe that Polanski is undoubtedly a victim of the corrupt US legal system and the majority of the unthinking public that likes to pillory intellectuals, that’s not only spot on, but there’s hope yet that not all who sit behind their computers write unacceptable hate speech clad in pathetic, sanctimonious morality play spewing moralistic twaddle without impunity shielded by their cushy anonymity on the www. Maybe they all should get a life. Or have sex and try ‘dry anal intercourse’ for a change – to see that Geimer’s double sodomy claims were pure invention at not the slightest damage or pain.

And, speaking of lying and self-obsessed feminist activists, some German projects called ‘LILA’, the ‘Alliance of autonomous women’s projects against violence’, the ‘NRW’ (similar project) and the ‘Lobby for girls’, all seriously demanded last year that the 25,000 Euros prize money Polanski would have received along with his ‘Golden Icon’ lifetime achievement award in Zurich had he not been rearrested, be ‘donated’, i.e., simply stolen, and given to these projects to combat violence against underaged girls. Now, what does Polanski have to do with ‘violence against German minors’, and, why would any ‘German project’, (or any other for that matter) think they’re entitled to a French director’s well-deserved award money for his own work, or even if he were German? The arrogance and audacity is staggering, and the fact that these fascist-minded people never received any reply from the Zürich festival director who bravely went ahead with the extensive retrospective on Polanski, should make it clear, that these clearly deluded lobbyists cannot simply steal someone’s rightful prize money, just because they believe/d he raped someone, and that in the US nowhere near Deutschland.

Funny thing is, while he made two big budget films in Germany, organised many years of very popular theatre plays being staged all over Germany and Austria with many German and international actors playing in also his own works, these self-righteous lobbyists didn’t ask for any ‘prize money’ off him then, or to be extradited, since he in fact engaged a lot of people from all sectors of the German economy for decades through his work as a revered director, i.e., brought in ‘revenue’ on a large scale for being an artist. I’m sure none of those Germans who had worked on or for his films from the driver to the caterer to the star, in the operas and film studios, anyone concerned, or those in the still running theatre shows of his very popular Dance of the Vampires hit musical making their own living though him and his acclaimed stage work, would ever have demanded his extradition or come up with this sort of ridiculous balderdash, since everyone knew ‘why’ he could not work in Hollywood or the UK. That would be really unwise to bite the generous hand that literally feeds them.

This kind of ill-perceived and clearly defective feminist type thought process reminds me of Lewis’ highly fragmented blame game thinking, who hired an American lawyer, to cry about some illusory sexual abuse in France of some decades back, being English, and needing to proclaim her lies in LA. And there I was thinking a more official Paris venue and authorities would have been the more suitable place, and that right at that time. Guess not. Lewis would later explain that she decided to hire (i.e., ‘pay’) Allred because: “I needed a strong advocate. I felt I needed an American attorney, and I wanted a female.” Sure, someone who didn’t even want to charge or sue Polanski, but bang on about how important Lewis’ claims were in regards to the old case, while I in fact would rather have wanted to see ‘justice’ done for myself. But then again, she was clearly lying and trying to influence the extradition, which evidently failed BIG time and her lies sank without trace.

Busybodying armchair moralists like this deluded German feminist who cannot help but attack others like that, wondering why so many ‘celebrities’ stand behind Polanski (obviously knowing better and that he never raped anyone), are just like those braindead American feminists who seriously had called for his films to be boycotted last year in a glorious show of sheer overkill stupidity. And, after he had won his Oscar for his superb Pianist, some Deep Southerners thought it a good idea to burn his film and poster of it in a typical show of brain-dead lunacy, and some small-town Sheriff needed to point them to the fact that this was a pro Holocaust film and would entirely defeat their objective of blind retaliation with dumb hypocrisy so famous down there. Such could never happen in any civilised part of the world. But what else is to be expected from a militant country like the US. And these feminists, amongst others lost in the same daze of their own oozing ignorance, keep repeating that Polanski’s never shown ‘remorse’ towards his ‘victim’, which is just as incorrect and wishful thinking, and Geimer was, or is, certainly not ‘his’ victim in this endless drama, by her own admission in fact, but the judicial system gone haywire he had escaped.

He said often enough he was sorry for the entire debacle once he had gone back to Europe and is long past his sexual exploits ever since he had settled down again decades ago, when it certainly was not him who had lied to the courts to wriggle out of it again, while in fact saying, “The girl admitted in front of a tribunal that she’s had already sexual intercourse before with other people before meeting me, though the tribunal wasn’t concerned about these other men. When Mr Smith or Mrs Brown sleeps with fourteen year old adolescents who look like eighteen, it doesn’t interest anyone. But when a famous film director does, the law and the press sound the alarm. It seems that I was the only one who found himself before a judge.” Exactly – and only because his name was ‘Polanski’ after a brainless mother had hastily cried rape. The US courts and lawmakers are nothing but pathetic ass kissers to these feminists enabling them to do so in the first place, and theirs are of the same interchangeable standard formulas of misandruous litanies than these women’s and girls’ ‘little white lies’.

I had a mind-boggling commentator on my ‘He Said She Said They Said’ Polanski blog once, who seriously proclaimed that a thirteen year old is not capable yet of properly reading or writing, thinking or deciding for herself, while I thought even a child half that age is able to do all that already, let alone consent to sex, drugs or alcohol, when they most certainly can and do so as teenagers. These people are so desperate to infantilise girls to the extent of becoming unconscious foetuses (just so Polanski remains being the sole culprit), render them lesser capable creatures than they really are, disempowered to the extreme, that all I could do was shake my head in wonder and click ‘delete permanently’. A thirteen, fourteen year old teenager who looks like eighteen, twenty, behaves very mature and knows exactly what she is doing, takes responsibility, certainly needs truly pathetic people like these to reduce her to a helpless little infant, or of course ‘laws’, to procrastinate her natural development and sexuality from the start. No wonder many turn out to be repressed, depressed, rebellious, aggressive, or pampered little airheads who need mommy’s help to decide on what nice little dress to wear, do or say next. Or cry rape when they didn’t like their pretty hair being ruffled during sex.

Some feminists say a rape victim could become very ‘promiscuous’, though I have yet to meet one, and is just another way to ‘ab/use’ a whoring female for their agendas when it suits them. So, what about Polanski? He was very virile, so what made him so sexually active? ‘Rape’? Indeed, he was raped multiple times. First of all, by the Nazis, by taking away his mother as a child, nearly his father and sister, was nearly killed by a bomb and a grenade, war politically speaking. Then, he apparently was violated when he was a teen by that multiple murderer who smashed his head in while in a bunker to steal his money leaving him for dead, physically speaking. Then (after a near fatal car crash and further head trauma) by the Communists, by trashing his ‘western’ film art, (before adopting it themselves) symbolically speaking. Then by the degenerate Manson Family, by killing his wife and unborn child, several close friends, literally speaking. Then by the ugly Hollywood media whores by victimising him over it, even accusing him of the killings, virtually speaking. Then by a nubile teenager for sleeping with him and her ignorant mother by grassing on him, sexually speaking. Then by a media-whoring judge, more ugly media abuse, and then another hideous media whore by playing with him some more for public amusement alongside other corrupt lawmakers, legally speaking. Besides that, he lost many of his friends and colleagues over the years through tragic accidents. I call that physical and mental rape on a mega scale only few can ever deal with.

Speaking of Manson, just so on the side, Larry King of all people has done the inexcusable some while back (who in fact interviewed Geimer too where she said she never wanted Polanski in prison, but also lied as to how he came to ‘choose’ her) – he [too] accused Polanski of having killed his own wife in the biggest blooper he’s ever dropped so far, (getting senile that is) and that in an interview with her own distraught enough sister, Debra Tate. And did he apologise to her, while she tried to keep composed and corrected him? Not once, at least not on film. Now, had Polanski not ever been accused of rape, everyone would have gone for King’s throat, demanded his resignation, or at least a public apology. This way however, no one gave a shit – that’s so disgusting, since these two cases have absolutely nothing do to with each other, and anyone deserves an apology over having been accused of murder on top! Not that they didn’t point the finger at him over that long before right after the horrible events, but now they think it’s an honourable duty to accuse him of all sorts of terrible things by default.

Speaking of US talk show hosts, Oprah Winfrey of all ‘respectable women’ has, on several occasions, presented to her audiences women whose only claim to fame is having had sex with a very, very young male. I.e., ‘jail bait’. Those cheering audiences reward these rapists with standing ovations, but call men who sleep with teens, paedophiles and/or rapists obviously. I call it sick double standards. These are mass media rallies supporting female rapists, or in fact latent paedophiles, with their repackaged ‘toyboys’ beamed to hundreds of millions of women for their ‘lecherous entertainment’. But, when it comes to men, when they look at nubile teens, or sexy women, they’re called evil predators. For every woman that gets actually raped, two or more men who were falsely accused of rape, get raped, and are made an ugly example of on every level. A ‘victim’ is no longer someone who’s had something terrible happen to her, no, a ‘victim’ is now someone who ‘claims’ that something terrible has happened to her. A ‘rapist’ is no longer someone who actually DID rape someone, no, a ‘rapist’ is now someone who was either once touched someone lewdly or, even worse, ‘accused’ of raping someone. Or slept with a teenager.

A paedophile too is no longer someone who loves, cherishes youthful beauty or innocence without the slightest thoughts of ‘abuse’. No, today a ‘paedophile’ is someone who sexually abuses children, corrupting the term itself, since the word ‘paedophilia’ literally translates as ‘love for children’. All ‘-philes’ ‘-philiacs’ are lovers of a particular thing, like, bibliophile, a lover of books. Phil is Greek and means love, and paed/o means child/boy, not even girl. So to curse someone a p[a]edo, means nothing more than the actual minor itself, not the adult and is not meant derogatively. I’m sure no one realises that who calls Polanski a paedo which he isn’t at any rate. He’s probably rather flattered in fact, since he is extremely learned and intelligent and would know what it means, and because he never looked his age but like a teen himself, which was a major factor for his success with the other sex. Sexual preference for teenagers is a highly misunderstood phenomenon in general, and Nabokov’s Lolita tried to demonstrate that through Humbert Humbert, who is obsessed with what he refers to as ‘nymphets’, sexually attractive and precocious girls. Someone like Geimer.

Most people have no idea what a paedophile ‘today’ really means either, that their sexual interest is toward prepubescent youths only and does not include teenagers. Most paedophiles harm children mentally and/or physically, ‘abuse’ them for various reasons and is often based on an abused childhood, not simply ‘sleep’ with them, which is not a paedophiliac marker. Paedophilia has certain psychological characteristics, such as low self-esteem and poor social skills, which in Polanski’s case is obviously more than null and void. Paedophilic men have lower IQs than most, and I doubt Polanski will fit that picture either, or he’d not be a genius film maker who does everything himself before and behind the camera. Regarding disinhibitory traits, paedophiles demonstrate elevated sociopath and tendencies for cognitive distortions, i.e., show anti-social characteristics Polanski never displayed either, or no one would have worked with him. Paedophiles gravitate towards children because they find their company less threatening than that of adults, and if that were the case with Polanski, he’d not be able to function in an adult world he has occupied since decades and worked with mostly adults on his films.

Some even call/ed him a ‘pederast’, not having the slightest clue what THAT actually means either. I’m not gonna enlighten you – look it up for yourselves to see how idiotic that accusation is. The problem is that society stigmatises sex between older men and females, but doesn’t care much if an older woman seduces a teenager, even if he’s underage. He alone is a paedophile and ends up in jail, while she’s not and can claim any real or imaginary childhood ‘abuse’ that ‘led’ her there to avoid jail. Both genders seek ‘equality’, therefore both genders ARE equal, which implies equality in privileges, rights, responsibilities, AND punishments. When was the last time you heard a woman taking her fair share of the blame when talking about a relationship or sex that went sour? It’s always HIS fault. It’s their way of denying their somewhat darker side which is part and parcel of the female nature. This contributes to continued stigmatisation and devaluation of sex and human sexuality and is both ridiculous and dangerous.

Human sexuality (and the need for power for that matter) is one of the most primary, driving life forces we encounter, which rules us, next to the need of food/drink, shelter and oxygen. American society most of all is basically ‘scared’ of anything sexual, while all the time celebrating its hypocritical salaciousness via the media, advertising, fashion, trends, films you name it. They love boobs and porn, but are much more interested in the visceral or patina of sexuality, rather than try to understand its motivations, origins, and simply ‘have sex’ as a natural thing. Our society at large continues to treat sex as dirty and sinful, rather than as a natural and necessary part of everyone’s mental and physical health, wellbeing – ‘humanity’. Therefore, western cultures believe that older men having non-forcible sex with girls in their teens a wrongdoing and an act of rape. But, consequently, older women having the same kind of sex with boys in their teens is indeed the same wrongdoing and an act of rape. But of course it’s not. Men always want younger women, and always get demonised, while women who prefer younger males are not.

To say rape is a ‘crime against society’ is also bullshit – it’s a crime against an individual, since, by eliminating the victim, it eliminates the crime. Only murder or torture is a crime against society, since people rage wars against others on a mass scale and systematically torture people for political reasons. Rape is not a special crime either, only in the selfish feminist handbook; it’s a physical assault on a particular body part that should not be put above any other, while rape of a man finds no such ‘special treatment’ or visibly scarring someone. One moment they say there is no ‘gender’, i.e., ‘sexuality’, and the next they want an assault on exactly that part, i.e., vagina/reproductive organs, receive special consideration, while no one in fact gives the initially life-giving penis any special treatment. That’s pure sexism and should be rooted out, if they ‘really’ want ‘equality’. To play the sexual victim is not only pathetic, but a powerful tool in providing a ‘moral basis’ for any disproportionate redress, retaliation, revenge, or of course public slander and famewhoring that has become an insidious trend by now to cash in on a sordid sex story, which IS wrong.

How did this unacceptable change occur that not only affected Polanski so gravely? By the relentless pressure of well-organised radical feminists like that German activist who introduced it to Germany in the early Seventies coming from France of all places, where she had joined the growing ‘women’s movement’. The only problem is, what all these feminist declare, is not what the law actually says. Under California statutory law, a person is guilty of ‘rape’ only, ‘where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anaesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused’. Under this statute, according to a California state court that interpreted it, in order for a ‘rape’ to occur the victim must be so intoxicated that he or she is incapable of exercising the judgment required to decide whether to consent to those sexual acts. An honest and reasonable but mistaken belief that a sexual partner is not too intoxicated to give legal consent to sexual intercourse IS a defence to rape by intoxication.

Even a minor can consent in that state, though s/he’s just not ‘allowed’ to, which automatically makes them the ‘victim’ ‘twice’, for their age, and mostly him/rarely her the ‘rapist’ by default, put in the same legal basket with real rapists. So in that case, Geimer most certainly was NOT ‘raped’ at any rate, since she had every available means to remove herself from Polanski, physically and mentally capable to do so, but didn’t. If she could say, “It’s alright,” when Polanski asked her if she likes what he’s doing, she’s able to get up and stop liking it, but she didn’t. Every lawyer knows, one’s ability to defend oneself against most claims diminishes with the passage of time; memories fade; evidence, alibis, witnesses disappear and sometimes die. Or at worse, witnesses lie. See Geimer and her mother, or Lewis and her co-conspirator porn director friend Jon Jacobs having conveniently found his own voice to support her lies, after he claimed she so conveniently had told him only some months back of the oh so horrible abuse she conveniently withheld from him all these decades. After having ‘also’ conveniently sat on the ‘evidence’ of having prostituted herself long before and after she met Polanski.

Strong, responsible and self-confident women don’t flutter to the next man when it’s getting tough, or their money runs out, taking the easy way out like Lewis, especially in view of what she did with fourteen ‘for money’. She’s the lowest of the low and her lies are not even worthy to indulge any further. But then again, Jacobs clearly knew she did prostitute herself, or lied, since he made such an emphasis that she had not in the only interview he gave to some unknown online media outlet. I.e., ‘projected’. Admitting to her drug infused past, a mentally unstable woman like Lewis might paint a vivid picture of a ‘rape’ or ‘abuse’, (since she in fact had such fantasies of ‘sexual abuse’, and that by her own admission to ‘prep’ herself for her first nude flick, years after that ‘abuse of the worst kind’ she never suffered at Polanski’s hands) saying in 1987, “I need someone who’s going to strip me down and say, ‘Do it!’ I’ve never done nude scenes, and I can’t wait. I can’t wait to be abused in a film. Maybe it’s a secret fantasy burning inside of me,” while in contrast, if the man is innocent of such ‘abuse’, the most he might be able to honestly say is, “We had sex, nothing else.” Such ‘fantasies’ are not uncommon, and in fact very dangerous, if used against an innocent man.

Polanski was incredulous when he heard the original charges back in 1977, and at a trial today, it would be like a battered old warrior entering a court battle stripped of his shield of rightful defence and his sword of truth facing bloodthirsty jackals, while the accuser can hide behind her crooked shield of law without the slightest evidence. He’d stand NO chances whatsoever. It would be inhuman. And, if he wouldn’t in fact be detained already since over nine months now, some revolting liar like Lewis could send him behind bars even today. No matter his advanced age or innocence in both cases, his traumatic past and losses, his law-abiding life, his new family and highly successful working life since decades, nothing. The horror is hardly imaginable. Good he’s locked up safely inside his very own home far away from the puritanical States with his friends and family for comfort.

On the other hand, the fact that a woman, that traitor politico Widmer-Schlumpf who had sold him out to the LA courts in the first place in exchange for their dirty banking deals that however failed, (and in fact that German feminist had bragged about that she had and even applauded his rearrest) has the last say over the extradition, is not the most comforting prospect either. People keep on about that he should not be allowed preferential treatment in their fight against rape, true, but then again, what has ‘their fight’ to do with him. Besides, he was treated ‘very special’ by these feminist anti-sex laws and corrupt US lawmakers from the start that made an ugly example of him for who and what he was, or is – a famous director, a foreigner, a ‘man’. Perhaps, the principal reason innocent men falsely accused of ‘rape’ are not viewed as ‘victims’ in the same sense that, for example, women who really were raped are viewed as ‘victims’ because of purported past injustices done to some women by ‘men’.

So, when a false rape claim destroys the life of an innocent man the extremist feminists, or even ignorant public, they react with glee and view it as a sort of twisted payback, or at the very least are necessary ‘collateral damage’ to ‘right’ ‘perceived wrongs’ these women did not even suffer. But, why should anyone feel guilty over something he did three decades ago like everyone else had done it around him and didn’t spend a day in prison unlike him, just because today’s self-important purist moralists say it’s suddenly ‘immoral’? And these exact same people who got away with it backstab you all of a sudden? That’s like making someone guilty of their forefathers atrocities committed during a war, or simply be found ‘guilty by association’, just because you’re a ‘man’. Or renowned. Or, because someone stated, she said ‘no’ during sex?

To even suggest that ‘no’ always means ‘no’, regardless of what happens after it is uttered or of course many times not uttered at all, or ‘rape is rape’, is naive the least and insulting in the extreme. It blinks at nuances and the complexities of interpersonal and sexual relations that cannot be ‘regulated’ like a machine. It ignores the fact that a look, a nod, a tender touch is often clearer than any words; it’s called body language, which is universally understood. It’s called sexual signals that need no words. It’s feelings, emotions, with the skin as the best conductor, not ‘words’. No man or woman can be ‘programmed’ to act like robots and keep saying, yes? Yes! Yes? Yes! No! No? Yes! No? Yes! Yes? No! No? Yes! ‘What’!? Should we exclude all other evidence, if an accuser testifies that at some point in time of the sexual encounter where she uttered ‘yes’ and then ‘no’, and yet she obviously didn’t remove herself from the scene, and nothing points to any coercion, or even threat of such to ‘stay’? I say that’s a NO. What if HE stops, or says ‘no’ and just goes to the pub instead? I’m sure these idiot feminists can turn that into some kind of rape too. Or ‘domestic violence’.

Or, why not try to introduce the following to make it even more impossible to have casual sex without turning into a nervous wreck before you even start, or get any kind of pleasure out of it, and accuse him of: ‘he didn’t satisfy me enough’, or, ‘he came too quickly’, or, ‘he gratified only himself’, (if true or not) or, he didn’t do this or that and/or how I like it. Good luck in that future to have ANY ‘safe sex’ outside a welcoming, clean and cosy brothel Victorian style. The im/possibilities are endless and the implications enormous, shifting ALL sexual responsibility and/or performance of ANY sex act into the male corner ONLY in one go on top he cannot ever escape either. I’m sure the feminists would love that lunacy, so they can accuse a man of even more ludicrous ‘failure’, utterly unable and unwilling to take responsibility for their own female ‘sexual conduct’. Why not outlaw sex altogether, and make it a criminal offence per se! For men AND women! IVF seems to be in fashion to some as an alternative, like that sick/ening ‘Octomom’. And while you’re at it, eliminate love and affections too of course no matter the gender or orientation, and, thus breed our next generation of soulless, sexually repressed and deprived men who become real rapists.

Maybe we should introduce ‘sex contracts’ to avoid any of that, to ensure only this or that sex act will be performed or engaged in, for how long, where and how, with or no alcoholic and/or recreational drug use, sex toys or other participants, (or ‘witnesses’). And then every minute the man will be forced to ask for confirmation, and if, after a while the man goes overboard in the throes of passion, she again can cry, RAPE! In that case, all a jury would need to determine to decide if a ‘rape’ occurred is that the accuser states she uttered a single ‘no’, her very own subsequent actions to the very opposite over the next minutes or hours be damned. But that’s exactly what these days is required, a little word called ‘no’. Therefore to say ‘no means no’ is unfeasible fantasy, it’s an insult to versatility, human behaviour, when actual rape can be proven otherwise. The law says only forcible intercourse is ‘actual rape’, (no matter they broadened the term) and it damn well will show. And so does unwanted sodomy. Maybe these feminists should try anal sex to feel the difference. They force it on men, why not on themselves, and I guarantee you, they’d quickly change their tune and some laws.

One way to avoid any false accuser to get away with it, is to tape the encounter. That to say, by CCTV, which is obvious and not illegal, since, if you tape it otherwise, sound and vision, you could be done for privacy law violations. Of course, at the end of the day, you are probably better off being hit with a videotaping charge than a rape charge and end up in prison to get raped there. Some might call this endorsement excessive. However, most spousal abuse is done out of the presence of witnesses. Even if there are witnesses, most would take the attitude that ‘he’ deserved it. However, a camcorder e.g. cannot lie when it is using an atomic clock as its time stamp. Furthermore, battery backup units are used to maintain system power during electrical outages or deliberate disruption of power. This makes it harder for an abusive woman to falsely claim child abuse spousal abuse, or of course, rape. Make sure however, that you never ever put this intimate encounter up on a YouTube style site, or she’d bang you up with more ‘privacy’ charges. On the other hand, one can imagine that if this happens often enough and men take these precautions, the feminist brigade will start lobbying for stricter laws on taping or wiring even your own home too.

The entire concept of ‘rape’ ought to be retired and replaced with aggravated sexual assault at any rate, and any ‘acts’ should be ‘graded’ according to injury/pain, like any other damage to any other body parts. Actual forcible rape is a violent/painful crime, only it involves ‘sexual organs’ in contrast exclusively, but, if there was no violence, no physical injury done to these organs/parts, or threat of violence and/or incapacitation involved that leads to forcible intercourse, it simply wasn’t rape and should not be treated any differently than having your finger cut off. To cut to the basics, why do men rape? I’m sure we all know it’s not about sexuality, but ‘power’, submission, and sometimes violence, the power to exploit. The power to ‘take sex’ with someone who doesn’t want to. The power to get what they want no matter what the other person feels, which is exactly why women ‘rape’ too. The rapist seeks power over others, perhaps as a method of compensating for his or her lack of self-esteem. Another is to view the victim as an ‘object’. The moment s/he’s viewed as a sexual object, rape doesn’t become something they abhor. When they view their prey as a ‘person’, looks frightened, or angry, s/he ceases to be an object, and becomes a person. In such a situation, most cannot commit a ‘rape’. If the outrage about rape is actually about issues like violation of rights and privacy etc., why the less outrage regarding rapes against old or ugly women?

Consider also, that if the real issue is ‘pain’ and ‘violation’, then why do they not feel the same way for other physical/mental ‘violations’? Suppose a woman had her arm cut off, that also is a violation of a woman’s rights to her own body, and most of us would cause much more ‘pain’ and roundly condemn the criminal. But, no ‘moral’ outrage. In fact, all women would rather be raped, than have their arm cut off. But why do women go up in arms against ‘rape’, when for the limb cutting crime, they would never do so? Why are there no, ‘hang the mutilator’ rallies? If women are so psychologically weak and helpless that they cannot emphatically say ‘no’ to sex, push someone away half-heartedly in a show of ‘reluctance’, having a man say, ‘aw, come on’ and they engage in sex after all, and that to these females is no different than shoving a gun in her face to make her have sex, or in fact someone overpowering her to forcibly take her, then we need to seriously rethink how ‘strong’, or rather ‘wilfully weak’ some women really are, beating the drum of their ‘perceived victimhood’ in a mind-numbing mantra.

If a judge inexplicably says that a false accuser ‘could have faced a jail sentence’ if it had not been for any real or imagined ‘psychiatric’, ‘psychological’ and/or ‘emotional’ problems a woman can conveniently claim on top, i.e., the Rape Trauma Syndrome or any other fictitious ‘illness’, physical or ‘mental state’, would the judge give a genuine or innocent ‘rapist’ probation or merely a fine if he exhibited any apparent or real ‘psychiatric’ or ‘emotional problems’, or severe ‘depression’ as it was in Polanski’s case? Rittenband didn’t care one bit about that, and the very suggestion would raise howls of protest in the feminist community, since they would like to see [even alleged] rapists castrated regardless of their fragile mental and/or physical states. Or age. Why the double standards? When men or even boys rape, there’s little regard for the detrimental life experiences that led them to that point, i.e., childhood abuse, or any other ‘trauma’. So why the hypocrisy when it comes to false rape accusers? Because they’re ‘women’, no matter their lies can be more harmful than any actual rape. So, to make it clear, a false rape accuser is NOT EVER a ‘victim’, the accused is, end of. She is a L-I-A-R!

