Posted on 09/08/2014 4:44:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
I got called “vile” on Twitter the other day, which in itself is nothing new – my fiercely pro-American, pro-freedom, anti-moron agenda is a constant source of outrage for the online world’s liberal fascist contingent. What was significant was the reason. I had shamelessly observed that young women who preferred not to have their nude images made public or who wished to avoid sexual assault should take actions consistent with not having their nude images made public and avoiding sexual assault.
Apparently, suggesting that women should not do things likely to put them at risk makes me “vile” because helping women avoid danger takes the spotlight off liberals’ politically useful “War on Women” meme. In other words, liberals happily put women at risk by denying them the harsh truth in order to preserve what they see as a political advantage.
But then liberals have a long and disgraceful history of sacrificing the well-being – and even the lives – of women to promote their grubby political agenda. In the War on Women, the left is the side running up the casualty count.
Bill Clinton famously left behind a trail of abused and assaulted women, but did Hillary the Feminist Icon stand up against his serial sexual exploitation? Nah. She stood by her man instead and unleashed her minions to paint these victimized women as sluts, skanks and tramps.
Now, this is confusing because radical feminists sometimes embrace those terms. Maybe I just don’t understand what a “slutwalk” is. Chalk it up to shameless cisnormative phallocentrism.
The left rallied around Bill Clinton, finding his continued power more important than the women he abused. On the plus side, at least he didn’t pull a Ted Kennedy and kill any.
Just recently, Senator Kristen Gillibrand complained about being sexually harassed by at least one powerful male senator whom she won’t identify. This can only mean that the Honorable Gropey G. McGropenheimer was a fellow liberal – if it was a Republican there’d already be a Lifetime movie about it starring Tori Spelling.
Amanda Marcotte is a liberal feminist best known for her work for pro-woman Democrat vice-presidential candidate John Edwards. Well, technically Edwards was “pro-woman” with an asterisk, the asterisk excluding the dying woman he was married to. Anyway, Marcotte opined that Gillibrand was absolutely right to let the Distinguished Gentlemen from the Great State of Bootygrab remain anonymous. Who cares if future women are abused by this guy? Women should be honored to sacrifice their dignity and their bodies to provide transitory satisfaction to turgid liberal leaders!
Remember, the principal principle of liberal feminism is that every woman has the inalienable right to be a disposable sex toy for some horny progressive politician.
Certainly, liberals hate the notion of women protecting themselves, especially with guns. After all, independent women don’t need liberals. Check out this YouTube greatest hits video of Montana’s own Todd Akin, Democrat Amanda Curtis, as she positions herself at the forefront of the “Let’s Leave Women Defenseless ‘N Vulnerable” caucus.
Liberals have long been willing to sacrifice individual women, but it is becoming more and more obvious that liberals are willing to put women at risk generally in order to promote their goosesteppy goals. Liberals are now resisting the idea of transmitting basic information to young women that would protect them from the kind of exploitation and abuse that liberals point to most frequently. Such tips include:
If you don’t want naked pictures of yourself plastered all over the internet, don’t take naked pictures of yourself.
Recently, as fellow Townhall scribe Derek Hunter recently discussed, a number of nubile Hollywood starlets found their naked cell phone photos hacked. Now these ladies are devastated that any perv can surf the web and utilize these intimate snapshots in their personal onanistic rituals.
It’s hardly news that electronic devices are vulnerable to scuzzy, creepy hackers, so let me ask a simple question: What the hell were you thinking? Did your thought process go something like, “Well, I’m a big movie star and lots of lonely but tech-savvy shut-ins with plenty of time on their hands (among other things) want to see me naked. I know! I’ll take lots of pictures of myself sans clothes and put them up in the cloud. How could that possibly go wrong?”
Similarly, there is a huge outcry over those sexual assaults that aren’t committed by Democrat leaders, particularly ones occurring on campus. This brings to mind another key bit of advice liberals do not want given to young women:
If you want to dramatically decrease your chances of experiencing sexual activity that you may regret down the road, don’t get hammered and go back to some guy’s place for the night.
Again, if you’re in college it probably should not be so hard to understand that guzzling Jose Cuervo until you are a stumbling, puking wreck and then heading off to a random dude’s dorm is likely to end up in the inept coupling that passes for erotic activity among 19-year olds. But apparently this utterly obvious point is lost on many young women. It needs to be reinforced, but liberals reject doing so as furiously as a hippie rejects soap.
The liberals pretend that they are protecting the freedom of you young women, and in a way they are. You do have the freedom to take nude selfies and to stagger back to guys’ cribs. You just shouldn’t exercise that freedom if you don’t want to risk the consequences. Is it unfair that some bad people out there might exploit you when you exercise your freedom? Yeah, it is. So is life.
It’s not “blaming the victim” to tell a potential victim not to do stupid things that dramatically increase her risk. Nor does it somehow excuse the victimizer to point out that a little common sense would have made the victimizer’s task either much more difficult or impossible.
The law has a concept that helps explain this to the slow and the liberal. It’s called “joint and several liability.” That is, more than one individual can be concurrently (and differently) at fault for a given harm. The male who molests the passed out young woman who crawled into his bed is to blame, perhaps even in a criminal sense. But the young woman was still stupid to have gotten sloshed and gone home with him.
Yet liberals don’t want society to send that message. Is it because of liberals’ typically confused moral reasoning, or is it because of a more sinister desire to perpetrate sexual abuse the same way they stoke the fires of racial resentment in order to lock in their coalition? It doesn’t matter.
Ladies, be smart. Use your common sense and stay out of bad situations where you are at risk. That includes inside the voting booth.
How incapacitated?
If they are unconscious, there is no question it’s rape.
If their judgment is merely impaired, maybe it’s seduction.
What if the sex actually transpired but between two parties equally inebriated? Why does it constitute rape on the part of the male but victimhood on the part of the female, even if it was mutually consensual? Why is the male adjudged fully competent (and hence, fully liable) while the female is held blameless due to her diminished capacity?
Sadly, we are also typically physically stronger.
The case would end with the man being guilty and the woman's guilt “not proven.”
It is kind of difficult for us to say we didn't at least have battery proven against us, if not rape.
In the end, we need to keep our privates, private and keep ourselves sober enough to be beyond reproach.
Let’s stipulate that
1) Sexual congress did take place;
2) No force was used by either party;
3) The act was mutually consensual at the time.
The contradiction I’m struggling with is the fact that a woman can claim she was raped if she consents to sexual congress while in an impaired state, under the legal claim that she hadn’t sufficient presence of mind to rationally evaluate her decision. However, a man who has sex with a woman while he is in an impaired state cannot claim the same defense. He is held to be criminally liable for his actions. If the same standard were applied, either the man could defend on the grounds of inability to form criminal intent, or the woman would be held equally liable for the act, since she consented. In either case, a charge of rape would not survive the defense.
I share your frustration, but if the man doesn’t leave a product behind, or, unless one of these odd Californian “sexual union” contracts is signed, the male will inevitably be the one on the hook for charges (or later child support, etc.).
This is where men need to be very careful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.