Even a little girl can lie about being ‘raped’, or abused, since it’s easier to blame the little boy for having ‘played doctor’, as it happened recently in the UK after she felt ‘naughty’, and therefore lied to avoid punishment. Pretty much like Geimer. Good enough nothing came of it in contrast and the girl confessed, but now we have the first ten year old sex offender who did nothing more than touch another girl innocently in play. I’m sure this will please the heartless feminist brigade, saying, let this be a lesson, boy, and couldn’t care less that  this ‘boy’ will have zero chances to get anywhere in his life as ‘sex offender’. If you tell someone often enough he’s stupid, if he doesn’t have the right ego to fight such accusation, one day he’ll believe he’s stupid, if you tell a child often enough someone had abused them, they will sooner or later say someone had, believing it or not. So, if you tell a man long enough he’s a rapist, maybe one day he’ll believe it too, and in order to justify this ‘belief’, might even turn into a real rapist to show these women who made him a rapist. It happened often enough with men coming from abusive mothers, and since most wouldn’t rape their mothers, simply rape someone else in a terrible backlash.

There have been so many cases of false rape and ‘child abuse’, it’s really criminal, and most of them occurred in the sexually repressed States bizarrely enough. Or rather, ‘because’. Never believe a child or teenager crying ‘abuse’ or ‘rape’ when it sounds illogical and farfetched, physically or anatomically, ‘medically’ and chronologically impossible. They are prone to fantastic accusations, to either avoid punishment, just for fun, malice or because they were coerced by mostly their own parents or prosecutors, and only then in fact ‘abused’ into lying and became really traumatised. Many of the alleged child abuse accusations we had over the decades, the maliciously manufactured ‘satanic sexual abuse’ hysteria that shook America decades back had in fact hardly any sexual components at all, but ‘genital mutilations’, ‘ritualistic torture’’ or ‘religious delusions’, and many of these or other sexual abuse accusations betrayed a typical child’s or even teen’s ignorance of human anatomy, or ‘logic’, indeed simple knowledge about many things, with lawyers and scheming ‘psychologists’ extracting scores of preposterous claims of abuse, and distressingly gullible people believing in it.

Parents, jurors, even misguided judges, ‘praised’ these clearly coerced ‘victims’ for their courage in disclosing what is plainly impossible, when the prosecutors were never able to extract from their disjointed and contradictory answers a plausible scenario. Yet, not only did they cultivate it in criminal ignorance, their sheer number, variety and inconsistency, would make it obvious to any rational-minded person that they are a fantastic concoction of ‘fears’ and/or ‘fantasies’, abetted by some sick-minded individuals mostly on the prosecution side. But many fell for it and never bothered to apologise over their own highly damaging stupidity after the life of the accused was destroyed at any rate. Same goes for rape cases, where the police and prosecution can turn anyone into an ‘evil predator’ and the fantasising accusers get away with it. See Geimer and her preposterous ‘dry double sodomy’ claims – clearly fabricated fantasies at not the slightest physical evidence. So, to blindly but into the ‘believe the children’ motto, or teens, is sheer folly that can literally destroy people.

Such accusations are characteristic of the bizarre and scatological stories told by ‘impressionable’ or ‘impressing’ teenagers when they are interviewed by adults or corrupt cops who have an obsession with sex, abuse, rape, torture and violence, which blinds them to the ease with which children and teenagers can fabricate horrendous and far-reaching lies, and to question the charges is to question that they could be or were, ‘sexually abused’. Dissension to such ludicrous claims was of course, ‘denial’. More akin to past ‘moral panics’ including witch-hunts, it’s really amazing how ‘paranoid’ and gullible, downright unintelligent Americans are. Nobody cared that these ‘non-victims’ were clearly ‘led’, since kids are easily influenced, and imbedded in this ‘Catch-22’ belief system, is that ‘disclosure’ of events meant the child or teen had indeed been abused, and refusal to disclose also meant the ‘victim’ had been abused and threatened to boot, so there is no way for a child or adolescent to demonstrate that he or she had not been abused no matter their own words.

Pretty much the same what the preposterous ‘Rape Trauma Symptoms’ manual says when it comes to adults or teenagers who cried rape, leaving no room for any participation on the side of the ‘victim’. In all these known child abuse hysteria cases the prosecution was blind to the alternate explanation, i.e., the actual facts, that the children were traumatised by the prosecution and pseudo shrinks and acted up in the most bizarre forms ‘after’ the ‘events’, i.e., became foul-mouthed or aggressive, which of course is a sign of ‘abuse’, but only because they had been through a psychologically terrorising interview process with grownups who wouldn’t take ‘no’ [I was not abused] for an answer. The life of the accused is destroyed even when innocent, while the parents get undeserved compensation, and the remorseless lawmakers and ‘Ersatz scientists’ are ‘promoted’, bumping up the false rape and abuse stats of more however real convictions of innocent people. In the aftermath of this hysteria debacle, the ‘child saving experts’ get defensive, but where is the public apology for the grave harm done? And what about those innocent victims they put in prison? Still there.

To give an example of how ludicrous such accusations are, in the case Geimer, she had stated that Polanski had asked her if he may ‘go through her back’, (in fact actually asking quite politely it seems, rather than just ‘do’ it like rapists would, though obviously he never had said that, after he however had asked her if she was on the Pill and when she said no he replied that he would not come inside her), just so to bring in the ‘sodomy scenario’ for her age – since it was only unlawful to penetrate a teenager anally under the age of fourteen when the man was more than ten years her senior, which also meant that someone her own age could but not the older man. Ludicrous the least. Now, would you say that sounds ‘anatomically correct’? ‘Through your back’’? Rather than go into or ‘up your butt’? Polanski might have had a thick accent, but his grammar was perfectly accurate. Such is a teen’s anatomical description of anal sex who clearly never had it, forced or otherwise. She also said, he put his mouth ‘on’ her vagina, calling cunnilingus ‘cuddliness’, rather than say what he did ‘then’, as in, put his tongue into her, since just leaving your lips on someone’s pubic area doesn’t lead to much, and she never elaborated on it. Or that the sodomy caused pain.

But, instead of protesting any of ‘that’, she gives us this ‘act’ of saying, ‘no, I don’t want to go in there’, (the TV room one level below the bathroom) when she clearly had, and that under her own power and will, or Polanski would have needed to push and drag her about leaving marks on her, and she never said that he had threatened her in any form and not a scratch was found on or inside her. That’s how a teen’s lies are easily exposed, through ‘science facts’, not fiction. So, why keep up the myth of her double sodomy that never was? For one, because people never had anal sex, forced or otherwise, to know better, and because they don’t know that the examining doctor had called her bluff already. Hence, her mother’s tries to bring in the ‘fear of him’ factor the prosecuting DA however ignored as unfounded, simply for the course of events not in line with that.) And yet, Polanski was indicted on the count of sodomy too, just so to make it sound nastier, and because DAs routinely lump the defendant with anything possible the accuser had stated, since in a trial the facts would be confirmed, or lies debunked. If of course there never was a trial, and the all but one counts are dropped in exchange for a plea bargain, since evidence points to these counts as being uncorroborated already, that leaves people in the erroneous belief that all these dropped counts are ‘fact’ – when they never are.

And, ever wondered why the ‘rape conviction’ rates are so low, feminist always decry? Because we actually have significantly less genuine rape cases even globally than those reported, as the LA and NY, or Germany stats already showed, outside systematic rapings as seen in chaotic and lawless war situations perhaps, (feminist don’t give a shit about in contrast, since these women aren’t of any ‘value’ to them in their shallow western world views, or male victims) since only a small percentage of reports are bona fide attacks when looking at overall conviction statistics per country, which therefore appear low because they represent only genuine reports, and not sexual assault, or underage sex, no matter the actual incarceration rate for anything declared ‘rape’ (or ‘statutory rape’) being even higher than that of murder convictions or any other crime combined, violent or non-violent. Even if we add a number of what might be unreported actual rapes, the overall statistics are nowhere near what the feminists want us believe, since the FBI rape report stats clearly refute them.

Meaning, in the US e.g., the majority of men sent inside for ‘rape’ is in fact innocent of rape or any other ‘sexual assault’, or simply because they had sex with a minor. While in return, they create another real rape victim by enabling another man to rape him, when in fact women are less likely to be raped in prison than outside, simply because of only women inmates, though isolated attacks occur through male staff feminist in contrasts don’t care about. The most rapes at any give time are committed within male prisons, not outside, and the vast majority are male victims. That is in line with overall conviction rates for any ‘crimes’, with the States sporting the highest incarnation rate in the word, and most of them are male. Not because they have more [male] criminals, or rapists, but because most of these prisoners are innocent, and all they did was have sex the feminists denied them. One day we’ll have only men who’re interested in men, and feminist lesbians.

When did the most sublime human exchange (‘sex’) become more about power and status than romance? When did it become so pornographic and transactional, so implacably cold and calculating? How about when feminism marched arm in arm with the sexual revolution and turned our culture, our most fundamental relationships, upside down? When women ‘took control’ of their ‘sexuality’, which meant becoming promiscuous, just like men? Or just like they assumed men to be in many cases, wrongly of course. And what made the ‘rape figures’ so high? Easy, include anything possible the feminists declare as ‘rape’ – though only ‘forcible sexual intercourse’ is. But, what those dubious ‘surveys’ come up with, conducted by in-person and telephone interviews, also defines ‘rape’ as follows: including both psychological coercion as well as non/physical force, and attempted rapes. ‘Attempted rape’ includes verbal threats of rape, ‘psychological coercion’, which of course, can mean all manner of things, including, ‘I’ll take your mother to the doctors tomorrow if you make love to me tonight’, bingo, it’s ‘rape’. I call it demented lunacy.

The point is, if any of these feminist surveys were correct, every single family would likely have at least one rapist (and perhaps multiple rapists) and likely double that number of rape victims, male or female. If we punished all the males who committed ‘rape’ as defined by these deluded feminists and broadened laws, they couldn’t build enough jails in the US nation that is already the prison capital of the world. Colleges and the military would be almost entirely female because rapists apparently start when very young. The economy would be devastated because there wouldn’t be enough non-raping men to do the jobs only men can do. So, the highly politicised, fear-mongering numbers suggesting rape is rampant simply insults our intelligence slandering an entire gender. Rape is still common, true, but two points are self-evident: ‘actual rape’ is not anywhere near as ‘rampant’ as other crimes these ‘sexual assault activists’ insist on, and, ‘rape’, i.e., forcible intercourse, is properly classified as a crime and what it stands for ONLY. NOTHING ELSE.

Sleeping with a woman who cries rape after a (maybe drunken) one-night stand is certainly NOT rape (or sex with a willing adolescent minor), but criminal perjury on her part. Becoming intoxicated before sex is voluntary and people who are drunk, and/or took drugs, are responsible for their own actions no matter what, men AND women, regardless of age, END OF. Feminists saying, ‘it is not the alcohol that commits the rape, and it is not an excuse for men to be drunk while raping’, utterly forget that alcohol might lower the inhibition threshold, but, with most men it in fact might result in the inability to get a hard-on in the first place TO, rape. Many men are impotent to begin with, and alcohol is the No. 1 aggravating factor of a bad performance as for rape, true. But, if the woman got herself into that state even with his help, and then has sex, that’s HER problem entirely, NOT his, since SHE too could and SHOULD have shown more ‘responsibility’ and must take the consequences – no matter her ‘age’. FACT. In the UK people rather demand real proof of ‘rape’, and a study shows that juries are reflecting this public opinion, which broadly is that all people have a personal responsibility for their behaviour, regardless of ‘gender’.

In fact, we have prosecuted false rape accusers rather often by now, except they only received a few months in prison, while the man’s entire life was shattered – people who falsely accuse others of other crimes get fined or done for it – just not someone who had destroyed another’s whole future. These are all miscarriages of justice, and there were many more cases than those which receive prominent coverage in the media like some celebrity victim. Those cases of criminal conviction that are routinely quashed by the UK’s Court of Appeal or by the Crown Court for convictions previously obtained in the Magistrates’ Court have received no attention at all, which however make up the vast majority of cases, and these miscarriages in false rape accusations resulting in convictions/exonerations are not rare at all. We’re also thinking of naming false rape accusers officially, since, despite someone having been found innocent, the female still cannot be named. Women who cry rape should be named and shamed, incarcerated and then put on a sex offenders register, not because it has to do with ‘rape’, but criminal perjury, i.e., ‘l-y-i-n-g’, end of.

Some Lawlords in England however have already used Parliamentary privileges to expose some accusers’ identities that saw innocent men imprisoned. But as more often than not, many others are unlikely to face charges for perjury or perverting justice, claiming ‘insufficient evidence’, or citing ‘mental illness’ as a barrier, while they don’t care if a man was ‘mentally ill’ who ‘raped’ someone. These days, men are more at risk from false rape accusations than people dare speak about. In fact, it has been estimated anything up to 40% of rape accusations in the US alone are made up, some say more than half – a figure that has understandably outraged rape support services as much as it has men’s or even women’s issues activists. And the difficulties in nailing down an exact figure only emphasises the difficulty in detecting a good lie. And this is where we come in as a society: reporters treat vile rape lies about innocent men as wholly insignificant compared to the question about whether one man will be charged, or if he is ‘really not guilty’. All men and boys falsely accused of rape, are just collateral damage in the ‘more important’ war on ‘rape’ – but ‘rape’ as defined by, yes, not the average woman or man, or even law, no, the deluded feminist brigade.

Nowadays ‘fondling a ‘child’’, or ‘consensual sex with an adolescent’ can be called ‘rape’ even in press reports, though legally a ‘child’ is only someone under the age of twelve, male or female. So, no matter if some think sex with underage girls or boys should be ‘punished’, the truth should be spelled out and that such manipulative language should be abolished. As seen in Polanski’s case, often enough calling it ‘child rape’ and him a ‘child rapist’ that it makes me sick by now, since the legal code ‘statutory rape’ includes the word ‘rape’, rather than say ‘unlawful sexual intercourse’ (with a minor). This purposeful confusion/omission/slander created by the corruption of the word ‘rape’ helps to whip up a disproportionate punishment frenzy for crimes of ‘adolescent seduction’ calling them ‘children’ instead of adolescents, at the expense of trivialising actual forcible penetrative intercourse, or non-consensual rape and/or sexual abuse directed at real prepubescent children. So the word ‘rape’ is abusively redefined to serve an agenda: to make smaller transgressions look like heinous crimes.

The entire world press, and (almost) everyone swallowed the bait and became manipulated to (again) believe Polanski is a rapist. Because, according to new definitions of ‘child sex’, i.e., underage sex with an adolescent, i.e., NOT prepubescent, a ‘child’ now is anyone under eighteen. Voila, as the French would say. The UN, the US, and Europe too have adopted that ludicrous blanket definition. So, why is a thirteen year old capable to consent to sex with a seventeen year old (boyfriend) but not with a 35+ year old man? Interestingly she can decide to have sex with the teenager, so how come she cannot have sex with a 35+ year old? Age discrimination by law? The always so conveniently cited ‘power imbalance’? ‘Im/morality’? What would happen if it were an older woman rather than man? She’s dubbed a paedophile I suppose, not her older ‘same sex partner’. Or maybe she is called her ‘lesbian lover’ – since it’s two ‘females’ feminists don’t have a problem with. Conversely, they don’t care about homosexuals either, since they of course aren’t interested sexually in any ‘females’.

Similarly, ‘adolescent nudity’ now can be called ‘child pornography’ when centuries back, in the Seventies or even Eighties no one cared and it had nothing to do with actual (child and/or other) pornography. Defining fourteen or seventeen year olds as ‘children’ now, has the collateral effect that suddenly there is no word for an ‘actual child’ of twelve and under anymore, as there is no word left for ‘actual rape’. In fact, you cannot simply spit into your own evolutionary soup suddenly, redefine these recognised laws and words, just because you don’t like them anymore for today’s ‘moral changes’, i.e., repressed morals, and drag people into court for taking nude pictures over three decades ago like Polanski and many others had professionally, or some old sexual misdemeanour that didn’t concern anyone ‘then’ let alone anyone ‘today’ not their business. No one should be held accountable retroactively – f/or changed times. The law implicitly states, no one may suffer greater punishment today over an old misdemeanour, than the law had stipulated at that time, or, if applicable, a lighter penalty of today shall apply. But who cares about any ‘laws’.

People reading ‘child sex case’ not even having the basics of the case, imagine some little kid that was brutalised, when the girl in question was way past puberty and passed for a twenty year old young woman, well developed boobs and all, who willingly had sex with the man who wanted to further her like he had done with others before and after. See Kinski and Lewis. This public confusion no doubt has manipulative motives, as for one, there is no logical need to change the meaning of words that had a clear definition for centuries, before idiot feminists redefined it, and the public is clearly confused when mis/using these words en masse now. Same goes for paedophilia – most people still don’t know what exactly it is, what a paedophile does or not, what the original term stood for, and call men who sleep with adolescents, paedophiles, when they’re clearly not. ‘Stupido’ might be a better word when they’re caught, but ‘sex offender’ is also another term that should never be attached to someone like that. Only someone who forcibly raped and/or sodomised someone, (with his/her own body or tools) with or without drug and alcohol use, someone who caused visible physical (and therefore mental) harm sexually, not some older dude who slept with a nubile teen.

Feminists too successfully restrict/ed women’s right to choose sexual services (i.e., ‘time-honoured prostitution’) as a profession, which however often pays lots more money than other work, and these days when conducted in a safely controlled and clean environment is a ‘decent’ source of income offering casual sex where no one considers themselves as exploited. Of course, men who can pay $100 to an attractive ‘call girl’ are less likely to marry an average looking, aging woman who later will take away half their property and/or demand half their income. Feminists view prostitution as violence against women and favours laws like those in Sweden where the sale of sexual services is legal but oddly enough their purchase is not. I.e., the woman can sell her body, but the ‘John’ who paid for it can be arrested for the sex they exchanged and face prison. And there I was thinking Sweden was more progressive than that. Guess not. So, the Swedish prostitute gets legal money for the legal sex she’s allowed to sell, and he legally ends up inside. Great Scandinavian justice, which, in fact, many feminists want to see being put into practice in their own country, of course.

Feminists also demand/ed to raise the age of consent to basically eliminate competition by very young and more attractive women, when age of consent used to be twelve on average, and is now eighteen almost everywhere (mostly in the US). Though I highly doubt the Vatican will up it from that age, or Spain from thirteen, Germany from fourteen or France from fifteen, and the UK from sixteen, just to please the despotic States shackled and bound by feminist laws, though there seem to be plans to increase it to twenty-one worldwide as it was once in most counties only decades back – all in the name of fascist feminism of course. I doubt it would succeed, but they try anyhow. That would bring women finally back into the ‘little helpless female infants’ bracket these feminists love [them] to inhabit, while I always thought women love to be seen as independent, mature and feisty, and able to take care of themselves, sexually and otherwise. Evidently not. No, it’s to make it all easier for them legally, while men have to provide for them, suffer their laws, their every needs and many times pathetic demands.

Feminists also love to prohibit even creative (or ancient) erotic art, beautifully shot nude photography, even softcore pornography à la Lewis, while of course ‘hardcore’ porn is another matter altogether, all under the guise of ‘protecting’ the porn models (who actually did not ask to be protected and do not really want to go back to any menial jobs). These women (and men) engaging in porn flicks have a clear choice to be in the industry or not, and should not be ‘demoralised’, no matter their ‘reputation’, or ‘acting skills’, might not be the best in the eyes of prudish ‘society’ at large. See Lewis, who was a teenage prostitute and then appeared in only sex flops after Polanski’s more adventurous Pirates and Eddie Murphy’s film. Feminists rallying against such more or less ‘erotic’ films or women really only want to avoid men seeing attractive women naked, have sex, spending time and money on sex, (while not at all being concerned about male-on-male, let alone female-on-female sex movies, obviously) and prohibit female sex dolls, sex robots, you name it. But not vibrators they probable use on themselves, since no man in his right mind would want anything to do with them.

Funny thing is, even some of the successful porn models who were proud of their achievements, sexually uninhibited and happy with the money they made, went to join rising feminism, to suddenly proclaim today that they were raped in their own films. See, ‘Deep Throat’ star Linda Lovelace, who spoke out against pornography, stating that she had been abused and coerced into it all, while others countered her with the term ‘Linda Syndrome’ to refer to women who leave pornography and repudiate their past career by condemning the industry, and, that ‘this was a woman who never took responsibility for her own choices made; but instead blamed everything that happened to her in her life on porn’ – and her drug addiction. And her ‘abusive’ partner. See Lewis – another drug-addled softporn starlet who decried her own actions, blamed them on others. And just so to show how much feminists care for such women, Lovelace also said she felt used by the anti-pornography movement she had joined, and, that so many books written between feminists, mentioning her name, they yet never helped her out financially. They made a few bucks off her, just like everybody else. So much for porn and feminism.

Another ploy by feminists to gain sympathy, is portraying feminists themselves by classifying them as ‘passive victims without responsibility’, prosecuting the war on rape and domestic violence as somehow having been ‘captured’ in the movement and ‘co-opted’ by the law-and-order agendas of politicians, state officials, and conservative groups. Yet, nothing indicates that feminists offered the slightest resistance to this ‘political abduction’, when in fact feminists did lead the charge toward wholesale male incarceration from day one. Feminist ideology has radicalised criminal justice and eroded centuries-old constitutional protections where new ‘crimes’ have now been created; old crimes have been redefined politically; the distinction between crime and private behaviour has been erased, the presumption of innocence has been eliminated, false accusations go unpunished, and patently innocent people are jailed without trial. Great evolution that.

California lawmakers long gave females the right to refuse to testify in alleged rape cases. See Geimer, first accusing him and then copped out to face him. That today is acceptable only when the female submits to DNA testing through use of a certified rape kit administered by a qualified professional with current credentials. DNA testing can reveal mixtures that can be used to identify more than one contributor to the sample. If a female claims rape but refuses to comply with this protocol or waits too long, then she is doubtlessly lying. California is considering legislation that will give females the right to refuse to give testimony in domestic violence cases as well, and therefore ‘domestic violence’ has become easy to claim and hard to refute. The evidence is too easily manufactured and every accused person has the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them. However, there is a new DNA test that detects skin cells left behind from a simple touch. Any female who claims domestic abuse must be required to submit to this new DNA test. If she claims domestic abuse but refuses to comply with its protocol or waits too long, or cannot back it up in any form, then she is most likely lying and should be assessed the greatest penalty allowed by law.

After Charlie Sheen’s wife, Mel Gibson’s ex-lover too has claimed ‘domestic violence’ after they split even bringing the cops into the nasty game already, what a surprise, since it’s, yes, you guessed it, another custody battle ensuing over their illegitimate child, while she has one with ex-Bond Timothy Dalton already. She claims Gibson knocked out her teeth during a ‘violent episode’, claiming she has ‘explosive proof’ of it. I am not a big fan of Gibson mind you for his decades of drunken antics and racial slurs, ‘great artist’ or not, but, now she suddenly comes up with accusations of ‘abuse’ in his case  too, after he slammed a restraining order on her and she slammed one on him, or vice versa, and he does not have to support ‘her’, only their child, (which he did generously after giving her a house and car on top) though she has a job and already another kid from another stupid man. But no, now she demands more ‘child support’, using her offspring as lever, saying, “What he’s doing is cruelty. He is not paying me a penny. Nothing. I have to live on credit cards and borrowed money. There are custody issues. What is happening to me is not fair.”Another whining female, and there I was thinking ‘credit cards’, ‘borrowed money’ and ‘child support’ from others and assets is actual money. Why not ‘actually work’, sweetie – aren’t you a professional musician? Guess not. Professional gold-digger more like.

She’s just another case of a pitiful, aging female taking the easy route by blackmailing the gullible older man into ‘support’ with accusations of violence, after creating another innocent child as ‘shield’ she hopes the courts will uphold in her favour being the ‘female’ of the piece. Gibson has still a lot of money (after his wife was ‘awarded’ half of it after three decades of marriage and seven kids) and that’s all his new ex-lover cares about. Funny how these women always come out suddenly with such ‘allegations’ ‘after’ a custody battle ensued, while no one seems to have noticed any ‘abuse’, when people like her have all  the means to call on official help rather than wash their dirty laundry in the media pool. And get this, now some porn star has not only claimed she had an affair with him while his ex was pregnant, but that he was ‘scary’ and aggressive, tapping right into public awareness of Gibson the racist and foul mouthed drunkard. Sounds just like ex-porn starlet Lewis to me. Though some spell it out seeing that they both are lying, and because we all swear, many are racist and drunks, the majority believe Mel’s accusers simply for his already tainted reputation, and he’ll probably lose out like any other male no matter his financial fortunes. A perfect victim of petty female vengeance.

Women who intentionally defame and then go after men with money should be placed in jail for attempted extortion and slander, and then maybe we would see a lot less older males like him with younger, lazy and famewhoring gold-diggers. This new feminist jurisprudence that supports pathetic women like her, hammers away at some of the most basic foundations of our criminal law system, chief among them is the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Not to feminists though, twisting it into: the presumption of innocence ‘perpetuates’ ‘victim blaming’ in sexual assault cases, unless it’s them in the dock, of course, and then get Scot-free anyhow. Rape hysteria, false accusations, dubious domestic violence claims, distorted scholarship and rigged rape figures are rampant not only on university campuses, which ostensibly exist to pursue truth, saying, ‘if a woman did falsely accuse a man of rape, she may have had reasons to’. Really? So ‘she’ wasn’t raped, clearly lied, but ‘he’ ‘violated’ her in what way exactly? This twisted mentality pervades feminist jurisprudence, precluding innocence by obliterating the distinction between crime and petty ‘hurt female feelings’. All that matters is how she ‘claims’ that she ‘felt’, even when it’s not true at all, with not a second thought to men’s feelings, since they don’t have any, of course.

See Lewis, a woman who is a ‘professional victim’, and ‘victimhood’ is her most powerful tool and ‘role’ to date, blaming an old former lover for her own sad life, when she only needs to look in the mirror to direct her blame more accurately than towards Polanski. In fact, women who play the victim to manipulate and control others by holding them emotionally hostage, shed all responsibility for their own life, caught in a never-ending blame game that will [hopefully] sooner or later backfire brutally. It’s just so easy to call on ‘society’, i.e., ‘laws’, or ‘lawyers’ [like man-basher Allred], when it suits them, in order to avoid personal responsibility and make a big sobbing fuss and mess of it, crying out for mommy or daddy. Everything is feminism-polluted, overtly, underhandedly, infused with ambiguous weasel talk and words, emotional blackmail tactics, where even some harmless remark in an article is seen as misogynist by the editor when no one ever touched on any ‘women’ [issues] at all. But in contrast, you never read anything where it says, oh, that was very misandruous when it comes to ‘honourable man-bashing time’.

Even in the (US) domestic violence sector, ‘violence’ is redefined so loosely by now that it need not be violent at all anymore, where even only swearing at the female constitutes ‘domestic violence’. I wonder what happens if a man accuses his partner of ‘mental abuse’ Lewis claimed in Polanski’s case, while no one can actually back her up either. The US Justice Department definition includes, ‘extreme jealousy and possessiveness’ and, ‘name calling and constant criticising’. Or in other words, a ‘nagging’ wife. For such ‘crimes’ men too are jailed with no trial every single day, but NOT women. Even Gibson isn’t spared, or Sheen, yes, another one Lewis had slept with, who pleaded no contest to ‘assaulting’ his current wife in a drunken brawl it seems to cut it short and faces a month inside, and only Sheen knows if he’s really ‘guilty’. Probably less than he’s made out to be by the disgruntled spouse. Or Gibson, who in fact accused her of being a gold-digging whatsit, no doubt correctly. Funny too how these ‘women’ always get pregnant by only ‘stars’, they later can milk for ‘child support’, or accuse of ‘abuse’, after they in effect had separated on amiable terms. In fact, the very category of ‘domestic violence’ was redeveloped largely to circumvent due process requirements of conventional assault statutes.

A study found that no one accused of domestic violence could be found ‘innocent’, since every arrestee received some sort of ‘punishment’, and that without any real evidence. I.e., make the home a special ground for more injustice done without the slightest proof. Great. Domestic violence has become a murky backwater street of repetitive pseudo-theory, and no other area of established social welfare, criminal justice, public health, or behavioural intervention has such weak evidence in support of mandated practice, i.e., ‘proof’ of ‘guilt’. Scholars and practitioners have repeatedly documented how allegations of ‘abuse’, sexual or otherwise at home, (or at work) are now used for tactical advantage in custody cases and become part of the nasty gamesmanship of divorce. See Gibson, who might well be accused of ‘rape’ or ‘sexual abuse’ by his ex too next. Or Sheen by Lewis for some more ‘sexual abuse of the worst kind’. But he’s in the US, and not a helpless old man[who was] imprisoned in his own home she can accuse. ‘Domestic abuse’ as well has become an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice, and to cry rape, child or spousal abuse in such cases has become daily practice. If you google ‘psychology of rape’, what comes up? ‘Why men rape’, NOT ever why women rape and abuse.

This pernicious practice goes as far as affecting men who mistakenly or even rightfully thought someone had abused or assaulted their children, ending up the very abuser, though there never was any real abuser, or the ‘actual’ abuser got away, and yet only the father was pursued and ended up in prison for nothing, not the mother or actual perpetrator. Another family barbarically destroyed by feminist laws. And better still, some UK Child Protective Services workers regard a male parent bathing his young children (those who cannot bathe themselves or require supervision for their own safety, or during simple bathtime play) as ‘sexual abuse’ offenders now, since by all means they’d need to ‘fondle’ their genitals to cleanse them properly. That [double] standard is not applied to female parents obviously, and if the man is ‘caught’, or was whistled on by someone out of malice, he might even face prison without the slightest defence, and ends up on a sex offender register alongside brutal rapists. I call it legislated insanity directed only at men and fathers.

To quotes someone else: Why do I think you feminists are obsessed with criminalising everything [‘sexual’ or ‘physical’] and only those things that harm their particular, selfish, reproductive and own sexual needs? Because that is all they seem to be interested in; ‘sordid sex’. What about teenage girls bullying and beating each other up on video and then having them uploaded to websites that make money from advertisements? Nah, no sexual threat, therefore nothing to say. What about teenage girls and even children appearing on reality TV shows to be exploited for commercial gain by adults, clearly suffering psychological distress as a result? Nope, no specific sexual threat to their reproductive interests yet so they have probably never given it two seconds thought. What about a teenager who likes to sleep with older men? See Kinski, or Geimer and Lewis. Since these feminists however don’t want their man running off with or even looking at a hot seventeen year old, therefore a thirteen, fifteen or even seventeen year old girl is rendered incapable to give meaningful consent to sex and therefore ALL older men are criminalised in an instant, ONLY. See Polanski and plenty others.

To give an example of ‘purposely victimising’ a ‘female’ by the actual female, and laws themselves mind you; why would it be such a ‘crime’ if some female’s vagina was penetrated by a male’s penis, both in fact designed to accommodate the sexual act that way? Why would she [be forced to] lie about it [to a US grand jury], just because the law didn’t allow her to have underaged sex? Why is she forced to make up a story that in fact painted her as a liar, rather than simply a promiscuous girl interested in healthy sex, in order to render herself the ‘utterly passive partner’, i.e., ‘victim’? And then won’t even be punished for lying? Or say, she was ‘afraid’ of ‘him’ when her overall behaviour, or even witnesses, doesn’t reflect that in any form? See Geimer’s preposterous claim that she was afraid of Polanski, yet didn’t seize the slightest chance to remove herself from his company when she could have, after her mother proudly proclaimed she was very precocious, and then suddenly played this ‘innocent little girl’ clutching a charm. Had she been put on the stand, the defence would have rightly shredded her claims.

And, why in fact say she’s afraid of ‘him’, when she by all means should be ‘afraid’ of falling pregnant? Isn’t it a female’s worst nightmare to become pregnant when having unprotected sex, especially at that age? Why in fact ‘wait’ for Polanski to even ask if she was on the Pill according to her mind you not him, and when she said no, he replied not to come inside her then and resorted to coitus interuptus like any sensible man would? His lawyer called this a solicitous act in fact to avoid her falling pregnant, when he therefore withdrew and ejaculated outside of her. Rapists don’t ever concern themselves with their ‘victim’ to fall pregnant. So, why would she not be ‘afraid’ of getting pregnant? Because she either wanted to become impregnated by him – for whichever dubious reason/s I leave to your imagination – or, because she WAS on the Pill, and played a ‘game’ with him, or else she’d definitely become pregnant by him, or her own boyfriend and others, since I doubt they all used condoms just like Polanski didn’t, (which also points to the fact of a spontaneous sexual act on his part and was nothing premeditated, or else he in fact would have had a handy condom ready) and, in fact he’d have plenty illegitimate children running around, if he wouldn’t either ask and withdraw or use a rubber.

Now, wouldn’t you say it’s therefore mighty peculiar that she gives us this unfounded, ‘I was afraid of him’ scenario the DAs didn’t buy either, while in fact ‘waiting’ to consummate the sex, or, why she didn’t say she’s not on the Pill before Polanski apparently even needed to ask her? Before they even started? I’d been much more ‘concerned’ not to get pregnant, not just ‘let him get on with it’ as she once claimed, which alone doesn’t sound like rape or that she was ‘afraid’ of him, at not the slightest cause or threat to fear ‘him’, but a ‘pregnancy’, and could in fact also be in fact seen as leading him on he took as unspoken consent. She certainly wasn’t unconscious either or incapable to do anything, since for one she heard him say things she however conveniently couldn’t recall but her own words he conversely never heard her or said he had spoken. She only ‘described’ what HE ‘did,’ but nothing SHE had to ‘react’ to he’d in fact needed to force on her to do things in the first place, most of what is clearly fabrication. There’s also no logic in sodomising anyone when withdrawing is general practice, and is just a perfect excuse to accuse him of sodomy which clearly never took place.

Such is a typical scenario of blaming the male from start to finish, play the pathetic ‘female victim’, rather than allow the adolescent to participate actively and admit to the sex. But then again, feminists and conservatives in general are simply jealous that men tend to like and sleep with younger women, and one factor of today’s ultra feminists to view Polanski’s act as objectionable – and I mean sleeping with a pretty minor not raping/sodomising her which was discredited outright by medical evidence – is not only today’s more child protection oriented agendas they subversively try to make their own by vocally calling for his head as the most ‘visible’ target, but a great deal of female jealousy levied against younger/prettier women in general, they pitch [fork] at him now, for being an older man who openly ‘preferred’ younger flesh, for their own ‘fading charms’ and other reasons open for debate. We all know how ‘bitchy’ women can be with each other, but hardly men with other men. On the contrary, they rather ‘fight’ over women and most likely the ‘younger’, ‘prettier’ one.

Many men find themselves younger ‘chicks’ for various reasons, not older women, [or] when coming from any relationship. In fact, even if the man ages, he still might prefer and get the younger ones, widen the age gap even further and in fact stay younger for longer as found in surveys, where older men with younger females stayed more youthful, healthy and lived longer. See Polanski with the stunning beauties half his age the feminist brigade obviously cannot allow, since most of his current detractors are women, using their dubious agendas in order to vilify him and his former desire for casual sex. Men are hardwired to be more attracted to luscious females who are not too far removed from puberty, which would include many females who are under the age of consent. This is most certainly not paedophilia, since they are not interested in ‘children’, i.e., anyone under puberty, but simply normal, human male sexuality that cannot be changed no matter how much these sexually repressed feminists want it.

Truth is, females sexually peak long before males do, see Geimer, yet they’re not allowed to sleep with older men but only their own age group, and that sometimes gets punished, but only the male of course. Many younger females are attracted to older men for many reasons these misandrists dismiss as ‘crushes’, or of course flat-out condemn out of envy. I wonder what these feminists did when they were teens – probably slept around like anyone else had – and now call it ‘rape’. It’s human nature to have sex. All through history and cultures it had been time-honoured and practiced for older men to have younger women, and only today’s times have suddenly gone off kilter in regards to underage sex, or sex in general, especially in the ‘biblically repressed’ US. In fact, it completely backfiring their own ‘women’s lib’ issues by such pathetic overreactions, and enforcing crippling sex laws on people that pointlessly punish ‘age differences’ (and the male predominantly) and sex Europe doesn’t suffer that badly – yet – though we have a growing number of cry rape cases too by now.

So, what about these physicians who examine alleged rape victims? What if they have a hidden ‘feminist’ agenda of their own, since these days hardly a male doctor or nurse would be allowed to look for sexual assault signs with his invasive rape kit. So, what if these women gave false or overblown results? Basically, lied, just so to put away another innocent male out of misled ‘sisterhood loyalty’, or downright malicious spite, able to enforce her misandruous powers as a third party? It happened in the States (of course) only recently again, and many of the cases the woman in question had conducted were in fact being re-examined. The experts promptly found that the nurse concerned had issued ‘erroneous findings and/or substantial ‘overcalling’ of injuries’ in all eleven cases. So, that’s ELEVEN more men innocently sent to prison on her FALSIFIED ‘EVIDENCE’ on top, after some vile cry rape accusers had done enough damage already! US, especially LA, crime laboratories are notorious for falsifying results to obtain [false rape] convictions.

Rape kits typically cost $500–$1,200 the taxpayer has to cough up now while before the victim had to pay for it. Furthermore, as of 2009 most states must pay for so called ‘Jane Doe rape kits’ in order to continue to receive funding under the US Violence Against Women Act. (Though there’s no ‘vigilance against men’ act.) Plus, get this, the ‘Jane Doe’ sexual assault exam kit made available to women anonymously, in effect allows women to have hair, semen and/or other samples from their alleged ‘assailant’ collected and placed in numbered, sealed envelopes. This is done at no charge and without the requirement to notify authorities or press charges, and police do not open the envelope unless the victim decides to press charges. A clinical director for a US rape and sexual assault counselling program said that it is crucial for women to have the option of keeping police away from the case until they are ready to press charges. Sure, true to some extend, but now, in ‘practice’ however, this can be ANY ‘assortment’ of ‘DNA’ collected from ‘anyone’ the ‘victim’ was with (willingly), I repeat, ‘anyone’ the woman might have simply slept with, and later wants to charge with, yes, you guessed it, ‘rape’.

What genuine rape victim would just have ‘evidence’ collected without the vital need for a crime scene investigation done by police? Speak to police at least the next day after the medical exam? And, why would any ‘victim’ be ‘ashamed’ to give her name if a serious assault took place? Traumatised, sure, but ‘unwilling’ to press charges? I’d be incensed and demand my attacker be known to the police, found. And if it was an anonymous assailant I still would come forward for him to be apprehended at one point. There’s no logic in waiting for months let alone years. This way, this ‘service’ is wide open to obvious abuse, since the next problem with the kit is, that ‘Jane Doe’ has decided to blackmail ‘John Doe’ whom she had a relationship with him some years/months/weeks/days before. John Doe did not threaten, and/or rape and/or beat her, but she has the ‘irrefutable’ evidence of his ‘presence’, i.e., ‘DNA’. Unfortunately, that is all she needs to blackmail John Doe, make his life hell. This is where the doctrine of the ‘reasonable person’ might be used to defend against this criminal attempt. Would a ‘reasonable person’ wait months or even years? I think that’s a no. A day, a week if injuries had to be seen to, yes, but if nothing was found and then wait? That surely stinks of cry rape deception. Of course, you can just let it rest, get over it, forget it, and tell someone much later about it, but not press charges that late.

So now that someone’s DNA sits somewhere in a crime lab after some dubious ‘chain of custody’, ‘evidence’ issues already, i.e., whosever DNA that is, he could be implicated in an assault that never was, plus, his DNA might be on record for any other ‘planted crime’. Conversely, after 72 hours it is unlikely that any evidence can be collected with a rape kit and the use of the kit is rendered unsafe to look at ‘real’ evidence. However, new studies have found motile sperm in consensual sexual partners up to 120 hours following sexual intercourse; so accordingly, some sexual assault forensic examination programs have increased the time frame for conducting an examination, i.e., a whole five days. Outside of these windows, it is less likely that evidence would still be present on the survivor. However, evidence may still be gathered by documenting any findings obtained during the medical examination, such as bruises or lacerations, photographs and bite mark impressions etc., (which by all means could all be self-inflicted, or the result from some other ‘encounter’, accident, rough sex play, old injuries, you name it), and securing statements made by the survivor about the alleged assault.

There recently was a case like this here in the UK, where some young women, who thought she was cleverer than all the other false rape accusers, tore off her clothes in ‘strategic places’ to make it look like a violent assault, knocked herself some bruises and a black eye, and then accused three men of violent rape. Now, had it not been for the however even more clever rape kit and other forensic proof that she had made all that up, and none of her ‘injuries’ or ‘violated state’ were consistent with what she had stated, i.e., not even any signs of sexual intercourse, or other evidence of ‘assault’, she’d sent three innocent men into prison for, and get this, for her boy/friend not having given her some money to drive home in a taxi and she had to walk. And, when her girlfriends thought she had left them behind and were angry with her, she later gave them the rape as an excuse, just out of sheer despicable spite against that boy/friend and the others. When she was exposed in court in a flood of crocodile tears, her shocked mother and sister ran from the court in real tears and shame, while the accuser in fact ended up in prison herself – and rightly so – though certainly not long enough with only two months of prison.

What I have noticed reading through such cases is that they all bear strikingly similar scenarios, since there was one just like that in the US, where the man however ended up in prison for four years, and the accuser only got half that after recanting when DNA proof called her a liar. But the best was, in that case her [male] lawyer insisted, ‘that she suffered horrible abandonment and sexual abuse as a young teen, and now has had ‘a spiritual awakening’’. It’s always ‘spiritual’ they become in prison, just so to shift their responsibility on religion on top. Sure, why not blame your past for crying rape ‘today’, years later, while no one sheds a tear over anyone who was fashioned into a rapist during their own childhood for reasons of the same ‘horrible abandonment and/or [sexual] abuse’, mostly by a domineering mother, literally ‘grooming’ the next rapist/murderer in a vicious cycle. Lewis too accused Polanski ‘today’ of ‘abuse’ of ‘then’, rather than blame her negligent mother and all the other men she slept with before and after him. Pathetic. Other cases are about blackmail, where the woman demands money or other things or she’ll call on the law – and several have been found out by now – yet hardly see the inside of any jail either.

People love to underscore any ‘tragic history’ of a female accuser, if real or not, while not giving a shit about Polanski’s own far more traumatic past e.g., when believing that his ‘rape’ should therefore not be excused for his own ‘abused’ past, playing the emotional blackmail card. Because both the news media’s and the law enforcement system’s insistence on treating false rape claims as something other than serious crimes, and in treating false rape accusers as something other than real criminals, they effectively are treated as ‘poor victims’ of their own troubled pasts who need ‘counselling’ and more pandering, not ‘punishment’, while the real rapist, or even falsely accused man, gets punished for his own tragic life to the full extend of the law, and people like Polanski are ridiculed when others point to his own ‘depression’ at the time and that it not be allowed as a ‘mitigating factor’ for his ‘evil deed’. I call it repulsive double standards, since these hypocrites would love to have their own past taken into account if they messed up – or else in fact ALL past experiences of EVERYONE have NO meaning – or in order to mercifully understand or forgive someone. No, it may only be applicable to the [lying] female, hiding behind another handy ‘shield law’.

One way to get around these Rape Shield Laws is for the defence to proffer testimonies of friends of the alleged victim or the accused, claming that the accuser had previously falsely accused another man of raping her. The court however rebuffs such evidence routinely by saying it could ‘inflame the jury’. Yeah, like it actually ‘should’ to rethink? Guess not. An accused stands basically zero chances of any fair defence with this kind of blocking. Some years back another case illustrated that perfectly, where a US sportscaster was accused of assault and battery during a sexual encounter with a woman with whom he had had a ten-year sexual relationship in fact. The man sought to introduce evidence that his accuser, who had been in a mental hospital six weeks before the alleged assault, had previously made false accusations against other men who had left her, as he, who was engaged to be married, was planning to do. His offer of proof was summarily denied, compromising his ability to defend himself. Facing a possible life sentence, he ‘chose’ to plead guilty to misdemeanour assault. I’d say he was forced to – just like Polanski – and still ended up inside a jail for a disgusting female liar.

DNA testing was available only from the 1980’s, but many women object/ed to this testing because they claim/ed that it was ‘unfair to women’. Very handy bullshit feminist ‘logic’. Their problem was really that various applications of DNA testing could reveal the truth about adultery, paternity, rape, and/or domestic violence. Moreover, when the lies of female plaintiffs were exposed, the courts simply altered or destroyed the findings to suit their preconceived perceptions of reality and not the truth. These actions are called material alteration, lies of omission, prevarication, equivocation, and paltering. Same goes when the accuser ‘fails’ or refuses to appear at the criminal trial, which is evidence of their guilt and not that of the falsely accused. See Geimer who refused to be cross-examined or they’d found her out. So nowadays all a girl needs to do is ‘prove’ she had sex (which the DNA can do no problem, even if there was no sex) and then state that she didn’t want the sex, whether that’s the truth or not or if there was any sex, which is all a court needs to convict that male as a rapist/sex offender these days at any rate, and these Jane Doe kits make it even easier.

Don’t get me wrong, for the genuine rape victim who needs a few days to recover before getting the law involved, fine, but a genuine rape victim needs no ‘time’, but help ‘now’, and the police aren’t the only sceptics in this dubious scenario by now. Someone with clear signs of violation needs not wait for months or years to come forward. The most common reason given by victims of rape/sexual assault for reporting the crime to the police, was to prevent further crimes by the offender against them, but, the most common reason cited by the victim for ‘not’ reporting the crime was that it was considered a ‘personal matter’. So, what constitutes a ‘personal mater’? A ‘change of heart’? A ‘fling’? No ‘evidence’? A ‘lie’? Emergency physician reports include stories of adolescent girls who said they were raped to avoid parental punishment for staying overnight with their boyfriends, bingo, someone goes to prison over a teenager’s pathetic, selfish lies. Pretty much as it happened to Polanski. Who would subject themselves to these highly intimate exams, photographing their naked body, cameras inserted vaginally, rectally to record internal damage, put themselves through all of that and hours of investigation, when no rape ever occurred? Only [attention seeking] liars. To give women credit to know the difference between rape and making love has become a game of getting back at her boy/friend, lover, husband, nothing more, since most rape accusers are rather young, and their victims usually not much older.

On the other hand, Geimer didn’t know the difference between anal and vaginal sex, since she all seriously said when the cops asked her about the ‘sodomy’, “Oh, I thought he went in the wrong way.” ‘Thought’? ‘Wrong way’? I’m sure the difference between anal and vaginal intercourse is all too obvious, and there’s no way anyone can mistake vaginal with anal sex. In fact, since she said that, it cannot actually be taken seriously anymore that she stated he ‘flipped her over’ to sodomise her, since she’s not even certain where he went in, and certainly not ‘through her back’, (while in another version she stated that he had entered her anally from the front). It all smells more like the ‘turned’ statement corrupt cop Vannatter had forced on Huston in order to drop the cocaine charges, force her to testify against Polanski, to be in line with what Geimer had said, – i.e., lie in court to say Huston had seen them ‘going at it’ – or vice versa, that he had told Geimer to say she had interrupted them to match her ‘double sodomy’ claims, when Huston clearly hadn’t interrupted them by Polanski’s own admission. You only need to watch Vannatter, and you can see a crooked ex-cop who tried to nail Polanski with more lies. Nothing surprising in LA. I’m sure he was pissed off when they decided on no trial, and let Polanski plead guilty to unlawful sex.

At any rate, according to the FBI’s Uniformed Crime Report program, forcible rape is limited to incidents involving female victims only. Meaning, any child or male rape is totally ignored. So much for ‘equality’. The UCR also obtains information from participating agencies on arrests for twenty-one additional categories of crimes. The arrest tallies count arrests for sex offences, including statutory rape and offences against chastity, common decency, and morals. Commercialised vice and prostitution are excluded from this crime category, i.e., prostitution. Forcible rape and sex offences include ‘attempts’. Now, how on Earth can anything like unlawful sex, ‘common decency’ or ‘morals’, or only an ‘attempt’ of ‘rape’, be equal to actual forcible rape? No wonder the [feminists’] ‘rape’ stats are literally screwed.

According to the UCR reports, the numbers of forcible rapes of female victims per 100,000 females in the entire US population were: Year | Rate: 1976 52, 1977 57, 1978 60, 1979 67, 1980 71, 1981 69, 1982 65, 1983 66, 1984 69, 1985 71, 1986 73, 1987 73, 1988 73, 1989 75, 1990 80, 1991 83, 1992 84, 1993 79, 1994 77, 1995 72 –

If ‘that’ in fact can be considered ‘rampant’ female rape, then I don’t now what an ‘epidemic’ is they keep blathering on about, (unless they in fact include child and male rapes making up the bulk). Besides, if anything is considered ‘forcible rape’, most of these numbers aren’t in reality ‘actual rapes’ either. According to the FBI, in 1980 State prisons held 295,819 persons in their custody, of which an estimated 20,500, or 6.9%, had been convicted of rape or sexual assault. (Note: ‘sexual assault’ includes convictions for statutory rape, forcible and non-forcible sodomy, ‘lewd acts’ with children, (i.e., sexual contract with under twelves only), and other conviction offences related to fondling, molestation, or indecent practices. (Which can be anything from frolicking naked in the sun to caressing someone innocently, or actual sex.) The term ‘sex offender’ describes those offenders ‘convicted’ of rape or sexual assault only.) By 1994, the State prison population had increased to 906,112, of which 88,000, or 9.7%, were sex offenders. While the prison population increased 206% over the period, the number of imprisoned ‘sex offenders’ grew 330%. Guess how many of these were for cry rape accusations? The dividing number that made the marked sudden difference – i.e., more than twice the original number of imprisoned men.

Now, ‘rapists’ and ‘sexual assaulters’, as the old UCR called them, serving time in State prisons were less likely to have had a prior conviction history or a history of violence than other incarcerated violent offenders. Meaning, it was either underage/casual/spousal sex, or another cry rape accusation/conviction. Sexual assault offenders were substantially more likely than any other category of offenders to report having experienced physical or sexual abuse while growing up. Meaning, those actual rapists/abusers had an abused childhood background, which it usually is, while two thirds of sexual assault offenders reported that they had never been physically or sexually abused as a child. Meaning, those who had no abused history, are those who had engaged in underage sex, (with overzealous parents who disproved their girl’s sexual activities, or even with her own boyfriend) a casual encounter, or a cry rape accuser of age or not. Sexual assaulters were about three times as likely as all violent offenders, and twice as likely as ‘rapists’ to report that the victim had been a member of their family, i.e., for one in four imprisoned sexual assaulters the victim had been their own child or stepchild of either gender. Meaning, a quarter of these cases were in fact not actual rapes of an adult female, but domestic child abuse (or male rape), while two quarters are underage or teenage sex, with most of the overall ‘victims’ below the age of eighteen and ‘perpetrators’ hardly older. Meaning, the younger the female, the more likely she was genuinely attacked, or indeed cried rape.

Some wishing that hospitals would avoid forcing women to do the kits all must be from another planet, no matter how unpleasant it must be for the real rape victim, but without vital evidence, no case, end of. Though conversely, those who claimed all they did was say ‘no’ and then cry rape, are commonplace by now and a rape kit exam could prove that. Across the US, law enforcement departments report sexual assault cases for reasons such as: delayed reporting, lack of cooperation from the victim, recall of additional facts by the accuser, lack of physical injury, inconsistent or untrue statements by the accuser, a failed or passed polygraph (by the alleged victim and perpetrator respectively), a close relationship between the accuser and the accused, or the sheer difficulty of investigating a case that boils down to the in/famous, ‘he said she said’ scenario. The, ‘she asked for it’ part of the equation constructs women as ‘complicit’ in their own sexual contact due to their ‘innate seductiveness’, ‘sexual looks’ and desires or even sexual depravity the female possesses just as the male. These women are weak-willed and weak-minded, but sexually available and secretly willing, they play, move, dance, speak the sex game and are in locations which invite sexual contact, and sometimes violence, they might not have endured had they played it safe. Same goes for men.

That’s not ‘victim blaming’, no, it’s common sense not to play a risky games let alone sexually, and then tell someone off when the enticed male wants the tempting female. You tell men not to play with fire, and if they get burnt, go na na na na na. But, if a woman falls victim to some unsavoury scenario she could have avoided altogether, only the man is the guilty party even if no rape occurred, or of course, if she really gets raped, or even gang raped. Therefore, ‘rape’ is purely viewed through a gynocentric lens that blinks at the harm it causes innocent men when a devious female played her sexual game and then turns it against the male. It happened often enough, and now the equally unsavoury games of false accusations of rape, and the crime of false reporting, have become so embroiled in the gender-politicised sexual assault milieu that serious discourse about them is not socially acceptable, let alone possible anymore without some feminists launching another misandry attack. Even where false reports are acknowledged as a ‘serious’ problem, innocent men are treated as little more than collateral damage in the larger war of insuring that more women ‘come forward’, raped or not. See the Jane Doe kit.

There’s an old saying that the first version of the story you hear is always very convincing, until you hear the actual truth, or use logic with all possible avenues/evidence investigated objectively to gather the facts. See Geimer’s ‘version’, and then read what really happened, i.e., Polanski’s account, so much more logical and simple. So what about a case of consensual ‘rough’ sex? Or a very small woman and very big man, i.e., big penis that can leave visible vaginal soreness perhaps, or tiny anal fissures, anything that is ‘consistent with ‘rape’’ in the handbook of current sex laws – as minimal an ‘injury’ it might be, then what? She cries rape, and the courts even have ‘evidence’ of ‘violent sex’ that never was non-consensual. Or take a case of BDSM, often leaving very visible marks of rough, but in fact safely conducted, SM play when it’s a professional setting. Or of course, a staged ‘rape fantasy’ – maybe also ending in rough sex, or even tears. I’d say, the man is definitely going down for decades after any of these scenarios if she wants him to for whatever reason/s – despite consensual sex of a more kinky nature both had engaged in and even have a ‘contract’ to play it [out] safe[ly]. You better have independent witnesses for that kind of sexual playground fun, or taped evidence. Sound and vision.

Mike Tyson is a typical case of ‘rough sex’ gone wrong, who ended up in prison many years ago, since his young accuser could hide behind the Rape Shield Laws, in fact only recently known to have cried rape before, in order not to appear ‘loose’ before her father. But of course, because the medical evidence stated ‘consistent with very rough intercourse’, the jury thought it ‘consistent with rape’ because of what she had claimed happened, utterly ignoring what he said had taken place, also forgetting that he was very ‘big’, and she very small, easy to damage genitally, and that rough sex is not rape. But, with his rather crude, unsympathetic ‘boxer’ reputation and arrogant stance in court, while she put on a typical show of the demure little victim, he had no chance either. As expected, all other evidence pointing to another gold-digger who made herself known and a lot of money from her ‘story’, was dismissed. The fact that she was the only ‘rape victim’ of his doesn’t seem to interest anyone either, and that no one only rapes ‘once’, though he was accused of ‘sexual assault’ later too, which was dismissed however. Many unknown men have been accused of rape, and many celebrities ready for the milking, equally powerless to fight liars, and the more ‘controversial’ the artist, the more likely the public will believe the accuser. The ‘people’ will always have even less facts of any case than any jurors, hence blind condemnation on all levels. Voila, another ‘sex offender’.

Even a bunch of harmless streakers for a Halloween run with pumpkins on their heads are now called, yes, you’ve guessed it, ‘sex offenders’, just because they’re ‘naked’. I call it a hilarious idea, others call it amoral banter. And in fact, it’s called [sexual] PC overkill. People need to wake up and realise that we’re living in a sexually oversaturated culture since decades now, and young people have no other compass to follow other than the current ‘standards’ and do what the sexy fashion, sex-infused media, and their peers expects of them, and then wonder why they get hurt. Parents seem to think they can pass off their duties in raising their children to TV and films of all shades, the uncensored internet and then want to blame things like music, overtly sexy clips, violent video games or films, and sex-driven chatrooms for their children’s unsavoury behaviour. It’s the lack of parental involvement that is the problem, not the music, not the websites, not any violent TV or porn films they could just switch off. Parents should be watching what their children are doing, that way they are forced to spending time together and maybe they will actually bond in a way they should, and not unwittingly shape them into sexual repressed predators when they can’t jerk off in front of a porn movie.

And most of all, people should quit sexualising females, especially the young ones, in magazines, TV ads, fashion, films, anywhere, rewarding these same women for being sexual objects they otherwise decry being seen as, and QUIT blaming the men for these women being sexually active, no matter their age. Or punish them BOTH with anti-sex laws, not only the male. The radical feminists invented the ‘he said she said’ scenario to diminish the importance of [female] responsibility, the essential truth, while accentuating the believability of a female’s lie. In a false allegation of rape, the female complainant decides to proceed because she thought it would be her word against a male’s, because there was no proof to the contrary. It doesn’t take months or years for any person to decide that they have been raped, unless they are planning a crime. The radical feminists do not want the proof to become known if it is not in their favour. So, if a man said that he did not have sex with a particular woman, and she said that he did, then she would have to be, and must be, absolutely believed without any vital proof. No, that’s not how accountability and justice works, except in a skewed feminist’s world.

One of the most deluded remarks I’ve ever come across coming from a feminist’s lips, is this lunacy, and I’ll quote part from another blogger having posted it: “I concede that a tiny, inconsequential fraction of rape accusations are false. (‘Inconsequential’? Tell that the hundreds and thousand of innocent men behind bars!) But I also won’t be alone in a room with a man that goes on and on about false rape accusations. Said obsession indicates ulterior motives.” So, what ‘she’ appears to be saying in the blasé tonality of an ‘urban sophisticate’, that, any man who will not be silent about false rape accusations is a potential rapist? And not only a ‘potential’ rapist, but a ‘probable’ one too. Notice her exact wording: “Said obsession indicates ulterior motives.” Notice that she does not soften that phrase with modifiers? She does not inform us that said ‘obsession’ only ‘might’ indicate ‘ulterior motives’, that it only ‘implies’ or ‘hints’ at such ‘motives’, or that she only ‘feels’ that it so ‘implies’ or ‘hints’. No, she lays her position down in blunt, unequivocally factual terms. There is naught else to be inferred, but that any man who is ‘obsessed’ with the issue of false rape accusation has ‘ulterior motives’ — not ‘might’ have, but HAS.

Feminists have long used weasel words and sentences like this, applied clever ‘psychological’ tactics, that make the reader/listener believe their words as irrefutable fact. For she does not directly tell us what she means by ‘ulterior motives’, but embeds this in a context that leaves almost no room for any interpretation but to arrive at the man being a potential rapist. Such a man’s ostensible ‘motive’ might be political, but according to feminists his ‘ulterior motive’ is ‘personal’. How very like a deluded, self-cantered feminist, to amalgamate the personal with the political. So in plain English, why else would ‘she’ not be alone in a room with such a man? Does she mean to say, that if you are a man who ‘goes on and on’ about false rape accusations, then she expects that you would have the ulterior motive of raping her? I personally would not want to be alone in a room with any feminist because I think she would harbour the same ‘ulterior motive’ of falsely accusing me, and would gladly see me go to prison. Such women would do exactly that – since they don’t care shit about any other false rape accuser doing the same. These women are psychos, and all those who need to play out a rape scenario that hasn’t even occurred yet in order to become the ‘helpless victim’. It’s called demented masochism.

Another marked personality disorder of the feminist species, is ‘projection’, i.e., the attribution of ones own ideas, feelings or attitudes of blame or guilt toward other people, and this is called the wilful externalisation of [their] guilt. Conscious projection is usually a lie that reveals the [real] intent of the guilty, or responsibility as a defence against guilt. So in that sense, projection is related to denial. In any relationship, projection can be a ruse to hide one’s own act/s of violence, dishonesty, and/or moral turpitude. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the subconscious impulses or desires. Psychological projection is a defence mechanism where a person attributes their own bad behaviours to others without letting the conscious mind recognise them. (Or to expect others to lie or steal e.g. just because they do all the time.) See Lewis, a classic case of projection culminating in her ‘abuse’ lies. That ‘secret abuse fantasy’ she talked of she had dreamt about before her first nude flick, coupled with the typical smear campaign attempt by LA courts using this drug-addled ex-prostitute to influence the already unsound extradition. Radical feminists however would refer to this as ‘blaming the victim’, but the problem is, who is the actual victim? Polanski.

Polanski could have solved this entire problem in 1977 already, i.e., had his defence lawyer forced a trial on his behalf, or had his accuser simply been truthful and not lied to the grand jury panel who then decided to indict him on her vague claims. A guilty person avoids cross-examination in a trial, Polanski in fact wanted, but by Geimer’s failure to appear to stand trial and face her accused, under those circumstances his attorney would have found her guilty of perjury in nil time and entered Polanski into a judicial declaration of factual innocence, or of course, that fatal plea deal since she was underage. Unfortunately, the radical feminists would have said that this sensible action to tell the truth would have been ‘unfair’ to the young female, after she had sex with him. But mom told her to lie or had fallen for her lies already, and then mom decided to cry rape for her daughter Geimer in fact did not want, and that was that. Numerous defence attorneys testified that they allow and even encourage their clients to plea to a minor charge even when they are certain of the client’s innocence in order to avoid a trial. See Polanski, who had to plead just because she was underage.

Courts are not in the role of finding the truth, they are in the business of placating the radical feminists, or rather ‘helpless female’ scenario, and therefore men have to plead guilty to some ‘deal’, if accountable or not, or are sent inside to face more violation. No wonder Polanski said enough is enough and showed the LA courts the finger after he had done his time, and some pompous old media-junkie judge (who in fact had sex with jail bait too while being in his fifties, and when he was in his seventies held Polanski to his own brand of ‘justice’ and ‘morale’) thought it fun to send him back for another round of punishment, (while having his own barely age of consent partner at that time). And, DAs are even less in the business of addressing the facts, but twisting and turning things, who, on the one hand let real rapists or murderers get off on some technicality, or ‘expert witness’ statements tweaking science facts some more, able to make some brutal rape or assault look like the victim in question took active part in it even while unconscious despite actual physical evidence/injuries, while on the other hand some false rape accuser crying rape/sodomy gets equally away without the slightest signs of any violation or even casual ‘intercourse’.

Polanski himself once said many decades ago in an interview (for Playboy in December 1971) in regards to this rising ‘women’s movement’: “Anyone with a civilised mind endorsed the concept of equal pay for equal results long before women’s lib (aka ‘feminism’) and I endorse that concept. The problem is, women’s lib wants equal ‘pay’ for equal ‘work’. What if the ‘results’ are not the same? What if the man is better at his job? He should be paid more. And vice versa.” Quite – he also said, “The basic premise of women’s lib is that they [think they] are in some kind of slavery or subservient position, where even the name implies that they’re enslaved. Well, this premise sounds absurd to me, because sex (i.e., ‘gender’ the feminists don’t recognise anymore) isn’t a socials class, it divides humanity horizontally, (i.e., while having sex) not vertically. The women’s libbers argue that they weren’t given equal opportunities, but what I want to know is, what were they doing when these opportunities were given? Were they passed out one fine day? Or did it happen that men have dominated women for centuries because they were superior in the areas necessary in order to survive as a species?” Clever chap.

“I give women total freedom to come and go as they please, and I don’t make them do what they don’t want. I love women, I really do, as people, and I love bright women.” Sharon was very intelligent but not in the business to brag about it to ‘compete with men’, (or other women, but she would never be pushy about her intelligence in order to show people how clever she is). He said: “I rarely find an intelligent female companion with whom I can get along, for the reason that most women who are smart try to compete with the man. I’m charmed by the fact that there are women with whom you can discuss the molecular theory of light all evening, but there is nothing more enjoyable than a genuinely brilliant female companion who doesn’t turn the relationship into a contest of [gender] egos.” And he touched on the ‘game’, some women play, as in, and I quote: “Let’s say I meet a girl, and she tries to give me the impression that she desires to go to bed with me that same evening, although I can sense that it’s not her intention. That’s what I call ‘games’, and it lasts for about ten minutes. Then I simply lose interest. I don’t mind if she doesn’t want to have sexual relations with me, as long as she states it clearly by her behaviour.” Meaning, he would never force sex like any sensible man wouldn’t, especially if she said ‘no’.

Now, would you say he sounds more sensible and sensitive towards ‘womankind’ than these hardcore feminists that hate wo/men? I say that’s a BIG YES. Problem is, there are enough women out there today as then who give up mixed signals, play that ‘game’, (and to say that’s a myth is another feminist fabrication when that’s all but historical fact) or say one thing, then another, go back to whichever version, resulting in inevitable confusion ensuing for both, and then cry rape. So in that sense, Geimer certainly never made it clear through her ‘behaviour’ as I had analysed in-depth on my other blogs already, (or Lewis, who even had a six-months long affair with him), which is where the convenient ‘I said no’ lie comes in the feminists invented to nullify their/her own actions, since Geimer clearly never removed herself from his company at any given stage perfectly able to do so, really told him off, or even once half-heatedly showed ‘some resistance’ after that first kiss or caress. THAT had been a clear ‘sign’. Had she really said ‘no’, he’d let her be just the same, but she went with him, moved through the house and then had sex with him, and there never was any need to force himself on anyone with the next female waiting to share more sex with him never short of offers.

But, if women want to proclaim their ‘professional enslavement’, sexually, despite having sex as they like it with whom they like it, socially, despite the fact that they get every possible recognition in every public/political/domestic sector, financially, despite the fact that many have highly paid jobs, or the man supports them anyhow, or even earn more than men sometimes, let them. Let them play the pitiable, powerless little female, who think they need to be legally rendered impotent, or to ‘compete’ with men, or dominate males, rather than actually ‘be’ equal to men, i.e., ‘empowered’ as ‘females’, outside their biological differences not even they can change, no matter how much they’d like to alter their ‘gender’ to become more like men – ‘masculine’. Feminism is an oppressive confederacy of fear, panic and hysteria, driving both the criminalisation of the innocent and the criminality of the guilty. We will continue to fight a losing battle against sex crimes, wrong incarceration, and expanding government power until we confront the sexual ideology that is driving not only family breakdown and the ensuing social anomie, but the criminalisation of the male population per se.

We’re already there, and evermore repressive (mainly US) penal measures will only further erode sexual freedom that has reached already utterly repressed status, where ALL sex is vilified and punished with terrible results. Conservatives and moralists must rethink their approach to ‘crime’ in general and punishment and their unwitting collusion with America’s homegrown (anti-sex) feminists. That includes a vast number of false rape claims having started to erode other countries’ law and order systems too, seeing just how easy it is in the States. It’s no accident that the US has draconian anti-sex laws and sentences for the most minor offences and boasts the highest prison population in the world. The goal is to establish a slave state, manufacture criminals out of ordinary citizens by re/cycling them through multi-billion slave gulags for life. They also make very cheap workforces in prison – and I guarantee you, every single number plate in the US was made by an inmate – who might just have been raped, or is innocent of any crime to begin with.

With headlines like, ‘the horrors of widespread rape and abuse may only have started with sodomy, rape, oral copulation’, the press by and large goes along fuelling such prurient ‘obsessions’ it with more lies. Though in the UK these cases hardly end up with the innocent man incarcerated in prison for decades, ‘yet’, he however still has to endure months or even years of proceedings and jail time to finally see him freed leading to inevitable destruction of his life nonetheless through public exposure and economic disaster. Feminism was once a theory that embraced political, economic, social and sexual equality without regard to gender. However, feminism is now redefined by women who have embraced Fascism, a political movement that places self-invented ideology above the individual. This movement is lead by a dictatorial clique of women who have embraced their own self-conceived and self-obsessed notions of feminist superiority. The fascist movements of the past tried selective genocide and the fascist feminists of today are engaged in selective ‘gendercide’. The problem is, law enforcement agencies, DAs and judges have become the dupes and lackeys of these radical feminists.

The (US) Centre for Military Readiness of all sources says: ‘false rape accusations have been filed to extort money from celebrities, to gain sole custody of children in divorce cases, and even to escape military deployments to war zones’ – while all men have to be ready to be drafted or be fined, unlike even ONE female. With more and more innocent men ending up in prison, rape occurring there is usually not a onetime horror event, no, it’s often yearlong sex slavery, multiple hour long gang rape, comparable only to in/famous sex abuse cases like that of American Gerrido. Or Austrian Fritzl, who had locked up his daughter for over two decades, viciously raped her almost very day and yet she could move on after a mere year of therapy once freed, while some pathetic ‘cry rape victim’ moans about consensual sex. Any such atrocities done to a woman is relatively rare no matter what feminists proclaim, or even to a onetime brutal rape of a female, who might want to be ‘pitied without end’ in contrast, while a man being tortured in prison can equally never escape his ordeal being a daily occurrence, locked in a vicious cycle of horrendous abuse.

Still, no reactions from feminist who instead worry that consensual sex with an underage girl and an older man is oh so heinous rape and that expensive luxury, or even cheap, drug addled prostitutes are victim of rape, yet call for no one to get these teens off the streets and the ‘economic’ teenage prostitute some help. Teens like Lewis, who were enabled to cry abuse decades later out of feminist spite for a mother who didn’t care about what her draughter was up to, or of course more likely, the teenager simply lied to her single parent, played her like she played her older clients she then later swapped for rich Hollywood artists. While America’s criminalisation may have a number of contributing causes, it coincides precisely with the rise of organised feminism. This highly contentious women’s movement became a vanguard of conservative ‘law-and-order’ politics, and women’s organisations played a central role in the consolidation of this conservative ‘victims’ rights’ movement that emerged in the 1970s. To which Polanski fell the most in/famous victim by now.

But, unlike Geimer, who no doubt regretted her teenage fantasies and tried to make good on it, (utterly pointlessly of course, since the law today is even more corrupt/ed than then and the LA DAs of today clearly don’t care what she wants, since it for one would exculpate her once accused director of ‘rape’ more clearly and fully) Lewis on the other hand is nothing more than an ugly Hollywood has-been, a former teen prostitute-come-‘model’-come-softcore-porn-‘actress’-come-drug-addict-come-cry-rape-accuser of the worst kind, a malicious and deluded attention-seeking fantasist, with perhaps an ‘excessive libido’ and mental problems based on reasons unknown that most certainly have NOTHING to do with Polanski, living in her ‘sexual abuse’ fantasy world that has little basis in actual truth.

Lewis and her sleazeball ‘attorney’ are pathetic women who have too much legal power over men, and the judicial system is all too ready to encourage them to be/come the poor, defenceless ‘victims’ of oh so abusive men, after SHE kept prostituting herself on her own free will and Allred claims to have been the victim of ‘rape’ in her youth. Maybe these fantasts should in fact ask a real rape victim or sexual abuse survivor to know what real rape or abuse is, male and female, and not promenade like cheap whores before the world press to declare some older film director had sexually manipulated and abused his own partner decades ago, in a sad show of clear fabrications US/Hollywood style. One could almost wish they would be really raped to know better, both a clear insult to any genuine rape victim, crying for pathetic attention like that. Good the majority in fact still don’t believe her pathetic lies for whatever reasons.

While the Polanski case was boiling hot to renewed world attention to scold him some more, a very successful Californian DA of all people who prosecuted sex cases of all things was accused of, yes, rape, oral copulation, sodomy, anything under the sun in multiple counts two years back now by a female colleague, after they had very rough sex everyone knew they’re into, and that after five months of ‘waiting’, no evidence, no proof, nothing to back her up. Including the old, he ‘lured’ her into a sex trap tactic by the prosecution. (Just like Polanski’s original prosecutor tried to apply, while he now tries even harder to see him freed.) But guess what? The DA’s career is dead while his accuser was transferred to another county under the shield of her female anonymity. The fact that he committed adultery doesn’t speak in his favour, but now he faces years in prison despite not the slightest corroboration of any violation or even any accuser facing him in court, and he of all people knows the system, the right people, has his own counsel, and he’s still as helpless as anyone else accused of rape. What chances do men like Polanski stand, or any other unknown victim? ZERO.

On the one hand DAs have too much power to mis/handle a case the way they like [to bungle] it, play god with the defendant, and on the other hand they’re trapped by their own laws these feminists have imposed on them. Prosecutors routinely convict innocent people for self-gratification, higher social status and money, after drawing it out endlessly and still see the man behind bars. I wonder how these people can sleep at night, but then again, they have no conscience to plague them. Judges and attorneys should treat litigants with civility and respect, not contempt and ‘guilty until proven innocent’ attitudes. Trials are supposed to reveal the truth, but many lawyers seek to hide the truth through theatrics, finger pointing, shouting, brow beating, berating, deception, and manipulation. Withholding evidence is a fact. Falsifying records by judges and attorneys is a fact. Maybe sooner or later men will finally wake up, seeing their own being systematically abused by their own lawmakers, already standing by to sign another false rape or sexual abuse statement, endorsing more injustice done, and while you read this, another man was just sent into hell, and another innocent man raped another man.

All in the name of cry rape junkies like Lewis and ‘women’ like Allred, who care nothing about justice, but money and fame to buy another posh dress to parade her next ‘client’ in front of the other media whores. Or even Geimer, who should have the guts and come fully clean finally after she has done so in little ways already, tried to help end the nightmare. But not hard enough, and her campaigning to see Polanski freed is as futile as his own attempts to have the case dropped or the plenty judicial transgressions litigated. I’m sure they can arrange another handy ‘plea bargain’ for her to avoid perjury charges landing her in prison, [for] being a woman. Not even a real ‘victim’ means anything to any of them, let alone someone like Geimer openly petitioning for her once accused, even saying that the 42 days at Chino were ‘excessive’. I doubt any genuine rape victim would ever do  so, or dismiss the events as blown out of all proportion, ignoring decades of public demonisation and media humiliation she had initiated. Or her mother by ignoring her wishes not to get the law involved. I bet you, if shove came to push, women like Lewis and Allred would be the first ones to spread their legs to get where they wanted. As seen with their dubious ‘careers’. No wonder they invented the word whore.

Geimer at least had some decency and publicly declared in 2000 that Polanski never harmed her, forced her, was forceful or mean with her. Problem is, hardly anyone knows about that, too busy spreading more slander and lies as if they get paid for it. Like the media. Once Geimer was asked if she would call on the law if her daughter ‘cried rape’, (unless forcible rape was evident of course) and she said, ‘no’, though she only has three boys, all in their early twenties and one is at least thirty by now. So, does that mean she got wise? Or doesn’t trust the law? Or any female’s accusations? Remembers what damage it did to Polanski? Or, simply because she’s afraid that one of her sons might be done for statutory rape, or become a victim of someone like herself? A false rape accuser? Her son/s would have zero chances like everyone else in proving that the accuser lied. One could almost wish she’d have to deal with that one day, and her mother – from that angle: the condemned accused. Maybe that would wake her up finally, to come clean.

One more ridiculous but equally devastating case came to light here in the UK, or Ireland to be precise. Last year, some sixteen year old boy slept with his sixteen year old girlfriend a second time. But, after the girl’s father didn’t like the boy anymore for some reason, he called the law on him while they were intimate, and guess what, now the boy looks at custodial time, yes, hard prison, for sex! And, despite the fact that BOTH were of the age of consent! BUT, according to a ‘new law’, based on a ancient law, i.e., conehead Cromwell’s time, and, after the law was ‘carefully’ and ‘deliberately’ re/defined by our lawmakers in 2006, thus having made it illegal for any person under seventeen to have sex with another person under seventeen! Proudly adding: ‘a female ‘child’ under the age of seventeen shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act by reason ‘only’ of her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse’ – meaning, ONLY THE MALE is ‘guilty’ of the sex! How’s that for ‘equality! And, ‘female child’? Gee, one day any woman under twenty-one is considered a freaking ‘child’ – so much for equality to the male species and empowering females, hooray!

Sometimes I think the feminists have invented feminism only in order to render all women infants so they can moan about it, go on about it, shed all responsibilities, hence, need/ed to ‘liberate’ themselves from such imaginary oppression. No wonder men rightly call extremist feminists, ‘Feminazis’, which apparently first appeared in dictionaries in 1989. The term ‘Feminazi’ refers to an extremist, militant, aggressive feminist who is harsh, domineering, and dictatorial. (Like your average abusive [female] house dragon basically.) The doctrine of the Feminazis includes practices and policies of extreme transformation without accepting the consequences of their misinformation, detrimental changes, and/or damaging lies. For an example, the term misogyny originally meant ‘hate the queen’ referring to the excesses of Queen Mary the First (‘Bloody Mary’) and not the ‘hatred of women’ as claimed by these Feminazis. Or of course redefining words like, ‘victim’, ‘crime’, ‘rape’, ‘child’.

Some years ago, a US newspaper printed a highly misandruous (or rather preposterous) article about ‘spousal abuse’, describing the ‘relationship’ between ‘heartbeat and blood pressure’. Now, get this, if a man’s heartbeat was slow, normal, or high then he abuses women. If his blood pressure was low, normal, or high then he abuses women. And best of all, if there was zero heartbeat or blood pressure, he still abuses women, though technically he was in fact, dead! In other words, no one could pass that ‘test’ and is an example of ridiculous pseudo science, a system of frivolous theories and idiotic fabrications that are neither scientific nor true. It’s like believing in real witches, who then of course were hunted by the male Inquisition while being as innocent as can be. This damaging right to lie by inventing such headshaking nonsense and creating false statistics, has become the cornerstone of the Feminazi conspiracy. And it sounds very much like the Rape Trauma Symptoms manual, where every mental state of a woman can be interpreted as having been raped. I call it the need for a lobotomy.

Women have fought for ‘equality’ for years, and now we have long passed the point where NO equality exists anymore, with women taking up all these feminist ‘rights’ to be ‘equal’ to men, but in reality have now become man’s vicious ‘dominator’ who can get away with crimes for their gender on top, rather than be ‘equal’ in life and in the eyes of the law and are punished accordingly. Many men, women, boys and girls are being abused by only women every day, and because of society’s equally erroneous belief that women don’t ‘abuse’ the way men do, they get away with their own heinous crimes. The fact that women are in the minority in regards to ‘rape’, violent or otherwise, but in the majority of sexual abuse, this Polanski case however is no longer about any ‘sex with a minor’, but a highly politicised, and most of all feminists battleground who hijacked it for their own anti-male agendas having forced these horrible US anti-sex and ‘shield’ laws on men some forty years ago Polanski fell victim to, using today’s ‘child protection’ issues as a means to vilify all men and victimise him some more in the go.

It’s about time we had laws that not only prosecuted men for ‘rape’, but prosecuted women as well with no chance to hide behind any ‘Rape Shield Laws’. Let’s face it, if the feminista had their way, they would ban all soft and of course hardcore pornography, even harmless erotica or nude photography of even adult women, (but not male nudity of course) raise the [sexual] age of consent to twenty-one at least, and define it as paedophilia, or ‘visual rape’, for a man to even look at any woman below this age let alone touch her innocently. I fail to see how this, in any way, is constructive or beneficial to women. Conversely, it is highly damaging to men, to women, to children and to society as a whole. As an example, if a man needed to wait to sleep with his girlfriend for years because the state says ‘no’, yet both could say ‘yes’ long before that, he might just as well go out there and really rape someone, (or get himself an older woman, or even prostitute) if he doesn’t even have at least some porn to get off on before that. Or his girlfriend for that matter.

I would rather argue that, as in violent depictions on screen, porn serves as a catalyst, a means of ‘passive release’, not to ‘actively’ act on it, since most people would ‘react’ against such violence, or sexual violence, not feel enticed by and to act it out. If someone does, he’d done it anyway – they don’t need any ‘media triggers’ – or else we’d not have had any violence before the dawn of films and porn, nude magazines or even aggressive music. Studies have shown a correlation between access to (acted) pornography and the numbers of actual rapes across many areas, which in essence means, people who find release in legal pornography are less likely to build up the sexual tension and desires to commit to something such as rape. Masturbation falls into that field, since it’s the safest and to many the more satisfying sex per se. Since these feminists therefore have lost their battle over pornography, (but don’t care about any ‘violence’) that their claims were shown to be wrong, and the advent of the internet, which gave everyone access to huge amounts of pornography for free, meant that their mean-spirited and misguided dream of banning it had disappeared forever.

Child pornography on the other hand, is an issue about which everyone can agree. Therefore, the misandrist propaganda has switched from the claim that all men are rapists, to the claim that all men are ‘child rapists’. I.e., mis/use child abuse issues for their own agendas too now, jumping on the paedophilia bandwagon running off track by now. See Polanski, who came from being a ‘simple rapist’ to becoming a ‘child rapist/paedophile’ monster predator suddenly. Their message, however, has remained the same; that all men are evil, and that male sexuality is essentially violent and coercive. Also, because they however are limiting pornography that depicts women who only appear to be minors, i.e., flat-chested, or slim Asian girls, they’re removing that ‘release’ from actual paedophiles who therefore seek online and/or true child abuse depiction/action. Hence, because these paedophiles do not get the adequate release they seek from legal pornographic materials, they may be more prone to seek that release from actual children.

What these brainless feminists are in fact doing, is bringing actually more endangerment to actual women and children on the streets and into the homes of any country in a twisted turn. So, which is more important? Not letting ‘adult’ women consent to sexual activities on or off film because people ‘might’ be offended by, or the sex, or the way they look, or the safety of children? What about teenagers that look like adult women? There are plenty of females aged thirteen to eighteen that look like they’re in their twenties. Not only for how they dress and behave, but there’re taller, larger breasted, fully developed; see Geimer and Lewis, both once very luscious, exotic, attractive and desirable in their own ways. So, the decision to ban the depiction of smaller proportioned women in any medium, because they may resemble a minor, does nothing more than feign morals and cause even further endangerment. A FACT I’m sure these feminists would never recognise.

Which brings me to a more serious case from Ireland, where the court heard harrowing evidence of how a woman had forced one son to have sex with her when he was just thirteen years old and she was thirty-six. Now, apart from this being a case of years of appalling child neglect, criminal repeat incest and clearly rape, she got, what? Under the current Act, a man coming before the court on this charge would face life in prison, but, the maximum sentence for a woman was, yes, a mere seven years for all of it, so much for equality before the law even in the UK! And better still, when men like Polanski engage in consensual sex albeit once equally ‘unlawful sex with a minor’, the words ‘child rape’ and of course ‘child rapist’ are used by both the media and the law, but not for a ‘woman’, oh no, and he could have looked at a whopping fifty years for casual sex (no matter the attorneys did not demand any prison time knowing it was not actual rape.)

Also, they love calling him a ‘sexual predator’ – just for sleeping with many females, of which only a few were ‘very young’ contrary to popular belief while he was older – but oddly enough, no one else very promiscuous was or is called a predator. No, they were/are called ‘playboys’, not ‘paedophiles’. So, why aren’t women called the same? Usually it’s whore or suchlike, which probably is more to the fact in many cases, but, why not call them sexual predators too then? They want ‘equality’, so let’s call non-professional prostitutes and overtly libidinous women like Lewis sexual predators too, since she proudly declared SHE had seduced every single man, including ‘kinky’ Polanski. Men have to endure this kind of name-calling, while women are called ‘sexually liberated’, ‘explorative’, not, ‘being sexually irresponsible’ or ‘manipulative’,  as they call men who sleep around, while they think women as only ‘sexually experimenting’, or ‘learning’. No, when it comes to women, all these descriptions of female ‘sexual conduct’ or ‘sex crimes’ are toned down suddenly, while men are called ‘sex offenders’ or worse. I call it double standards.

And here’s something equally utterly unbelievable: a twenty year old young woman wanted a seventeen year old boy to use a condom but he didn’t have one, so they had sex without. She then reported the encounter as, yes you guessed it, ‘rape’, since she obviously had ‘semen proof’. Though this woman can say no to unprotected sex and was quite sensible insisting that he wore a condom, and the boy was just of age, but, to do it anyhow and later cry rape however is simply criminal. If that had not happened in England, and no charges were pressed, in the US males like him had been sent down and straight into hell for years of terrible abuse, since the younger an inmate, prettier, helpless or feminine, the more likely he falls victim to rape and longterm sexual abuse to become someone’s ‘bitch’. Rape accusations like this are a malicious form of personal vendetta aided by social/legal control women exercise over boys/men, mis/using the police and judiciary system as unwitting thugs condoning worse crimes committed against the defenceless defendant. This is wrong on so many levels, but, the age of the feminist lunacy is only just beginning, and it’s about time men wake up to this. Or real women.

Now, the other day there was the BBC headline: July 4th, 2010 – Man raped in Ipswich parkland – which obviously caught my attention. But all it says is this: ‘A 21-year-old man has been arrested after a man was raped in parkland in Ipswich (Suffolk, England). The attack on a man in his 20s happened in the early hours of the morning at the Alderman Road recreation ground. Police have arrested a man from Ipswich on suspicion of rape. He is currently in custody at Ipswich Police Station where he will be questioned. An area of the recreation ground has been cordoned off while officers carry out inquiries in the afternoon’. Though it isn’t much to read, but just so to alert other men that this happened in their area, the UK also never releases the ‘victim’s’ name, and the alleged assailant in this case is not named either – anymore – since we have changed the law that all accused remain anonymous too, which seems to be implemented permanently now and also regardless of gender. Unless this is a one-off where the attacker was not named, I’m waiting for another case of a woman having been attacked to see if the assailant will also not be named – anymore. Of course, it is better for neither to be named, and this young man obviously went to the police and the attack was deemed as genuine, so it is possible to keep both identities undisclosed. Just not in the feminism pervaded US.

Feminists do NOT really oppose ‘rape’ at any rate, since they think that male-on-male rape is funny in contrast. It’s a joke when a man – who essentially is not designed to be penetrated at all – is penetrated sexually without his permission if they might be into anal sex. It’s a crime worse than murder when a woman – who is at least anatomically designed to accommodate a penis inside of her – is penetrated sexually without her permission. It’s a crime, sure, but certainly not worse than murder or many other ‘physical’ crimes. Male rape is just as barbaric and the most underreported felony in America, yet our society treats it like a joke. This shows that these women are incapable of administering justice in an equitable manner. Most men are physically stronger, true, so, if feminists can control men with backing from the [male] state, to remove that physical difference, then men and women will be ‘equal’ in their logic. That’s their ultimate goal: to neuter male strength on a physical level, since ‘power’ is in the hands of [too] many [unqualified] women already. Because [most] women aren’t as strong, it’s only fair that men not be allowed to use their strength or even threaten using it, yet demand a ‘strong hand’ or ‘real man’ when they need it. These women have pitted men against the men since decades now, and men are stupid enough to let them!

But, make no mistake, ‘women’ are not the enemy, no, they are being used by these feminists alike to create class division between men and women, to divide and conquer us both, as the principal means to usurp and rule our people. Women will defer to their innate or instructed promise of entitlement to their needs, men to the needs of women and us both to the state and working industry who will increasingly dictate the terms of our sacred bond, sexual or otherwise. We must both fight the tyranny of feminism, not ‘women’, and the men who allow them to continue and endorse atrocities done to their own. Obviously not in a vigilante style as they do it, but by forcing them to rethink these laws and the damaging power these women have over the system, Feminism, despite all its ranting on about empowerment and equality, has achieved the exact opposite by very effectively reducing women to the status of, yes, ‘children’.

However, I’ve noticed that ‘children’ are often held to a higher standard of accountability than grown women or ‘little girls’, no matter their actual age, and of course men when it comes to ‘punishment’. But, we must not criticise, we must not condemn, we must never question any ‘female’. Even if we’re talking about something as horrific as the murder of infants by the perverted hands of a ‘mother’ that was rampant only last decade in France, of which none of these clearly mentally disturbed serial killers ended up in prison of course, but ‘therapy’ at most for some other fictitious ‘symptom’ called ‘pregnancy denial’. How about a father, who’s in ‘fatherhood denial’, killed his infant he didn’t ‘want’ anymore? No, he gets life for murder or decades for manslaughter, no matter his own ‘mental state’.

And, there have been gruesome cases in the States some decades back, where young boys were found violently sodomised with objects like branches not meant to go where they were inserted by a serial rapist/killer, tortured and murdered in appalling fashions, but because the ignorant press named them ‘dead gay boys’, indicating that, just because they had been violated anally, they ‘must’ be ‘gay’, rather than just terribly violated ‘boys’ picked at random, with none of the victims ever even thinking of becoming ‘gay’, let alone were at that very young prepubescent age. Terribly prejudiced ignorance and insult I call it. No one gave a shit about their horrid ordeals bar the distraught families, while any case of a female having been found raped or killed, no matter their age, they’d engage in nationwide manhunts treating them with special ‘tact’ and ‘care’. So much for ‘equality’ before the law, or even in death. Same goes for poor or rich ‘victims’, coloured or white, known or unknown, and instantly no one cares anymore when it’s a poor black chap ending up a victim of a violent sex crime. I call it despicable dehumanisation on a gender/race/status basis.

Now, believe or not, some radical Feminazis (I also refuse to name on my blog not to soil it) have come up with these most perverted rantings (I’m sure people who know them will recognise who said what):

“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” So in that case all women were raped, are raped  and will be raped every day and night, and all men are rapists. Right, what loony bin did that one escape from again?

“Marriage is an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership.” *shakes head at a total loss for words over that mind-boggling bullshit*

“Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalised expression of contempt for women’s bodies.” Wow, and there I was thinking it’s an expression of lust and love, affections and in fact procreation… and REAL women in fact love THAT sort of ‘contempt’!

“Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks.” *shakes head some more*

“Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.” Be lunacy thy name. Funny how SO many women CAN live a safe life however in the company of ‘men’ claiming patriarchy is everywhere already. And funny too, how many women ‘betray’ their friends etc. by accusing them of rape, and ‘s/mother’ their children when they’re fed up with them.

“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” ‘Professional rapist’? Oh you mean, men like Warren Beatty who slept with more than ten thousand females! (Since Polanski only managed half of that number in his life, shame on you Roman!)

“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticising her own oppression.” Wow, THAT must be the most disturbing bullshit I’ve ever heard, or read. ‘Eroticising her own oppression,’ I call it mental disturbance of the worst kind to even think of!

“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.” Is there a word called ‘überlunacy’? It IS for that quote. So in that case, Lewis was never raped, hallelujah!

“Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don’t like it, bad luck – and if you get in my way I’ll run you down.” Ignorant, callous, and murderous too – no wonder men begin shunning women.

“It is not only men convicted of rape who believe that the only thing they did that was different from what men do all the time is get caught.” Is there ANY ‘logic’ in that? Guess not.

“If sexuality is central to women’s definition and forced sex is central to sexuality, rape is indigenous, not exceptional, to women’s social condition.” Sure, in your utopian view of ‘sex’. i.e., self-imposed victimisation. Are these people real?

“Under law, rape is a sex crime that is not regarded as a crime when it looks like sex. (Um, because it’s NOT ‘rape’?) The law, speaking generally, defines rape as intercourse with force or coercion and without consent. (Which it IS.) Like sexuality under male supremacy, this definition assumes the sadomasochistic definition of sex: intercourse with force or coercion can be or become consensual.” Sorry, didn’t get that ‘feminist logic’ either: what ‘force’ in ‘consensual’? Illogical balderdash.

“The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist.” And there I was thinking it was the other way round! I thought sex was a private thing. Guess not. Looks like feminists flaunt their self-imposed ‘institution of sexual intercourse’ like whores do.

“In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” So, they invented their fictional oppression as a ‘group’ in order to avoid responsibility as a ‘single woman’ in sex they blame on men as rape, while in fact having forced these laws on themselves to be rendered completely impotent on all levels to avoid all accountability in the first place and then call it rape? How very handy.

“Acquaintance rape is more common than left-handedness, alcoholism and heart attacks.” Really? And I thought there are millions and millions of alcoholics on this planet or die on a heart attack, as opposed to a few thousand female rape victims per year globally. Oh, forgot, the majority of rape victims are male by now.

“Rape represents an extreme behaviour, but one that is on a continuum with normal male behaviour within the culture.” ‘Continuum’? (To boldly go where no man has… read such bullshit…) I wonder why there aren’t more men in prison for ACTUAL rape then!

“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” Like ‘how’ exactly? No, their lives ended right there and NOTHING can be ‘gained’!

“Compare victims’ reports of rape with women’s reports of sex. They look a lot alike. The major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it.” Because it ain’t ‘abnormal’ and therefore ‘wrong’, but ‘normal’? No? Guess not. Besides, that’s rather contradictory, if ‘normal intercourse happens so often’ while in fact proclaiming that ALL intercourse is ‘rape’. Idiot.

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” Reminds me of the ‘honourable (US) duty’ to call Polanski a rapist and/or paedophile, predator… that’s nothing more than artificially created oppression in order to promote their ‘racism style hatred’ set against the ‘class of men’, which is unlawful in all other sectors to incite. But not when it comes to misandry.

“Female heterosexuality is not a biological drive or an individual women’s erotic attraction or attachment to another human animal which happens to be male. Female heterosexuality is a set of social institutions and practices. Those definitions are about the oppression and exploitation of women by men.” ‘Human animal’? So, females are ‘animals’ too then? Guess so. And, sex is a ‘social thing’? Politicised self-imposed oppression more like. I call it convenient ‘group irresponsibility’ in order to accuse the other ‘group’, i.e., men.

“Men are distinguished from women by their commitment to do violence rather than to be victimised by it.” Funny how many women kill and abuse too, and better still, they obviously love for men to be ‘victimised’ while only decrying female victimisation, not even mentioning child victims.

“No woman needs intercourse; few women escape it.” Frigid anti-sex feminists most certainly don’t ‘need’ sex, they’re all repressed perverts with a very twisted view of sex, while real women do in order to have a balanced sex and mental health life.

“Seduction is often difficult to distinguish from rape. In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine.” Or ‘champagne’, as in Polanski’s case! Sorry, forgot, Geimer chose the champagne, and, ‘ALL men are rapists’ – especially film directors! Seduction is NOT ‘rape’ – seduction takes much longer than any ‘rape act’, during which the female has plenty time to abort the sex, not ‘surrender’ to it, and then cry rape.

“You think intercourse is a private act; (um, yeah, it is) it’s not, it’s a social act. (No wonder the ‘state’ can prosecute, sorry, persecute, men for sexual acts without end! See Polanski.) Men are sexually predatory in life; and women are sexually manipulative. When two individuals come together and leave their gender outside the bedroom door, then they make love.” And there I was thinking feminists don’t recognise ‘gender’, and that sex between man and woman IS gender based or else they’re in fact ‘a-sexual’, no matter the actual ‘gender’. Guess not. But then again, if women are ‘sexually manipulative’, false cry rape accusers are the best example. Shot yourself in the foot with that idiot remark!

These women are mentally ill, to put it bluntly, and should be held responsible for having caused so much damage, and be done for hate speech. This is beyond ‘freedom of speech’, this is inciting hatred directed at a very large group of people, i.e., all men, that directly lead/s to atrocities done to them. Yet, hardly any of them ever paid for it, and most of these false rape accusers, while the law looks the other way even if it has all the evidence NOT to put someone behind bars. If a man would call for justice, they’re being ridiculed, punished some more, and heaven forbid some vigilante to actually seek out such an accuser to make an example of her. One might even lose the plot entirely and really rape their accuser, since men-on-man violence instigated by such a rape crier has seen them behave like monsters against their own on many a horrible occasion. Several men who had been cornered, destroyed, or were released after being found innocent and their accuser got away with it, or after months and years of horrors endured behind bars, have taken the law into their own hands and killed their accusers, since they had absolutely nothing left to lose. Of course, they did and will end up on death row, when such a tragedy could have been avoided.

But, feminists will forever continue handing over all the power of ‘legislated sex’ and propagation of violence to men that way, look the other way when their own are violated in the process. But then again, ‘feminists’ aren’t real women anyhow; they’re ugly caricatures like Lewis, whining little children, disempowered jellyfish out of water with no spine, while a real woman takes responsibility, can be strong, take the pain, control, in love, sex, in every aspect of life without the need to look for a man’s ‘strong hand’, she will only bite, or find a ‘law’ to abuse, take the easy way out and lump her own mistakes or failures on the man. No, she accepts the consequences and through determination and strength will never make that mistake again, end of. Running to mommy or daddy to take care of things is pathetic, weak-willed, and unworthy of strong women. If they tried and still failed, fine, then ask for help and try again, not blame others. Don’t just take the easy road to avoid accountability, no, stop playing the pathetic victim and harvest your own achievements and failures for a change. Good or bad. And most of all, stop crying rape!

There are several reasons recognised (so far) for someone to make a false rape or sexual abuse accusation:

1) To obtain a feeling or ‘power’ – real or imagined.

2) To obtain ‘sympathy’ and attention from others – for whatever selfish/deluded reasons.

3) To serve as a rational (or rather illogicality) for their feelings of sexual guilt over their own wilful conduct and/or to avoid personal responsibility.

4) To conceal an affair – which accounts to a large majority of claims.

5) Thought she might be pregnant (by someone else).

6) To test husband’s (and/or lover’s/boyfriend’s) love.

7) Failure to pay man in question, (like rent etc.) or extortion of accused.

8 ) Thought she might have caught VD from another lover/one-night stand etc.

9) To get revenge on someone they are angry at, envious of, or even their victim’s new partner –‘jilted lover’ springs to mind.

10) To get enjoyment in seeing someone else suffer – for whatever sick reasons.

11) To get monetary ‘compensation’ the easy way – especially when their partner is rich.

12) Because of actual or faked mental illness – the first of which might be excusable (though no one gave a shit that a young, mentally ill boy who had harmless sexual contact with another boy was sent into prison hell).

13) Because of someone being a minor – since parents might ‘disapprove’ of underage sex instead of admitting to the sex to cut it short. Or better still, not kiss and tell to send the adult partner into hell. See Polanski.

I guess all but 4 – 8 and 13 of the ‘reasons’ are applicable in Lewis’ case, though I highly doubt she didn’t ‘profit’ from her lies money-wise no matter what she said, while Geimer falls into number 11 and 13 only, since she inexplicably sued him so many years later, and because she was a minor. And possibly 1, 2 and 3 (or even 4 and 6), for her trumped up claims of first, ‘Polanski had sex with me’ (her boyfriend didn’t believe) changing into whatever else she had accused him of suddenly, (to believe it) only to recant all that in one way or the other much later to make it a simple case of ‘he had sex with me’ again, albeit unlawful for her age. In fact, she’s a hypocrite and BOTH are false rape accusers, plain and simple: Ms Geimer, who however made good on her mistake by campaigning for him once she had found agency as an adult, and most of all Lewis, who however made the even bigger mistake to ever have tried to smear him in the most disgusting form, campaigning for crooked DA Cooley, and there’s NO excuse for it WHATSOEVER either way. Both should be held liable, end of.

Funny how ‘violence against women’, men, or even children is ‘acceptable’ viewing on TV, films, games, on the news, while consensual sex is not, and I can see headlines like this in a few years time: “Man sent to prison for life for having sex with a 30-year-old woman.” Why? Because she USED to be underage! Sometimes I wonder ‘why’ there IS ‘violence’ against women, or children, in domestic situations, other than arbitrary attacks men fall victim to at an even higher rate. So, could it be that the man in fact tried to defend himself in some form, and then is sent down for ‘domestic violence’? Of course, to even think so would be a sacrilege in feminists’ eyes. Women who attack or abuse men for apparently no reason other than exerting power, control and sadism over them, they oddly enough are hardly ever punished, and on top receive all sorts of ‘help’, or ‘counselling’ to sort out their poor confused female brain, while men are sent to prison to brutalise them some more, so they can be turned into real monsters by other men in a vicious cycle of abuse.

Sadly, many men and boys who were sexually abused by women are locked in silence, shame, and self-loathing, mental disturbance and other distressing longterm emotional states that might even turn dangerous, destructive. However, ‘society’ tells the males that not only was their experience not abuse, but that they should have ‘enjoyed’ it, and if they didn’t there must be something terribly wrong with them. Even when their experiences are recognised as abuse, they may be viewed as having been ‘weak’ or ‘not man enough’ because they were unable to stop it, defend themselves, or put it behind them. Female perpetrators can be just as violent as men. Yet, the stereotype and reality of the ‘emotionally clingy’ female perpetrator is given more attention because it confirms our erroneous beliefs that women are weak, emotionally dependent, and non-violent. (Since they of course have occupied that ‘role’ par excellence since decades now, i.e., self-created ‘victimhood’ they can ride whenever needed). I have heard of horrendous stories from men (and women) that were beaten and tortured by their mothers and other women in their lives, and not only in the context of sexual abuse. And, most got away with it, while the male perpetrator doing the same, did not.

Odd how people fail to realise every aspect of their lives is long being controlled by the same feminists (also through many men) in power, just like the articles about this old sex case are doctored, leaving no room for doubts or Polanski’s innocence. Or of course, when the general public starts having too much sex and fun like he had, regardless of gender, orientation, or age, and must pay for it. No, you are NOT allowed to know the facts, or to have casual sex and fun, or with luscious willing teens, unless of course, your every sex act and fun is regulated by the (US) government. Or cry rape accusers. American feminists have aggressively damaged the US social infrastructure (especially men’s and boys’ lives), and their wreckage is on a monumental scale by now and in danger of flooding the rest of the planet soon. It has already, and plenty cases appear/ed in Europe too. The amazing part is that they all get a pass by everyone, men alike, and that since four decades now. We don’t need to analyse these delusional feminists anymore, we need to analyse why nobody stands up to these insane people. No, we need to analyse why the male establishment allows such institutionalised horrors done to their own.

To cite from another false rape accusation site with in-depth articles, in regards to the ‘she asked for it’ rhetoric, the fact that a woman dresses like the proverbial slut, drinks to excess with men she doesn’t know, and engages in sex play with strangers, does not mean that the woman is inviting men to rape them. Of course not. Ever. It is preposterous to even think that. However, this conduct is evidence that, in fact, she either intended to have just harmless fun or indeed seeks consensual sex. That in contrast is common sense. Suggesting that a woman is likely intended to have consensual sex is not the same as claiming ‘she asked to be raped’. But, it IS suggesting that she might also be lying about being raped once she called on the law afterwards, i.e., once sobered up, and NO evidence points to any rape. That’s of course the last thing the ‘sexual grievance industry’ wants us to be thinking, even if the woman is lying. Meaning, the ‘sexual grievance industry’ wants to turn ALL consensual sex into rape. So when a provocatively dressed young woman goes out, gets drunk, and has sex she later regrets, it’s the liberal feminists who say ‘she asked for it’ by describing her experience as ‘rape’, NOT the men.

Clearly, women are in a position where they need to take responsibility for themselves, but, to commit a growing criminal act, perpetrated exclusively by women against men, i.e., cry rape, is simply unacceptable. Funny thing is, with all these highly biased ‘laws’ in place making a proper defence impossible for the accused, but easier for the women to report a genuine rape, guess what, nothing has ever worked to curb alleged underreporting, and underreporting is supposedly still rampant. As but one example, on college campuses, the supposed hotbed for modern rape, therefore more than 95% of students who are sexually assaulted supposedly still remain silent, we are told. So, all the rape reforms, all the bending over backwards to get victims to ‘come forward’ have evidently been a waste of time. Meaning, NO more rapes are reported than before, let alone in epidemic proportions feminist always proclaim. The still prevalent anonymity for the presumptively innocent has nothing to do with whether women come forward. Anonymity does not send a message that real rape victims should not be believed any more than anonymity for rape accusers sends a message that rape accusers should be believed over the men and boys they accuse.

The message conveyed by this very limited anonymity plan is that the harm of publicly identifying falsely accused men is unconscionable, because a rape claim is loathsome and because, once a rape claim is alleged, unlike other allegations of criminality, it is nearly impossible to disprove. Unless someone goes to great lengths to dissect a claim and finds just how illogical and uncorroborated it is. Of course, the sexual grievance industry doesn’t bother discussing the harm to the presumptively innocent, ever. If women want equality, then both the names of the accuser and the accused should be made public, and, rape be treated no different than any other physical assault crime. If the women want the accuser’s name to remain anonymous to the public then the name of the accused should also be withheld until convicted. I guarantee you, many will not bother to cry rape under that scenario. Any statement to the contrary simply means feminists do not want equality. Many times a more prominent man is accused of ‘rape’ (Geimer), ‘sexual abuse’ (Lewis), or ‘domestic violence’ (Gibson), and people who want the man to be named in hopes that other females come forward might sound ‘logical’, but what ALWAYS happens in such cases is that the attention whores come out of the woodwork, former lovers, one-night stands, or even exes who suddenly start claiming ‘abuse’. None of them should be believed.

In that scenario you’ll have females talking to the press (even if they are never taken seriously by the prosecutor, or ever even had an affair with any of the men), telling us of all sorts of ‘sordid’ stuff that might sound logical as to what the public ‘believes’ of the man – as in Polanski’s or Gibson’s case – when it most certainly is not true. Just think of the situation where we have a serial false rape accuser, but the evidence is not admissible, then are told, it only ‘proved’ the man’s guilt the more, though there’s NO logic in that whatsoever, and that previously raped individuals were only ‘more vulnerable’ to being raped again. Sure, like one individual gets raped by completely unconnected persons in a row over a short period of time. That’s like saying that the more you cheat on your ex the more honest you become. See Gibson’s ex, who’s under investigation right now in regards to the ‘tapes’, which were clearly tampered with, since he sounds as enraged as he would, and she like she’s speaking for an audition, with the quality of both extracts clearly not of the same sub/standard., i.e., background noise on his and loud shouting, none on hers and clearly spoken instead of shouting back at him. Pull the other one girl. As usual, such treacherous women play helpless little victims when they want to be, and infallible goddesses the rest of the time bathing in the limelight of the older star.

Women like Allred, known as a cheap ambulance chaser catching a ride on the latest tabloid scandal in order for man-bashing, are a good example of such disgraces, who only picks the sleazy scandals when there are plenty ‘real’ women who were really wronged, (but can’t afford her ‘services’ of course) not like these pathetic prostitutes she represents, setting the ‘women’s movement’ she has ridden since decades back a hundred years. Who once said: “My work is not about popularity contests. It’s not even about justice.” Right, because her kind of ‘justice’ equals dirty money and 15-minute media-whoring, after some ‘hurt little female’ had cried rape that never was. As for her ‘legacy’, both legal and ‘moral’, Allred also said that she is not much concerned about it (no surprise there): “If a man feels good about the way he’s treated women in his life, he likes you, and if he doesn’t, he hates you.” Well, since Polanski obviously didn’t hate Lewis or they’d not had that affair, Lewis’ complaint about any ‘abuse’ is more than ‘fantasy’.

Someone once observed that, with few exceptions, judges do not test the law; they test the political wind. They do not put their fingers on the pulse of justice; they put them on the pulse of public opinion, or the media that had fed the public already enough lies. See pompous old Rittenband, who played to the press, not his own court. In a trial, first comes the opening statement by the prosecution, then the defence presents its opening statement and the prosecution makes the last opening statement that is often given in rebuttal. So the prosecution has the first word and the last word. The defence’s opening statements are sandwiched and obscured by the prosecution’s endless litany of disconnected facts and factual prevarications. This gives the prosecution an unfair advantage already per procedure. The reason that we have juries is to prevent the prosecution, with its limited immunity, from taking advantage of those who have limited resources to defend themselves. A trial including legal representation, private investigation, finding witnesses, and court and legal fees can cost more than the average person can earn in ten years.

Polanski too had to carry all the expenses himself, that’s why he had to stay in the money and was allowed to shuttle to and from Europe to finish his new film his agent had arranged for him, after he lost the previous one right after his arrest. Too many people have pleaded guilty to a crime they did not commit because they could not  afford to prove their innocence, and Polanski only pleaded foremost because the mother pressed for it once she noticed her mistake, yet she had no guts to admit to it or else was done for perjury after she lied some more in court. And her daughter. A DA, who does reject false allegations, faces major expenses resulting from a new trial, diversion costs and whatnot ‘legal obstacles’. Many judges are former prosecutors and became judges based on their conviction rates, and these persons often maintain ties with the DA’s office. Many attorneys bargain with prosecutors to resolve a case in the face of solid evidence of innocence, or to avoid a trial by jury, which could find a defendant innocent, and in no need to ‘plead’.

The falsely accused can bring action against the lying accuser, (if he’s within their court jurisdiction that is, Polanski wasn’t later anymore) but he has no recourse against the prosecutor because of his/her constitutional immunity. I.e., no criminal prosecutor can be held responsible if s/he knowingly withheld evidence at a grand jury hearing or trial, despite the fact that the prosecutor and the accuser violated the law relating to perjury and obstructing the course of justice. Great system. Polanski wanted a trial, but, in his sympathy, or rather stupidity, he also wanted to spare Ms Geimer cross-examination that in fact had found him officially innocent of all but two counts, the unlawful sexual intercourse and ‘lewd acts’ of kissing and caressing her he had admitted to. Jurors who can find the truth among the lies in the prosecution’s case is a good insurance when falsely charged with rape or sexual abuse. Twelve votes of guilty are much harder to obtain from a jury who understands the case than one guilty decision from a biased judge.

See Rittenband, who knew perfectly well Polanski never raped anyone, yet played his own game of, I’ll send you to prison now for fun, because I’m pissed off that you had fun in Munich wile I allowed you to finish your film abroad. Unless of course, a jury never had the entire evidence, they were already poisoned through sensationalistic media, or the accuser could hide behind the Rape Shield Laws to begin with, which was another factor why he had to accept the plea deal the irresponsible mother fully exploited. Once he broke free from the judge’s chain and ball after prison time no one had demanded, he faced the same destitution like so many other men, bankruptcy after the losses of his two film projects and mounting legal costs, since he never was or is ‘rich’, contrary to what people believe. Someone who has to mortgage his Paris family home to make extortionate bail, (which in fact is unconstitutional) is certainly not rich. Had he given in to the clear threat of either, spend the rest 48 days at Chino on [unlawful] self-deportation, or be sent down for good, then have no chance to see the already reneged on plea deal overturned (no judge ever does) to demand a trial, and then needing to appeal any ‘decisions’, that had cost him many more months behind bars than even Rittenband had in mind with the three months no one asked for to begin with. Why stay indeed, if the chance to live and work in the US was destroyed either way by some vindictive judge.

Another thing to ‘make’ someone guilty in the domestic violence sector, e.g., is something in effect of no value, called ‘Diversion Programs’, which involve ‘therapy sessions’ and ‘indoctrination’, i.e., ‘brainwashing’, that can cost large amounts of money and may take several years to complete (just so to see the accused behind bars on ‘technicalities’). Many employ subversive methods that can make someone believe they are guilty. Some mandated programs require the accused to admit guilt as a prerequisite to successful completion of the program. I.e., dupe the already abused defendant. This forced admission (a Fifth Amendment violation not to incriminate yourself) becomes a part of the record and may preclude the right to a trial or appeal. (Similar to the plea bargaining no other country but the US has.) Jury trials are expensive and even an innocent defendant may not prevail. Under those already unfavourable circumstances, the economic realities, of no home and/or employment and no way to pay, may force the accused into this Diversion Program (or plea deal). If the accused fails to complete a mandated program, that fact becomes part of the court record and the criminal case goes to trial. The prosecutor then has free run to poison the jury with the fact that the accused did complete the diversion program, i.e., said he’s ‘guilty’ though he’s not, and the program is an effective tool to ‘make’ people guilty, very harmful, and in fact unconstitutional. (Like a ‘confession’ made under torture.)

This could make a guilty verdict more likely, and, if rendered, the court may require the defendant, besides further imprisonment, to complete the mandated diversion program to make him doubly guilty. If the accused prevails in a trial or successfully completes the diversion program without going to trial, the arrest record and criminal complaint however remain without a word of vindication, and no one reimburses the defendant for his legal expenses and loss of income. The accuser, though guilty in contrast, is very rarely criminally tried (and hardly known to begin with). This presumptive process of guilt was designed by the women’s movement wanting to dominate society through coercion similar to that practiced by past totalitarian regimes on all levels. As a result, the earning power and property of innocent men is now diverted to abusive, lazy women and to dubious ‘programs’ operated by greedy opportunists. Elected politicians, the manipulated, or double-dealing prosecutors and media-hungry judges alike, ‘fearful’ of being seen as ‘soft on crime’, force men mercilessly through the legal gauntlet without compunction, compassion, seeking any real justice, the truth, despite holding all the evidence of their innocence. These callous people play god, and say, if someone refuses to admit to his ‘crime’, he’s in ‘denial’.

How comfortable do folks reading all this feel about someone being convicted solely on the accusations of the accuser? Or such trick programs and ‘laws’? Would people seriously stand behind these highly biased anti-sex and Rape Shield laws had they faced them, suffered them personally? I highly doubt that. And what about those who end/ed up in prison who are mercifully spared rape, sexual abuse or slavery, but have to witness it, over and over? Or might even be forced to rape someone in order not to get raped or enslaved themselves? Ever thought of that kind of sick/ening psycho terror? Course not. American justice has adopted a position that, in a courtroom, all-powerful attorneys can do and say just about anything about a person no matter how untrue or outrageous before they send their clients into hell. Their special immunity protects such conduct in the courtroom, hence Polanski’s failed prosecutor able to publicly call him child rapist, and does not protect such disgraceful conduct outside the courtroom at any rate. It should not make any difference there, for any special immunity is an anathema to our way of life of justice for all.

Imagine what it does to the soul, mind and body of a human being, old or young, to have to sit in a prison cell day after day for a crime you had not committed, or even paid for already but were railroaded into some more time by fabrications of callous lawmakers. Sit in fear of attacks, or having to suffer attacks, and nothing to look forward to at the end of a day but the knowledge of hundreds more days like the one you just endured, your life slipping away in misery. Put anything in life under an objective microscope – anything – and you can always find pertinent questions, always reasonable doubts. Especially if you want to find them, unless you accept incomplete or fabricated information and jump to conclusions, let yourself be influenced by crippling emotions and biased feelings. People ignore simple theories or facts, based on basic evidence in favour of huge conspiracies and complex lies that could never be held together in real life. Or they focus on one piece of ‘evidence’, i.e., the girl’s fantasies, without looking at the big picture, i.e., the man’s defence and actual evidence that had long proven him innocent of what she had accused him of, had distanced herself from. Technically Polanski is the only one who escaped that tyrannical system by taking his life into his own hands again, and that of course is the reason why they still want him back by all means, legal or otherwise, now that the Swiss let him go realising he had done his time decades ago.

The corrupt US legal system having mercilessly pursued men like him, its crooked lawmakers have long become robotic assassins clad in Gucci suits and black robes, creating unthinkable collateral damage in a war that is supposedly being waged in the public’s ‘best interest’. Yet, the Kafkaesque tempest that overtook Polanski three decades ago and once more last year, darkened not only his horizon once more and pummelled the deceptive safety and illusionary harmony out of life, men like him used to took for granted after plenty struggles to own, survived it. And, it had swept away all hope for their future, leaving behind only the solemn, desperate need for peace and justice. Final release. We love to think that justice is blind, but no, it is only blind when it suits pernicious prosecutors and judges, vindictive feminists and pathetic famewhores. We also pray that those who administer that justice are people of vision. Yet, when legal systems have become so twisted that the once sacred letter of the law strangles its very spirit with perverse relish, then even simplest justice cannot exist. It will die as surely as the dreams of a Holocaust survivor when the world caved in around him, twice. All over sex.

For too long many countries have lumped non-violent petty sexual offenders alongside violent rapists, kidnappers, child molesters and even murderers if it had a ‘sexual undertone’. But none so than the sex-repressed US. The violent sex offenders/murderers are always the ones who reoffend escalating their attacks, and they slip through the cracks of the laws because they are on the exact same registry as non-violent petty sex offenders, like the twenty year old convicted of having a one-off consensual sexual relationship with a seventeen year old, or his own underaged girlfriend who became fed up with him and cried rape, or some other non-violent ‘sexual offence’. All of these [anti] ‘sex laws’ should focus on violent sexual offenders who have a real victim, not some young or older man who slept with a young girl. If the roles were reversed, the older woman or female in general hardly does time, had she had a consensual or ‘toyboy’ relationship, or harmless fling with a consenting minor, but in the same breath can cry rape or sexual abuse unlike men or boys. See Lewis. Most of these ‘offenders’ don’t even have a victim, but simply urinated in public, or had consensual [oral] sex, which is a felony (like murder) in all southern US states believe it or not, streaked in college and got caught, or received a ‘sext’ from their underaged girlfriend, but she sees no punishment.

If a nineteen year old boy, who got caught with a sixteen year old girl, who had or had not cried rape, deserves to be on a sex offender registry for life (even online for all to see), why shouldn’t the plenty former murderers be on one? Or in fact the girl? Noticed that the millions of murderers let out of prison after a few years on parole for ‘good behaviour’ don’t have to register their faces anywhere, but some harmless boy or older man who had sex, and needs re/registering wherever he goes for life, but not the woman or the more or less violent murderer who could reoffend? Laws should focus on dangerous people, be they violent sex or other violent offenders, the ones who are the most likely to reoffend, with or without any sexual factors involved, and it’s about time the US government most of all is starting to learn this lesson after too many innocent men being destroyed over sex, radical feminism has imposed on them for decades now. Schwarzenegger has vowed to sign the new ‘Chelsea’s Law’; another ‘murder law’ with a ‘sex offence’ factor, or rather ‘excuse’ to exploit murders now as a means to slyly shunt [all harmless] ‘sex offences’ into a higher category, where a single sex act can get you years in prison already, stuck with hardcore violent rapists or murderers, all to boost political careers and fame.

The jaded propaganda of, ‘save the children’, or, ‘protect [our] women’, and ‘predators can’t be cured’ rhetoric, sure accumulated a lot of brownie points at the expense of many Americans and their ‘family values’, or men in general. It’s nothing more than the criminal lack of state responsibility, accountability and the dishonest avenues legislators have paved to sensationalise their ‘murder laws’, after they misconstrued statistics and cherry-picked sex offence ‘recidivism’ reports as a means of whipping an entire country into blind frenzy to accept these laws. After including children (adjudicated in family court) in the ‘Megan’s Law’ registration and notification lifetime policy without providing the adult legal due process, contractual plea agreements or legal protection afforded to adults (like Polanski), Bill Clinton stated to the nation how, ‘oral sex, it not ‘sex’’, though it actuality is, or otherwise the law books wouldn’t be so keen on punishing it and Polanski hadn’t been indicted on it. Clinton signed Megan’s Law, which purposely made any sexual act or any encounter with a consenting minor a sex crime under the law, like nudity, all underage sexual encounters, playful sexual contact among prepubescent children and sex between mature teenagers all included. In fact, oral sex even between two consenting teenagers is a ‘sex crime’ under Megan’s Law.

Megan’s Law is crafted to expose, civilly exploit and destroy lives of any citizen with any sex related incidence, concocted to fit into Megan’s ‘murder’ offence, and now Chelsea’s Law. Legislative leaders claim, registration as sex offender and its attributes are not a ‘punishment’, the same a way oral sex is not sex, while utterly ignoring the lifelong stigma of ‘sex offender’, who might in fact have engaged in oral sex. Schwarzenegger, known for groping women, escaped his own statutory rape charge with a sixteen year old decades ago while Polanski in contrast was jailed against all counsel, when Schwarzenegger was almost thirty and had a longer affair with the girl. Arnold put Megan’s Law registrants on the Internet including juveniles convicted as adults, and, he signed ‘Jessica’s Law’ in California, which bans all Megan’s Law registrants from living within society, including those convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse or ‘groping’, like grabbing women’s butts the terminator turned into a joke later and still made it to governor, his statutory rape pardoned by another governor. There are plenty ‘girls’ and ‘women’s laws’, but hardly any for abused or murdered boys or men. And when it comes to ‘males’, there’s the Adam Walsh’s ‘murder’ Act , to override Megan’s ‘murder’ Law, in honour of himself and to collect more tax dollars for his ‘National Predator Registry’ SORNA.

Walsh is an America’s ‘lawmaker’, who can unconstitutionally, retroactively gather all Megan’s Law registrants, including those aged 14-18 with past ‘sex related’ ‘Megan’s Law offences’, and make demands that thousands of citizens should abide to the Adam Walsh Act with even stricter rules, harsher restriction and debilitating penalties, because young Adam Walsh was murdered nearly thirty years ago. No wonder that victims of the current sex offender hysteria are outraged at the hypocrisies. This new law will be a gift to every malevolent prosecutor, just as California’s ‘Three Strikes’ law is already, (which can make a ‘third’, even harmless ‘crime’ or ‘technicality’ a life sentence). Just picture the scene, “You had better plead guilty to this [sex] charge, avoid a trial and take the ten year sentence, or we will we will prosecute you under Chelsea’s Law and you will go to prison for life!” Why not just actually enforce life sentences for ‘murderers’? And what exactly does (harmless or even serious) child molestation or (non or consensual) sex have to do with a ‘murder’ case? Murder someone: out in 10-25 years, no registration. Touch a teenager [even innocently]: life sentence either in jail or rarely out on probation, lifelong registration.

Haven’t we had enough of disproportionate penalties [for men] and moralistic double standards? All in favour of ‘females’? Apparently not. We should be more concerned about murderers actually having to do equivalent time and being equivalently ostracised, than with a ‘sex offender’, who harmed no one (other than real rapists obviously). So, what would happen and this new law gets pushed through, if some thirteen year old girl claims a guy ‘molested’ her but he never even touched her, and she just had some ‘emotional problems’? It’s her word against his, no evidence, no defence, no chance. The courts tend to side with the minor automatically, and then what? Does he get a life sentence [too] suddenly, rather than a murderer or violent rapist? Under this new law, as others have observed, unless ‘proven innocent’ of [drugged] rape/sodomy, Polanski could be (and men like him) sentenced for life or receive a very harsh sentences rather than short probation for underage sex. The minor (or false rape accuser) shielded by Rape Shield Laws to start with, it wouldn’t matter if Geimer today would say, ‘it wasn’t rape’, ‘he wasn’t forceful or hurting me or mean or anything’, ‘he’ still would get the max penalty when punishing each ‘sex act’, in case the plea is withdrawn to have a full trial and a [biased] jury would go all the

way. So much for justice.

It is clear that the least violent and vicious prisoners, women and men both alike, and of course the younger the better, are the ones that most often end up getting systematically abused and/or raped in prison if you happen to end up in a US jail. Unless they’re ‘celebrities’, they can attack and bring down as trophy, with guard A looking the other way while guard B has his own go after the inmates had their fun, and say, oops, sorry Mr Polanski must have slipped and, oh dear… And the poorest inmates for that matter, who cannot afford even to appeal their unjust conviction if they had a biased trial. And, of course, though it is antithetical to our stated and ‘moral ideals’ to set out areas in which inhuman experience is normalised and even sanctioned not only by the law, but, by the media deliberately overlooking the problem, people keep standing by condoning prison violence – or at least keep looking the other way. Though it undermines our democracy, since the US as the one country with the most prisoner violations can’t even get their President on board to do something about it, it’s understandable why it’s so difficult to convince everybody else that this is an epidemic foremost bred and propagated by the malignant cancer called feminism.

This of course being enabled by cry rape accusers foremost, with innocent men being incarcerated for nothing but sex, I always wondered about the [distorted] psychology of accusers in high-profile cases who later recant their charges, and it would be fascinating to determine if most are motivated by ‘guilt’, or in fact quest for fame. According to the repeat patters played out, most of them lied for their fifteen minutes of questionable fame and of course money prospects. See Lewis. So, how many more or less famous people in prison for ‘rape’ right now have ‘pleaded’? All of them, no difference if they’re rich or poor. A prosecutor’s statement that the defendant confessed, pleaded and did (or rather can) not appeal the conviction, rests on the fact their pleading for one, was to avoid exposure to a possible longer [even more undeserved] prison sentence after many months on remand already or they had bad advice from a so called professional, and two, once you plead to a matter before the court, you waive your right to appeal, while you can a appeal a jury verdict [only]. See Polanski, having fallen victim to exactly this Catch-22 trap.

So unless you can get over some ‘procedural error’, or find some judicial misconduct like ex parte communications, or the judge did something not on the record, or abused a ‘diagnostic study’ as actual punishment, see egomaniac Rittenband, you are screwed even if you had a top lawyer and are innocent of the charges. Most people do not have the money to pay for a decent attorney to start with and most [US] States have created an exception to the ‘hearsay evidence]’ (also known as Evidence Code 102 and its subsections, esp. Code 108 concerning sexual matters) that allows the testimony of a law enforcement officer, someone like bent cop Vannatter, or e.g. any other ‘ex-lover’s’ lies, (like Lewis), [even] if the [original] accuser wishes to not testify as it is the case with Ms Geimer (because the actual [defence] evidence spoke against her). On appeal if there was a trial, the Appeals Court cannot even review the weight of the evidence, just the ‘sufficiency’. That is, ‘having money’ has absolutely nothing to do with achieving ‘justice as long as the accuser’s testimony alone is sufficient to convict, and it doesn’t matter if there is a multitude of other [true] evidence that refutes her.

Even if it were her own words of years later pointing to the opposite, see Ms Geimer, the verdict of the jury (or the last word of a judge in a non-jury process) is sacrosanct, and if there is ‘sufficient evidence’, i.e., her uncorroborated claims, must be upheld. Even if the claims were not the truth and everyone knows it. And, even if she were to fully recant, unless the prosecutor switches to attack her for perjury and seeks prison time, she’d simply be ignored when she suddenly speaks the truth. One of the many problems caused by radical feminism, by expanding the definition of rape or peadophilia and insisting that it is ‘common male behaviour’ (to rape or sleep with minors), is that it has criminally softened the idea of what actual rapists or paedophiles in fact are and/or do. Because of the degree of perversion in the US legal community most of all over the last forty years concerning ‘rape’, real or imagined, all cases should in fact be thoroughly re-examined. But that will never happen, and if so, they will find (or introduce) some [new] clause or code to block any exculpatory evidence. Or drag it out for many more years and the man might not be in one piece at any rate anymore.

By now this entire rape culture has gone so far that men cannot even play with their own children in public anymore, photograph them, and pretty much everything that the media has told the public about paedophiles or men in general is a lie. All the fear, all the hatred, all the absence of men in children’s lives – based on a multitude of lies. I could go on about the details: women are more likely to abuse children than men; straight men are more likely to rape children than pedophiles; and so forth (it’s all in the numbers). The important truth remains that MOST people, whether male or female, young or old, straight or gay CARE about children and will not abuse them. In consequence, a child in trouble should ask for help from the first kind-looking adult they meet. The odds will be stacked heavily in their favour. Unfortunately, it only works in societies where adults can look kindly upon children and men – the current situation is aiding those who truly ARE abusive. It’s an evolutionary adaptation gone horribly wrong by now when the adult can be accused he acted improperly, purely a kid (or female) saying so. The distrust of males has been creeping up on us since years now, fanned by the sick minds of a few who have stolen the innocence of children, and left heartache and hardship in their wake. So now men are simply guilty simply by their gender.

Men are now not only all rapists, but paedophiles by default. Because sick/ening feminists say so. See Polanski. What kind of a society is this, where a false rape accuser is hailed as a ‘heroine’ for having ‘recanted’, after the man was destroyed no matter what, and possibly in turn is said to be in ‘denial’ of her [imaginary] rape for recanting, or of course was only lying when she recanted, or is conveniently portrayed as [mentally] ‘ill’ for doing so, too traumatised by her [imaginary] experience, or was abused as a child (if true or not), while, when a male perpetrator with even a non-forcible ‘offence’ tells of his abused childhood or mental issues, nobody wants to hear that a real or ‘made’ rapist is ‘troubled’, even though he truly might be. This is what radical feminism has done to us. If you think acknowledging false rape accusers who recanted prevents true victims from coming forward, punishing those who come forward more severely than those who are caught lying is going to deep-freeze anyone’s hope of exoneration, punishing ALL false accusations harshly is the ONLY effective deterrent. It’s more than apparent that the entire system is defective from the cops to the prosecutors to the juries to the judges and to the appellate division.

And of course the complicit media is part of the worsening problem, which should be held accountable for spreading [rape] lies, or sensationalist [‘celebrity’ rape] news that turns out to be bogus they hardly follow up and declare as false, just so for the masses be left in the belief that so-and-so DID so-and-so when he did not. In the eyes of the news media, a reported rape is a rape-in-fact so long as a female says so and is written up as if it [had] happened. She alone has the power to release the community from its grip of fear about a scary male with a dangerous penis on the loose. And too often, she alone has the power to release an innocent male wrongly arrested for a rape that never occurred. Why? Because the news media, ALL OF US, are too ready to assume guilt on the basis of nothing more than an accusation, while if someone were to be accused of murder, they demand all sorts of evidence. The news media ought to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, it’s their job to report the truth, no? Guess not. Especially not in the US. The obvious delight the rape-baiting media takes in reporting these kinds of cases at the expense of any decent coverage of violence against women and the rape conviction rate, and with the gender feminist perversion of our legal system, is you can no longer question a false accuser.

Apart from that, crying, ‘alleged rape’ is even more effective and can be used as a justification for absolutely everything, including murder of course disguised as ‘self-defence’ or ‘domestic violence’ as seen in several Australian cases. I believe the women of previous generations were far stronger than those undermining lying feminists that have followed who hijacked ‘women’s lib’ to become misandrist strongholds, turning two generations of women into petulant, whining little children, with audaciously conscienceless false rape accusers sprinkled liberally among their numbers. When a prosecution says, the ‘victim’ didn’t want to take it any further, or wants the charges dropped, or, there was no ‘sufficient evidence’ and the case was closed, the deliberately worded inference is clear, and to people and the heckling prosecution this is ‘proof’ he’s guilty, i.e., this isn’t the first time a defendant has done this, though not true. While in the UK any charge can be withdrawn (or refused by the judge) and the prosecution can go home, in the US this is obviously wishful thinking, and the one reason why so many men are being hunted down for all eternity, despite the false (or even a genuine) rape accuser wanting the case be forgotten.

But the best is, in the UK e.g., anyone filing a rape report is entitled to a ‘compensation’ PRIOR to any trial for up to £2000, even at NO proof yet, as long as the ‘alleged crime’ was reported and ‘more likely than not to have occurred’. While the Compensation Scheme is designed to cover crimes of violence, a [handy] ‘exception’ is made for non-forcible rape and other sexual crimes not involving violence. Payments are made for ‘mental injury’, including ‘temporary mental anxiety’, suffered by non-consenting ‘victims’. Under the compensation scheme, non-consensual penile penetration warrants £11,000. Greater sums are allotted depending on the severity of the injury inflicted. A non-penetrative sexual physical act ‘over the clothing” warrants £1000, i.e., a single instance of ‘inappropriate touching’. Conversely, Britain does not compensate men for the greater harm they suffer after being falsely accused, no matter how egregious. It tells us much about how our ‘society’ regards the victims of false rape claims. It is important to underscore the perverse, morally grotesque double-standard here: the ‘victim’ of a single instance of a sexual act even over the clothing is entitled to ‘compensation’, but a man falsely accused of rape, who is arrested and jailed for weeks, months or even years, who is subjected to untold mental agonies, loses his friends, the esteem of his community, his job, his business, his good name, who could be attacked in prison, (though far less prevalently than in any US jail) is entitled to NOTHING. Disgusting.

Also not covered are the vast majority of boys who are statutorily raped by adult women. Or of course by another man. This is because victims of sexual offences are not covered if they ‘consented’, despite the fact that if a girl (or even woman) consented, she is STILL considered a ‘victim’, SHE still gets monetarily compensated as well, and only the boy or man ends up in prison despite having done the same as the girl – have NOTHING but sex. This effectively rules out virtually all claims involving the statutory rape of a teen boy by an adult woman, but if man were to touch that boy would end up in prison for that matter, because the boy is typically a ‘willing participant’ in that boy/female scenario unlike any ‘girls’ automatically made a ‘non-consenting victim’ by default. The fact that the law has determined that boys are ALSO incapable of giving valid consent to engage in sexual acts with an adult is of no import to the compensation ruling. The obvious double standards are more than blatantly immoral. It is also clear that once a false accuser has been found out she had lied, after the man’s life was destroyed at any rate, it’s more than unlike that any compensation could ever be recovered, though some of them ended up in prison, not so much for perjury, but failing to repay the money, which technically is extortion.

In German the state does not pay anything, where compensation follows civil action only, if successfully or not depends on the validity of the case, as against the state paying out large sums even without any proof, i.e., taxpayer, while victims of truly violent crimes hardly see a penny either way. Very much like it is in the US, which is being massively abused for all sorts of fanciful ‘crimes’, unlike in Germany, since German law demands PROOF of rape unlike the US courts pandering to these liars while imprisoning the innocent. Surely the trauma of actual rape requires not state-funded windfalls to begin with, but proper health and counselling services that really help genuine victims. What the state should compensate are men who lost EVERYTHING, after a teenager or woman went to that same state and law to cry rape. I fail to see how financial compensation from a government is going to help a genuine rape victim. It’s not going to take away the pain or agony of the ordeal and paying out money solely based on an accusation is insane. If a government truly wanted to help a victim of violent crime, they’d make professional treatment programs available to them so they could move on with their lives.

Letting girls tell stories in the privacy of their own homes is one thing, forcing society to believe their rape lies is another, and that ‘another’ is now a feminist powered perversion of the law enforcement community enabling them to lie. It is clear that the prosecutorial profession has but one consensus: false rape accusers are either to be treated as above the law, or given the absolute minimum the law allows. They are doing this both in deference to the feminist freak groups, and to make things are easy as possible for themselves: if they can have a system in which men are second class citizens who are not entitled to legal redress when they have been assaulted through the legal system, then they can throw all of the mud they want at male defendants without having to worry about eating crow later on. So, the problem is the prosecutorial profession in general, not just a handful of rotten apples they enable to cry rape in the first place. The politically correct media also has a consensus: the names of anything making a rape accusation are concealed, sometimes long after they have been proven to be liars, while the man is named and wrongly shamed so he can be demonised for all eternity despite being innocent of rape. See Polanski.

Due to feminist jurisprudence, women and girls are given a free pass in the US judicial system most of all and the majority of women and girls involved in [true] sex crimes are given lighter sentences for their criminal behaviour than men simply for their gender, getting way with literal murder in many cases, and it needs to STOP. The feminist movement is 100,000% on the side of false rape accusers, who don’t give a toss about real rape at any rate since they look gleefully upon a man or boy being sexually assaulted, and it is a rare occasion when they don’t come out to rationalise a liar’s actions or cite from the handy Rape Trauma Syndrome manual, or claim even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the victims has done nothing to deserve being prosecuted for their lies. Their collectivist mentality leaves no room for individual justice, and most of all personal liability and legal accountability, and they have absolutely no real interest in ‘equality’, a word that really means female supremacy by law. We have seen time and again that as long as they remain unpunished, they will continue to make false rape accusations for the pettiest of reasons.

If you get drunk and have sex, don’t expect Joe [and Jane for that matter] Taxpayer to empty their wallets paying for a ‘rape’ trial if you wake up and suddenly ‘decide’ due to your petty regrets or sexual [and/or other] ‘dissatisfaction’ that you were ‘raped’. If someone ‘gropes’ you without malicious intent don’t cry attempted rape either, just tell him off by all means, or one day genuine assault victims unless visibly injured will not be believed anymore over petty bullshit like that. Getting drunk and/or taking drugs and then have sex is a CHOICE, and not an advisable one, but WE should NOT have to pay for the consequences of that ‘choice’ when ‘YOU’ wake up with ‘regrets’. Suck it up, after you sucked enough [dick] already just to be blunt. The principal legacy of feminism is to ‘empower’ women by misusing the letter of the law and insisting they are ‘powerless’, incapable to ‘consent’, made little whining ‘disempowered victims’ wherever possible, and, because of that purported powerlessness and glorified victimhood, they are excused from assuming all personal responsibility and legal answerability for their actions, while men are being punished for the female’s little imaginary travails.

Here’s a little choice selection of the ‘battle of the sexes’ language taken from the False Rape Society site I’m sure rings all too true without being ‘misogynistic’ as feminists would see it:

Women routinely bellyache about the slightest whiff of sexism but snidely remark that any male who exits the elevator before they do has no “manners”. (Or conversely, if they hold open a door, frown at them for taking them incapable of opening it themselves.)

A man who mentions anything sexual in a conversation is “creepy”; a woman who mentions anything sexual in a conversation is “empowered”.

Men with younger women are “disgusting” and “dirty old men”; women with younger men are “empowered”. See Polanski. (It’s pure JEALOUSY.)

Man who hits his wife = batterer, felon; woman who cuts off her husband’s penis = victim, feminist hero. (Who got ZERO prison time for nearly killing him.)

Male bashing = humorous and empowering; female bashing = misogyny.

When a woman sees a man naked in his house, he’s an exhibitionist; when a man sees a woman naked in her house, he’s a Peeping Tom.

When women commit domestic violence, it’s called “self defense”; when men act in self-defense, it’s called “domestic violence.”

When an angry woman commits a terrible atrocity against her boyfriend, we gussy it up into a romance novel and call it “scorned love.” When the genders are reversed, it’s “domestic violence”.

Men hitting women is a solemn public service announcement; women kicking men in the balls is hilarious and justified, regardless of whether there was provocation.

A man who murders his wife is a murderer; a woman who murders her husband must have been abused.

When it comes to rape, we empower young women by insisting they are powerless; we make them strong by insisting they are weak; we celebrate their free moral agency by insisting they are incapable of resisting male coaxing.

Rape of women is a national crisis; (much higher) rape of men in prison is a punchline.

Telling young men who would never harm a woman to be part of the solution to end rape is laudatory; telling young women who engage in promiscuous, drunken behavior with men they don’t know to be part of the solution to end rape is “victim blaming”.

When underage teens have consensual sex, usually only one is convicted as a statutory rapist and, upon his release, is required to register as a sex offender. Can you guess his gender?

Men having sex with teen girls are scum who are sent to prison for many years; women having sex with teen boys are “mixed up” and emotionally immature, and the courts do their best to keep them out of jail. (See Polanski.)

If both the guy and the girl get drunk and have sex, she’s a rape victim, and he’s a rapist.

A teen girl who has sex with a barely adult male is a rape victim; a teen boy who has sex with a barely adult woman “wanted it”.

When a woman accuses a man of rape and he denies it, there are conflicting claims of criminality, yet only one is arrested without any corroborating evidence; only one’s name is reported in the news for the world to titillate to his humiliation; only one is likely to be imprisoned if he’s convicted; and only one will have the accusation trail him like a ghost for the rest of his life even if it is false. See Polanski.

For ‘sex crimes’, the disparity is even more alarming: a Kansas State professor recently found that, on average, male teachers faced up to 20 years in prison for sex abuse, while female teachers were handed probation, house arrest, or a maximum of three years of jail time.

While an individual is capable of doing terrible things to another individual, including rape, the state itself should never fall to the level of a criminal and reasonably risk doing a terrible thing to another human being. Yet they do and charging a man or boy for rape on the basis of doubtful evidence is among the most terrible things that we, as a society, can do. A wrongful acquittal is a terrible thing, too, of course. But a wrongful acquittal is never, ever the equivalent of a wrongful conviction – morally, legally, or any other way – and to suggest otherwise is nothing short of morally grotesque. The victim of genuine rape is not at risk of losing his/her liberty for decades even if their rapist goes free, and if s/he was put away so much the better. But an innocent man or boy imprisoned for a rape he did not commit is often destroyed by the experience, the systematic prison abuse worse than death, as are the lives of his loved ones, including the women and children who depend on and love him.

Our law enforcement personnel, print and media journalists need to go back to doing what they were trained to do: investigate. Treat every rape claimant with the utmost respect, and treat every man or boy accused of rape the same way. And be sceptical of everything. Don’t arrest for rape, and don’t report that a rape occurred, until your investigation is completed and you’re sure about it. Journalists should never, ever, ever say ‘police say a rape occurred’ and leave it at that. They need to tell us why the police say that, find out if there is another side to the story, and check into it on their own. They are playing with the lives of the presumptively innocent, and their responsibility far exceeds snagging big ratings. They need to be held accountable. To perpetuate this dangerous trend, it insults women as a class by implying that they are either too stupid or too weak to act as free moral agents capable of making even fantastically dumb choices when it comes to sex, and that they need an unholy alliance of radical gender feminists and chivalrous guardian angel males to protect them from the male evildoers.

Second, and more importantly, it insults men as an entire class, because it suggested that when men and women engage in consensual, albeit fantastically stupid or underaged sex, the men MUST be predators, the women MUST be innocent victims, and later, if the women try to destroy the men’s lives by crying ‘rape’, at the very least, the men will get the ‘good scare’ they deserve. That’s insidious feminist logic for you. If you are truly interested in truth, then you have to be prepared to recognise and acknowledge hypocrisy and double-standards whenever they occur. Living in your propagandised media bubble, dominated as it is by sanitised dross dressed up as ‘news’, you don’t ever get to know what is really going on in the world today. Reading a truthful article might rattle your cage a little in the direction of real knowledge.

So, why do these myths persist? Because they make great copy and because there is something mesmerising about a statistic that freezes journalistic brains, especially when the statistics bolster common cultural biases or trends. And one especially pejorative but persisting cultural trend is the impunity with which all men can be demonised. The moral of these hoaxes is to view statistics that paint a negative picture of unusually high numbers of men with deep suspicion. The radical feminists are smart. They know that because men hold the majority of powerful positions – be they police, politicians, judges – they can then use the perception that women are weak and meek to further their agendas. Any women in similar powerful positions may feel they owe a debt to feminist sentiment. Cunning! If one is to accept the basic principles of equality that feminism advances, then one must accept that women, like men, are capable of the entire range of human action and experience: from the summits of artistic creativity and human compassion, to the depths of debased violence and evil. And bare stupidity to have drugged/drunken sex. Like Polanski and Ms Geimer. Meaning, BOTH have to pay for it, NOT only the man no matter the woman’s age. Once you’re of puberty, you’re capable of reproducing, become a mother and should take responsibility for ALL your actions, and equally be punished when you mess up. End of.

The very discussion of rape becomes a sort of ‘high’, a ‘truth serum’, a fix for [certain] women, a magic elixir that forces anyone not possessing a Y-chromosome to utter incontrovertible truth and that everything THEY say is rape, MUST be rape. Is this in any sense plausible to a fair-minded person? Course not, only for the selfish and pampered little feminist brain. But because of our feminism-monopolised anti-sex laws and indoctrinated governments encouraging this kind of victimisation behaviour, the overriding evidence showing that false rape claims are a significant problem causing unconscionable damage, and that the victims of false claims are not rarities, are simply ignored. Because of some sad, pathetic female and her self-absorbed little grievance with no self-respect and common sense, and society being too sympathetic of ‘weak little women’. As such, [many] women never learn how to grow up, because society and laws never forces them to and to take responsibilities for their actions, be it in or outside the bedroom. If society actually treated women as though they WERE equal and not children, they would become equal and not act like children feminists have imposed on them since decades now, some exploit to the most devastating results.

‘Professional victim’ comes to mind. See Lewis. It’s a psychological disorder involving the production of non-existent physical and/or psychological ailments to earn sympathy, feigning illnesses for monetary gain or to avoid inconvenient situations, and most of all to attract compassion or to control others. These women portray themselves as poor victims of men, sexual abuse/domestic violence and of course rape, supported by liberal courts, the mainstream media, (also called sleazy sex scandal sites) or both. Using resources skilled in the art of propaganda or litigation, such liars use our misandrist system as a weapon of personal attacks, [celebrity] extortion, political leverage or any combination thereof. Many people who present such personality disorders crave sympathy and support because it was notably absent in their childhood as seen so often. Human beings are social creatures and need social interaction, [positive] feedback, and validation of their worth. The emotionally mature person doesn’t need to go hunting for these; they gain it naturally from their daily life, especially from their work, stable relationships, their caring parents, siblings, family and friends.

The emotionally immature person, however, has low levels of self-esteem and self-confidence and consequently feels insecure; to counter these feelings of insecurity they will spend a large proportion of their lives creating situations in which they become the centre of attention, a ‘victim’. It may be that the need for attention is inversely proportional to emotional maturity, ‘projecting’, therefore anyone indulging in attention-seeking behaviours is telling you how emotionally immature they are, or ‘naïve’. See Lewis’ claims that she thought she was ‘street-wise’, and, ‘not’ a drug addict but was ‘seduced’ by drugs and men she could not escape, while in fact SHE was the teen prostitute and later sexual predator seducing men first, not the men she then blamed for it all accusing them of ‘abuse’. Or rather only one man to stand in for all in the ecstatic glare of the world press: Polanski. Being the centre of [such high-profile] attention alleviates feelings of insecurity and inadequacy, fed her narcissistic egotism for fifteen minutes of famewhoring, but the relief is temporary as the underlying problem remains unaddressed: low self-confidence, self-esteem, consequently low[er] levels of self-worth and self-love, continued drug abuse, and finally the crash after having been found out to have lied, made a [worldwide] spectacle of herself and was [deservedly] ridiculed.

Insecure and emotionally immature people [like her] telling of sexual abuse ‘of the worst kind’ created by their sick fantasies often exhibit bullying behaviours, specialise in manipulation and deception, lying for gain and inflicting pain on others. (Though some keep forgetting that they told to whom and are found out to have lied, see Lewis.) These are necessary in order to obtain attention and self-gratification which would not otherwise be forthcoming, and when found out they wind themselves out with more lies. Bullies and harassers have the emotional age of a young child and will exhibit temper tantrums, deceit, lying, fits of crying and manipulation to avoid exposure of their true nature, to evade accountability and sanction. As ‘victim’ they are not responsible for their self-created reality, and thus not to blame if they or their lives are a mess. . See Lewis and her drug abuse and sexual excesses. After the event of the Pill, there came the sexual revolution. Women were free for the first time to lead sexually active lives without fear of social disgrace or, more to the point, of pregnancy. But this brought a new problem for them: how to deal with unwanted advances, to be called loose, or a [sexual] predator.

So then came another revolution: American feminists discovered acquaintance or ‘date rape’ to extend the myth of all men are rapists at heart; usually when both people had been drinking and taking drugs before sex, or when the woman thought better of it, either at the time or subsequently. Nowadays, when a woman stoops to folly, she simply calls it [date] rape. Or to cover up an affair. There is worse danger still: waking up with someone you wouldn’t have touched sober, or with the ‘wrong man’, may be regrettable, so they came up with ‘victim feminism’, to retreat into appealing for status on the basis of ‘feminine specialness’ instead of human worth, and fight underhandedly rather than honourably, take accountability. Victim feminism is when a woman seeks power through an identity of [state legislated] powerlessness, claiming that drunken sex is just as bad as actual rape, aided by gold-digger clientele lawyers like cheap and nasty man-hater and ambulance chaser Allred. Apart from wondering what a woman gang-raped by enemy soldiers would say to this, its long-term consequence will be that violent rape itself is no longer taken seriously, because of pathetic little whining females and vindictive false rape accusers. Like ugly liar Lewis.

Believe it or not, one radical feminist thought to reduce rape, by ‘redefining masculinity’ in men. As in, make them more ‘feminine’, ‘passive’, ‘soft’. Though she probably never heard of aggressive women demanding or initiating sex, i.e., behave ‘like men’ in their own feminist handbook. She argues, ‘masculinity is associated with dominance and virility while femininity is deemed passive. (True, many see it like that – but that’s only what ‘society’ made of it, not ‘nature’ per se, since a woman can be equally active, aggressive, dominant, you name it.) Men’s sexual prowess is regarded as something ‘natural’, while women’s sexuality must be ‘controlled’, when they dare to be more sexual’. No, sorry, that’s BS; when did men ever say women’s sexuality needs ‘controlling’ THESE days? Other than when crying rape perhaps, or after becoming a stalking predator or nymphomaniac. (I’m sure they’d love a raunchier woman in the sheets, and the days of women’s sexuality being demonised are long over.) The problem isn’t the way that masculinity is ‘defined’ in our culture; the problem is the culture itself feminists have in fact created themselves. A culture where female sexuality isn’t just ‘accepted’, but encouraged, ‘celebrated’, while male sexual behaviour is actively condemned by society today, deemed as debased and predatorily, or even paedophiliac.

Of course, what she forgot to mentions is this: the vast majority of women in fact want men to be dominant, virile, and aggressive, protect them, mainly from other bitchy women trying to fish for their man. In short, they want men to act like men, love to see them fighting over them, wine and dine them. Men [stupidly] oblige, because it improves their mating chances, i.e., have sex, and to get the younger, prettier female at the end of the day. Such is life feminists want to redefine. Moreover, the vast majority of wo/men know that dominance, virility and aggressiveness and sometimes trying to mate with more than one woman have nothing to do with rape, or sexual abuse. Rape is the product of a criminal mind, not garden-variety ‘maleness’ or culture-driven ‘masculinity’. Such new redefinition ideas only shows how desperate these rape advocates are to make men the eternal rapist wherever and however possible, by trying to change the very essence of their being male and they being female. But then again, feminists don’t accept there is any gender difference, and believe sex is a social phenomenon, not private gender interaction. That’s why they don’t give homosexuals or lesbians any second thoughts, or if either of them gets raped by their own sex.

The general understanding is that sex sells and that the selling inspires advertisers, films, TV programs, websites, art and almost anybody else out to make a quick buck. This asymmetry results in women constantly flirting with and leading men on, while never intending to ‘go all the way’, and this in turn leads to those men becoming sexually frustrated, which sometimes backfires and creates a rape scenario (feminists of course call victim-blaming.) Is it any surprise that some men find themselves unable to control their urges and take what they need, just like women in fact, but only the man pays for it? Until these issues are resolved rape by either sex will continue to be a problem, not any masculinity or femininity. Trying to shunt all of the blame onto just the men is incredibly offensive, since these women, who cause men to become sexually frustrated aren’t the ones who are subsequently getting raped or assaulted; instead, it’s the vulnerable women, frequently the ones that try to remain sexually private, the isolated ones. Trying to argue that rape is purely something to be fixed by changing men is like saying that people who live in poverty choose to do so; it’s incredibly short-sighted, insulting, and doesn’t address the root problem.

An excess of over-sexualised imagery in mainstream media, drawn from adult culture and increasingly directed at young teens and children, is responsible for maintaining the ‘rape culture’ problem, the constant oversaturation of sexual freedom these images offer (or condemn for that matter depending on the TV channel), and when teenagers in fact grab that offer, (or conversely get twisted by ‘sex is a sin’), who gets punished for it? Only the male. Rape is a crime like any other physical assault, yet, people assign it some ‘greater crime rate’ than torture or even murder, forcing all men to apologise for rape, make them feeling guilty over rape, but oddly enough not over torture or murder committed by men against women. Sorry, I won’t play that blame/guilt game. I didn’t rape anyone, they did. Besides, there’re plenty men and children out there having been raped, are being raped right now, by other men or women feminist don’t give a shit about in contrast. So no, I won’t feel guilty over women getting raped by men. Change your own attitudes towards and treatment of men, and THEN rape will diminish, not by calling man rapists and tell little boys never to touch little girls even playfully, but allow their sexuality run their healthy reign and not punish them for sex in the first place.

Many duplicitous feminists will fight hard for equality in any way that women are currently seen as ‘inferior’ to men, yet simultaneously fight to maintain any situation where women are currently seen as ‘superior’, and of course conversely endeavour to disempower them in turn when it comes to sex and make them ALWAYS the victim. If you want equality, you have to be willing to be equal in ALL things, not just in those areas in which you are currently getting an easy ride. Then there’s the hardcore feminist movement itself, NOT the once ‘honourable’ women’s lib idea/l to gain equality with men long surpassed by an entirely anti-male oriented movement that has become extremely imbalanced and damaging. One of the negative outcomes of this ‘equality’ r/evolution gone awry, and the current obsession with this oversexed culture, is ‘slut-slamming’ of women and girls who are sexually active – sometimes with many different partners and sometimes in public – while, if men would do so, they’d be slung inside for being all sorts of predators or paedophiles and whatnot, NOT ‘sexually active’, but sexually destructive.

The latest comment I read on some man-bashing blog was this, since they love to redefine the word rape, and of course what a rapist is ever more, saying: ‘Yes, if a woman is too drunk to consent and you have sex with her – you are a rapist. (No, if a woman is too drunk by her own hands that’s HER problem, not his. But he’s no doubt stupid enough to touch her, since he puts himself in danger of ending up being falsely accused of rape.) If a teenager is not of legal age or you didn’t know her age and still had sex with her – yes, you are a rapist. (No, if the minor allowed the adult to sleep with her or lied about her age, she should be punished for it too. Or neither of them.) If a woman is pressured into having sex and doesn’t really want it and you have sex with her anyway – yes, you are a rapist. (No, then she should just walk away and not lead the man on and just ‘let it happen’, or cry rape afterwards.) If a women doesn’t say ‘yes’ and you have sex with her – yes, you are a rapist’. That’s even bigger bullshit than the crap before, since in that case the vast majority of consensual sexual encounters were all ‘rapes’. But then again, to even think that all this is ‘rape’ only shows how skewed the words rape and rapist have become in a twisted feminist brain. No wonder they call all men rapists.

Most boys and therefore men, through direct and indirect role models, good parenting, promoting healthy sexuality, are taught to respect girls and therefore women, and to suggest that all men are expected to wear the moral burden of a criminal few is an insult. No one asks women to feel collectively guilty of female rapists or killers. Hold the violent rapists to account, definitely. Make the court process more bearable for the genuine victims, male or female, certainly. But there’s no need to start a mass campaign to redefine ‘masculinity’, because the few that would be inclined to rape females, or even males (and of course women violating men feminists always love to brush under the carpet), won’t be affected by a new ‘definition’ of ‘maleness’, but they might be affected by a better court process to nail them for their offences. So let’s not conflate rape with fondling female breasts or male genitalia, it will never constitute rape in any normal person’s vocabulary. And let’s not pretend that one in five women have been or will be ‘raped’ – only if the term ‘sexual assault’ covers a whole lot of things that are sex based. And to argue, that an unwanted touch is equivalent to a violent rape demeans not only the victims of the latter, but is obscene to even think they are on par.

While historically a man and a woman once where punished equally for an equal crime, now we hear and read, ad nauseam, of excuses and condonation, for every crime committed by a female, while a crime of precisely similar a character and under precisely similar circumstances, where a male is the perpetrator, meets with nothing but virulent execration from that truculent ass, which is destined to be raped by other men. The justification for the whole movement of feminism in one of its main practical aspects, namely, the placing of the female sex in the position of privilege, advantage and immunity, concentrated in the current conception of ‘chivalry’. Now this word chivalry is the last resort of those at a loss for a justification of the modern privileging of women. Political feminism is simply grotesque in its inconsistent absurdity and exemptions given to females. To men all duties and no rights, to women all rights and no duties, is the basic principle underlying the feminist dogma. The savage vindictiveness exhibited towards men, as displayed in the eagerness of judges to obtain, and the readiness of juries to return, convictions against men accused of crimes against women, on evidence which, in many cases, would not be good enough (to use the common phrase) to hang a dog on, with the inevitable ferocious sentence following conviction, may be witnessed on almost every occasion when such cases are up for trial. Or in underage sex and [false] rape accusations.

The age of consent is an arbitrary standard of maturity that does not fit well with the individual’s actual ability to consent to sex. Certainly prepubescent children can use a much higher level of scrutiny in the law to protect them, but not mature adolescents, especially after the adolescents already consent to sexual activity with someone, and this has been really exploited by the law. Age of consent laws are designed to punish older males exclusively, (the odd female doesn’t really count) who seek companionship with a younger, sexually mature female who desires him, and should not go to prison for acting on that which is normal male sexuality. A society that criminalises sex, is a cruel society that values females over males and treats women as if they are children. If we are to treat women as children then we should be consistent. Any woman who had sex with older men is as much a ‘victim’ as teenagers who have sex with an artist after a photoshoot. In both cases, feminists are angry because the woman has been ‘fooled’ into having sex with a male of higher value, because he is older and more experienced, because he has learned the elements of attraction and ‘seduction’. In both cases, women are presumed to have no responsibility for their own actions and to be little more than infants.

If they wanted to protect young girls, it would be a punishable crime for girls to be sexually active. But no, they lobbied hard that it not be illegal for a girl of any age to do what an adult female can legally do, to avoid crying rape. Yet, they only throw the man who slept with the girl in prison, but the girl, clearly an accomplice to a ‘crime’, walks around scot-free. It’s unrealistic and dogmatic that the Americans expect men and women to defer sex and family, or at least family, for a decade after puberty. That seems to be the characteristic perversion of our time, the one so widespread and customary that most consider it ‘virtuous’. We have a situation in which the age of consent has been going up for some time, while the age of puberty has been going down. It is obvious that there is a real conflict here. The favourite crank of the radical feminist, that of raising the age of consent with the result of increasing the number of ‘victims’ of the designing young female, should speak for itself to every unbiased person as being unacceptable gender favouritism, since the real victim, the male, ends up in prison after he had bedded her.

After all, you can’t really expect that men’s rights, freedoms and lives are really worth the effort involved in wasting that extra breath or tapping a few extra keys on the keyboard to say, ‘alleged victim’, or accuser, complainant, when a ‘rape’ case is plastered all over the news. Unfortunately, the only way these insanely draconian anti-sex laws and media manipulations will ever be reviewed is when sufficient numbers of women become similarly [unjustly] affected as men and end up in prison or are publicly shredded without a guilty verdict, though they’ll still be in lesser danger to be gang raped or in fact found guilty. Women alongside feminists were swept along with the mob hysteria in supporting the implementation of increased laws and harsher penalties for minor sex offences, wider definitions and harsher sentencing when it only affected men, but are now beginning to regret this as the same laws are increasingly being applied to themselves. While a murderer gets life, is out after ten years for good behavior, someone who touched a teenager ‘lewdly’, or ‘made’ her/him to do so equally getting life – which is insane in itself and to put that kind of harmless ‘offence’ on par with a capital offence at the same penalty in effect utterly trivialising a brutal crime – has sometimes no parole prospects in contrast. I’m sure if more women are treated that way, they’ll swiftly call for reforms and more lenient sentencing rules.

The golden rule of human interactions is to judge a person, or a group, by their actions rather than their words. The actions of ‘feminists’ reveal their ideology to be one that seeks to secure equality for women in the few areas where they lag, while distracting observers from the vast array of areas where women are in a more favourable position relative to men (the judicial system, hiring and admissions quotas, media portrayals, social settings, etc.). They will concoct any number of bogus statistics to maintain an increasingly ridiculous narrative of female oppression. Feminists once had noble goals of securing voting rights, achieving educational parity, and opening employment channels for women, ‘equality’. But once these goals were met and even exceeded long ago, the activists did not want to lose relevance. Now, they tirelessly and ruthlessly lobby for changes in legislation that are blatantly discriminatory against men (not to mention unconstitutional and downright cruel). Not satisfied with that, they continue to lobby for social programs designed to devalue the roles of husbands and fathers, replacing them with taxpayer-funded handouts.

By encouraging false rape claims, they devalue the credibility of all claims, and genuine victims will suffer. By allowing dehumanisation of their sex partners and using children as pawns, they cause children to resent their mothers when they mature. At worst, become rapists and the vicious cycle they have created never ends. By making baseless accusations of ‘misogyny’ without sufficient cause, they cause resentment among formerly friendly men and ‘make’ them ‘misogynist’. Feminism is an aggressive counter-reaction intended to protect the threatened reproductive and sexual interests of middle-class, middle-aged women in a free sexual marketplace. That is, when the introduction of the contraceptive pill in 1960 revolutionised the dynamics of the sexual marketplace and impelled women to take on an independent political and economic role to secure their reproductive needs. It’s all about what they have between their legs – nothing. Another ploy is whenever they don’t like criticism levied against them they call it sexism, while they don’t care about criticism or sexism in regards to men. It’s also called hypocrisy.

You all need to understand that you’re not empowered by pretending you’re powerless and keep playing the pathetic little victims. But such logic eludes the feminist brain. Women can communicate clearly and directly at their job and otherwise. With clockwork precision, women can schedule their responsibilities at their employer, their schooling, family, church, friends, or mundane daily tasks. Women outnumber men at most colleges, and can presumably write papers on advanced theoretical and applied concepts utilising classical argument, logic and rhetoric. As television commercials routinely remind us, women can multitask half a dozen duties and complete them all masterfully. Yet, women also simultaneously expect men to believe that in a single aspect of their lives – the way they communicate with and behave towards dates, boyfriends and husbands – they suffer an inexplicable and complete breakdown of their logical, organisational and moral facilities, and have no control over their actions, no power to change, that they need endless patience and understanding and that they deserve a pass due to being at the mercy of their little ‘feelings’ or for being ‘female’.

On the one hand, they want to be seen as strong and equal when it suits them, or as ‘poor little disempowered victims’ when they need to in their subtle manipulation and abuse of others and the law. Women are entitled to behave capriciously, while men’s feelings are irrelevant and are obligated to suck it up. Which they do, and in contrast would never cry rape when they wake up next to some less than desirable woman they had ‘apparently’ slept with after a drunken or drugged-out fling. To say, ‘most women don’t make up rape charges’, those people haven’t overcome the stumbling block of ‘most men do not rape’. Indeed, the fact that most rapists are repeat offenders means that even fewer men rape, which feminists obviously don’t get. From the faulty premise that women do not lie about rape follow the equally faulty but still widely accepted premises that there is no such thing as a false rape claim, and that conviction rates for rape are far too low. To help jack up those rates, or, in the twisted logic that follows from those faulty premises, to help justice be better served, laws and policies are changed to provide rape accusers with special accommodations allowed to no other criminal complainant. If everyone in society is truly equal, they should not only get the same benefits, but the same punishments as well. And, does killing someone while ‘drunk’, ‘drugged’ or ‘confused’ make you any less guilty of the crime? Hardly. That is a shunting of culpability.

This has nothing to do with misogyny but a great deal to do with common decency and misandry. In Polanski’s case it was his fame and the out-of-control media who went berserk and printed his name and pictures before any trial ever happened and should also bear some responsibility for his instant downfall. There is no such thing as responsible journalism anymore let alone today and it sickens me. A false rape accuser (and their ilk defenders) sees falsifying a rape as an opportunity, as a right. A false rape accuser believes that she has the right to change her mind at ANY time AFTER consenting and then cry rape. A false rape accuser believes that she will never be caught in her lie because women don’t lie about rape. A false rape accuser lives in denial and is DANGEROUS. See ugly liar Lewis. It is the ‘mission’ of radical feminism to unshackle women so they can express their ‘femininity’ in whatever manner they desire, and to shackle men so that they can express their masculinity only in the manner feminists approve. When men look at or bed young women they’re warped, perverted and paedophilic monsters who end up in prison. See Polanski. When women look at or sleep with teenagers they’re ‘empowered’, ‘exploring their sexuality’ and get all sorts of passes not to end in jail since the ‘boy wanted it’. A ‘toyboy’. But not the ‘little girl’ rendered a ‘powerless victim’ in contrast. Sure.

Some say, fourteen is too young for girls to be sexually active, so when are they supposed to actually start learning to be sexually responsible and developing beyond the physical, emotionally and psychologically to mature in synch? By the stroke of the age of consent clock suddenly? If it were for feminists, never, so they can continue being little girls and victims of the bad men and boys. It is unbelievably hypocritical to punish men who sleep with fourteen year olds who initiate (or not) consensual sex with long prison sentences, when at the same time the government and schools push for birth control and access to abortion for these same girls without the consent or knowledge of their parents. So, either these girls are ‘little girls’ still and should not be having sex and also carry the consequences for engaging in illegal sexual conduct and for becoming pregnant unlawfully, or they are ‘women’ who can choose to have sex with whomever they like regardless of the age of their lovers. The issue here is whether fourteen year old girls are ‘children’, the media loves to dub teens as or even women ‘little girls’, whom we do not allow to have sex because they are too ‘immature’ to handle any of the consequences of sex, but are held responsible for everything else like murder – or ‘women’, whom our society says should be allowed to ‘explore their sexuality’ without barriers, while at the same time say that a fourteen year old boy ‘wanted it’ and is never a ‘victim’.

If the issue is the latter, statutory rape laws don’t make any sense because the girls themselves are choosing to be sexual, engage in sex, a behaviour which our ‘society’ promotes through every venue – media, peer pressure, sexy fashions and oversexualising them at very corner, you name it. They are only following the examples shown them, ‘endorsed’ by feminism, and when they do, only the man however gets punished for the females’ very own actions like a honey trap, of looking and behaving sexy and seductive. But, if the issue is the former, than we should throw everything we have at this problem to stop teenagers from having ANY sex, because the idea is utterly repellent a concept as murder. So, saying that a fourteen year old girl, who finds herself with an older man, is never accountable for her OWN actions? The girl who entices guys into having sex never has any responsibility at her end, that 100% of the responsibility for the situation rest always with the man? A girl who lets herself be seduced to have sex? How often is it not all the man who makes the first step, yet the girl is never punished for it? It’s called double standards stacked in favour of the female ‘sex’, nothing else.

Females also attach some kind of ‘mystical significance’ to their oh so sacred virginity. Most of them seem to experience regret about losing it when they did, where they did, under the circumstances they did, and with whom they did. They seem to think some kind of ‘cosmic event’ will happen if they lose their virginity out into metaphysical minutiae and are usually angry that some kind of spiritual renaissance that was never promised, implied, or even hinted at fails to materialise. That’s a good time to cry rape. Female virginity is just a medical guarantee that you have not had sex previously; it isn’t an ‘interdimensional portal’ to a higher plane of existence. It’s sad, because as long as women believe it is and are treated special when it suites them or in regards to sex, men like Polanski will continue to pay the ever-higher price for women’s fanciful delusions and any kind of sex with them. It’s about time the unrealistic age of consent and blanket anti-sex laws are overhauled to be REALLY equal for ALL, and not punish casual sex the way murder is – with preposterous life-long sentences at conversely no parole prospects. But maybe that will only occur when too many women are also sent down for ‘minor sex’, and one false rape accusation too many.

In Canada they will roll out an ad in bars’ men’s bathrooms that shows a young woman conked out on a sofa after a drunken night, still dressed and ‘untouched’, but obviously intoxicated and maybe even unconscious. Or just asleep. Now, the more than ambiguous caption reads: ‘Just because she didn’t say no, doesn’t mean she said yes’. To what exactly? To get herself drunk? Obviously not to have sex while pissed, which would be clever on her part. BUT, then it goes on holding young men who do not rape responsible to stop rape, while encouraging young women to consciously put themselves in situations where rape, and misunderstandings about whether rape occurred, are far more likely to occur, and is nothing but asymmetrical gender blaming. So, if she didn’t say no, or yes, and then had sex, that WAS a ‘yes’ and HER responsibility. But, only to say no ‘afterwards’ is WRONG, or to send men to jail by falsely accusing them of rape that never was. Just imagine the man would say no afterwards or accuse her of rape, because HE was drunk or stoned too, or only, would he ever had a chance to get a female into jail for having ‘raped’ him? I HIGHLY doubt that.

With this, perfectly innocent men are collectively held responsible for rape, even though they equally collectively have essentially no ability to end rape, since it’s not boys and men who rape, it’s C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L-S, because women rape too. Putting aside that by now most rape claims are pure fiction, the ad misrepresents what feminists call ‘date rape’, sex with a woman who is awake and gives every outward sign of being a willing participant, including saying ‘yes’, or ‘nothing’, but was ‘too drunk to consent’ to notch it up a bit and render the female utterly unaccountable in ALL situations for ALL her own actions. Never mind extremely few people want to have sex with an unconscious person, or even stinking drunk partner or don’t know that would be wrong. Fact is, women DO get plastered and have sex and the majority in fact does not cry rape afterwards. But, too many do, and if actual rape is one of the worst things that can happen to women, (and men feminists simply ignore), and women honestly believed drinking leads to rape, they shouldn’t drink themselves into a stupor not to know what they did once sobered up. And, if drinking is such a big factor in the rape of women feminists want us to believe it is, simply ban drinking for women since they are in fact the biggest binge drinkers.

Why should ‘she’ be considered a ‘victim’ only, when a couple drinks to mutual excess, which is in fact very common and the younger the more prevalent, and then mutually decides, in their mutually reduced state of consciousness and rationale, to have sex? In that scenario he is every bit as much a ‘victim’ as she is. But no, only the male ends up in jail when someone thought they had been taken advantage of, when in fact both should be charged with raping each other since the mutuality of their stupidity does not cancel out whatever shared criminality exists the law stipulates. Or better still, don’t charge either of them to avoid drunken sex being criminalised and fill prisons with only men who did nothing than what the woman did – get pissed and have sex. But that would be intelligent. The real goal of these ads is to foment the rape hysteria and to remind people that date rape is a significant problem when it’s in fact not, since evidence doesn’t support it, thus justifying the existence of the paid sexual grievance industry and send men into jail to get raped there. Telling a man not to rape does nothing since actual rapists WILL rape no matter it’s against the law, and is a waste of time on the average male population since he wasn’t going to rape anyone anyway.

If he’s one of the very few that would rape, since rape is always a repeat offence and means fewer men are responsible for all rapes feminists also keep forgetting, I am pretty sure some clearly misandruous ad or laws will not stop him. It might even fuel his desire to rape some more, since he recogises that this is clearly an anti-male ad and that all women are ‘victims’, so why not create some more. Feminists really think a poster, or blaming all men for the very few, will suddenly fix everything and stop rape? Yeah right. The fact that women rape too, are sexual predators and just as violent abusers as men doesn’t seem to interest anyone let alone feminists, who in fact welcomed that ad, obviously, or, we could just as easily make anti-child abuse and male rape posters and put them in women’s gyms that say: ‘Just because he’s too young (or drunk if he’s a teenager or even man) to say ‘no’, doesn’t mean you’re not abusing and raping him’. Make an, ‘only women can stop child abuse and rape campaign’ and see how they like being stereotyped by what some sick freaks in their own gender do, but will no doubt make a big fuss when men do. They want ‘equal rights’? Make them bear equal responsibilities and penalties. But hey, it’s easier to play the powerless victim.



  1. January 3, 2016 at 4:40 PM

    Anyone who defends Polanski needs a reality check. There is so much bull in this prolix article that if I didn’t know better I’d say it was written by a rad-fem to discredit genuine research on false rape allegations, of which there are many.

    • January 4, 2016 at 4:35 AM

      This must be the most contradictive comment I’ve come across in a long while. For one, anyone who does indeed defend RP cannot ever be a radfem, because two, they have and always will condemn the man, who by legal interpretation committed the crime of sex with a minor, and calling it rape as the law interprets it they accuse him of doing, is by definition a false rape accusation. So you’re basically discrediting my research as being anti-men when it most certainly is ANTI-RADFEM and anti false rape accusers like Geimer and the other two liars most of all, because you obviously think RP is not a victim of false rape accusers and indeed radfems across the globe having done nothing but attack RP, saying that my work is bull and I’m in fact a radfem. I’d thought they’d rather write ‘prolix articles’ in the name of the women in the case, not RP. You’re seriously not helping other victims of false rape allegations by accusing anti false rape accuser exposers like me of being one of the root causes of this madness, RADFEMS I detest with ire. Just because YOU think RP is not a victim of either, to call me a radfem is the most ridiculously schizo BS I’ve ever heard. You could have at least said you don’t agree on RP being a genuine victim of either, but not to see I’m passionately ANTI-radfem since Lewis and Vogelhut ARE by definition most certainly false rape accusers having been of age when they had sex with RP unlike Geimer a minor by US law then, is as blind as radfems supporting these false rape accusers making up more lies in order to cement Geimer’s later false rape rhetoric and in her fantasy ‘memoirs’ calling it outright rape suddenly, which by definition IS flat-out false rape accusations. I’d advise to check on the definitions of radfem and false rape accusations before you come back with more illogical bull.

    • 3 Sam
      January 4, 2016 at 10:27 AM


      Please. Have you read all of Geimer’s misstatements and the stuff that in no way comports with the evidence? Geimer not only lies, but she likes to embellish and then embellish again, no different than the current spate of Cosby accusers. Anyone who is defending Polanski is defending the rule of law. If you are as uptight about protecting Geimer as you appear to be, then how about all the men she says she slept with both before and after Polanski? Her book is one long glorified sex romp of her suddenly possessing her own sexual prowess. She said she had sex a scant three weeks after what was supposed to be the most traumatic moment of her life, yet she’s having sex on the back porch of her own home with a guy named Todd. She called it “wonderful sex”. So apparently having “wonderful sex” with a guy who can’t give you what you want is okay, but it’s fine to cry rape against a guy who can? This isn’t a feminist agenda, this is outright lying for lying’s sake.

      • January 6, 2016 at 1:23 AM

        I doubt he will come back, Sam, people who cannot see RP was and still is a victim of foul play on so many levels since decades now ARE in fact radfems, or just plain blind and ignorant. I read about Geimer’s book over at Jean’s, and THAT alone makes it clear what we’ve been saying and writing about all these last years now, that she is indeed nothing but a blatant liar who didn’t get her way of desired fame. And so are Lewis & Vogelhut, even bigger liars, we oh so oddly never heard from again.

      • July 1, 2016 at 8:12 PM

        Geimer was 13 years old when she was drugged and raped by Polanski. End of. If she “had sex” with men before she met him, there is a word for such men. I agree that rape is often far from the most traumatic experience a woman can suffer. Awhile ago a nurse raped two women in the John Radcliffe while they were recovering from anaesthetic. That would not have been the slightest bit traumatic for either of them if he had not been found out. It was still rape.

        Check out an intelligent work on the subject and stop making or appearing to make common cause with a child rapist:

        • September 11, 2016 at 6:54 AM

          Alexander, you as most of you are apt to do when not armed with the fact, fall over your feet trying to stand on a footing that is not based on solid mass. You can post whatever video you want, in fact I have a channel for you to look up on Youtube. It’s called Feminism LOL by a woman from my native Canada named Diana Davison. She and another woman named Janice Fiamengo have shredded people like you with your inane ramblings about this “rape culture imperative”. Davison has been covering a case here in Canada involving former CBC anchor Jian Ghomeshi who was charged with many counts of sexual assault on three women. Problem with these three women is their stories were bogus and based on one the women wanting to “Nail Ghomeshi”. Her name is Lucy DeCoutere. She is a hasbeen actress who seems to think she has the right to ruin a man’s reputation with innuendo and outright lying. No different than these multitudinous accusations against Bill Cosby. Ghomeshi’s lawyer, Marie Hienen, shredded these women on the stand and in the verdict from the bench trial, Judge William Horkins stated in his ruling that these three women outright colluded and lied about what Mr. Ghomeshi did. He called them liars….which is exactly what Samantha Geimer is. A liar and she and her mother can thank Roman Polanski for not pushing a trial or else both of them would find themselves in the position of either pleading the fifth against self incrimination, or facing perjury charges for lying about most of what happened and their reasons for doing it.

          YOU say Polanski drugged and raped her, yet the evidence shows there was no drugging because by her own admission Samantha “took” the quarter tab of Quaalude herself. It was not shoved down her throat, nor was she tricked into drinking the Champagne laced with it. She “took” it. It’s that simple. She also chose to take off her own clothes, though she’s rather sketchy in that department and describes things happening that not only is impossible in terms of him supposedly performing cunnilingus on her while she sits in the upright position on a stool with her underwear on. YOU call it rape, yet she does not and never will. According to her own blog …. Well, I’ll just let her speak for herself:

          Mar 22, 2014 @ 23:21:00

          You certainly have a right to your opinion, but I have a right to the truth of my experience. I was examined in the emergency room that night, and I had no injuries, regardless of your opinions on anal sex. Victims have a right to their own experiences. It is unkind to ask a victim to be more damaged then they are for your own satisfaction. I was a sexually active teenager, not a child, and just for the record, it was 3 weeks before my 14th birthday which really does not fit into the definition of pedophilia. Trying to maximize the affects that a rape has on anyone is a terribly cruel thing to do, all survivor’s should have their experiences and their feelings respected. Exaggerating some, will not help those who are truly suffering. As for the money, I deserved the settlement after all I’d been through and I’m sure spitting more venom would have sold a lot more books. I am sorry that you wish I was more harmed, but I wasn’t, and that’s just the truth. You can’t substitute your feelings for my actual experience, and why would you want too?


          You say there’s a word for such men…. Then go ahead and call the late David Bowie that word because he had sex with MANY teenagers including Lori Mattix who went by the name Sable Starr back in the early 70s. Young women between the ages of 12 and 15 who hung out on the Sunset Strip waiting to be picked up by any rock god who would love to take a virgin to bed. And Bowie did, as did Jimmy Page who both bedded her. In fact she stayed with Page the longest, but it’s to Bowie she credits with deflowering her. These young women were called Baby Groupies during the pre-Ashcroftian morality of chasing after Child Satanic Abuse victims. You have the current GOP candidate who is himself, facing charges in October for actual child rape. See Donald Trump’s victim wants justice. Samantha Geimer doesn’t, hence her letters to the California Superior Court to drop the charges and the case and to leave Roman Polanski alone. She has even written letters to the two justices in the Polish and Swiss extradition decisions thanking them for their support of Polanski. What rape victim that you know of supports their rapist? I certainly don’t support mine. I want mine to suffer and burn for all eternity, not boast that I’m being sent “sweet emails” as Geimer does about Polanski. She even says he wrote her and her mother “really nice letters, which he didn’t have to do….” Everytime she opens her mouth she speaks about the consensual nature of the sex they had. And each time she sits on a stage where she’s being interviewed with that smirk on her face, you can just see she knows she has Roman Polanski as a notch in her bedpost. That is not a rape victim who was in your words “drugged and raped”. That is a woman who was listed as ADULT FEMALE on the medical reports submitted to the court from professionals who conducted the examination that night. An examination that found no traces of Roman Polanski anywhere on, in, or around her. How on earth does he rape her without him putting a mark on her? How is it she never says to the Grand Jury that she passed out, or felt like she was going to pass out if he supposedly drugged her? Can’t have a drugged person without them feeling drugged, which she never says she felt. In her “book” she says she had sex a scant three weeks after Roman Polanski. When I was raped I didn’t want anyone to touch me for a year after. I certainly wasn’t opening my legs to a guy on the porch of my house like she did after. When my rapist did what he did to me, he put his hand on the small of my back. To this day if someone does that to me, I jump. And the one thing Samantha Geimer never talks about is her pain, the pain Roman Polanski caused her. The physical and emotional pain. See, my rapist when he took me down on my own bed, pummeled me and made me bleed. He undid his zipper so that he could put himself inside me and when he was thrusting in and out, he left scraping on my inner thighs from his zipper. I had those for weeks. The pain to my pubic area lasted for considerably longer. Considering that he also made me perform oral sex on him, I developed a gag reflex that wouldn’t go away for at least six months, and then AFTER that I developed an ulcer because of the fact that I couldn’t talk about it with anyone. The ulcer I had for two years during which time all I could eat was soup. And these are the things Samantha Geimer fails to talk about… the skid marks left on her from Roman Polanski. Instead she talks about “sweet emails…. really nice letters….” Sounds more like reliving a past glory to me.

          You want me to take you seriously for posting an “intelligent work” when you refuse to look at this case intelligently? Novalis has more than laid out the work here for anyone with a half a brain cell to see what happened here. You’re just operating on that knee jerk response of “blame the guy” despite the evidence to the contrary. In all truth you could consider Samantha Jane Gailey Broward Geimer, or Tamara Sue Nye of being nothing but a Bunny Boiler, a stalker who tried to parlay fifteen minutes of fame into a career that’s lasted almost 40 years. Because face it, what other claim to fame does Samantha/Tami Sue have but her notoriety of latching her name onto a famous director.

          Here is what a Bunny Boiler is:

          Even in the Brock Turner case, he was wrongly charged and convicted. The woman in that case is responsible for her own actions and conduct. She was already plastered out of her skull before she arrived at that party with her equally plastered sister. They were driven there by their mother who like Susan Gailey, doesn’t get enough Cersei Lannister Walks of Shame for their deplorable conduct. Here is Janice Fiamengo’s analysis of the Stanford “Rape” Case:

          And anyone has the gall to draw up a Change.org petition to have the judge in that case (Persky) removed from the bench for his lenient treatment of Turner, who by the way has to now register as a sex offender for life. That’s what crying rape does. These women who take no blame for their own actions don’t give two shits if they ruin a guy’s reputation, just so long as they can join the throng of Social Justice Warriors and keep dropping that Feminazi bullshit known as Rape Culture.

          Do you see what I just did to you? I just raped you, and you didn’t even know it.

  2. 7 Charles
    October 17, 2010 at 3:32 AM

    Great article, Novalis. Love the idea to highlight the FRA problem within the context of the Polanski case.

    Lewis for one is nothing but a disgusting lying *** and I hope she dies from her drug addiction one day. Soon.

    As For ‘Ms Geimer’ being oh so ‘forgiven’, after I read your comprehensive articles about the fucked up Polanski case, sorry, she’s just another false rape accuser. I don’t care how old she was, she could’ve said, yeah I slept with him, mom, please don’t call the cops. But mom listened to older jealous sis instead. Idiots.

    I was accused of rape some years back, by some one-night stander, and believe me, it ain’t fun. It scarred my entire life. She did it because her boyfriend found out, and bingo, it was rape. He left her after she was exposed.

    If it hadn’t happened in the UK, but US, I’d be in prison now at NO proof I did anything to her. I was cleared, but my reputation was ruined and I had to move. The liar of course got away with it and was never punished for it. They just closed the case after two months of detention and investigations because I couldn’t afford bail, and NO one ever apologised. Except my lawyer and the judge who threw out the case after she recanted. Or rather after she was found out and THEN she recanted, the c***.

    Keep up the good fight for us falsely accused men, Novalis.

  3. 9 Bill
    August 16, 2010 at 6:38 AM

    Interesting and very thought-provoking take on the false rape accusers ‘trend’ in regards to Polanski – or vice versa. I never saw it like that, but yeah, you’re right, in that sense Geimer most certainly is one of them. (And let’s not even talk about the other ‘two’.) Or was, since she tried to fiddle it back as an adult to what it really was: plain underage sex. I read your other extensive blogs concerning the terribly messy case, and thought pretty much along the lines already years ago you dug up with great effort, filling in a few vital blanks. I’m aware of this growing cry rape epidemic, (see liars ‘Lewis’ and ‘Vogelhut’ to be sure) and the terrible prison rape, since they of course go hand in hand. At least in the States, where this ‘feminism’ most certainly has done extreme damage by now. And I know of these clearly mentally ill radicals, or that German fascist, um, feminist. You mean, Alice Schwarzer. She’s a nut case like all the rest – true. They think they can just lie and make up more lies, and too many just fall for them. Such is their insidious business. Unless someone falls victim to these anti-sex laws, people hardly realise what’s going on, the connection between that insidious movement and these even more insidious laws. Let alone anti-sex and underage sex rants that make one puke. Love your sarcastic remarks re these more than deluded ‘feminist quotes’. That’s all one can do – ridicule them. Great job, Novalis.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


July 2010
« Jun   Sep »


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 9 other followers

%d bloggers like this: