'But she didn't seem drunk to me. Merry, yes. Off her face, no. If she'd been all over the place, falling, not making any sense, I wouldn't even have thought about sleeping with her, of course I wouldn't. It would have been disrespectful to her, and to me.' [I]t just became . . . madness.'
The woman opened her eyes, took one look at him and became hysterical.
'She was just screaming at me, saying that because she didn't remember anything I must have raped her. She was going on about how the law had been changed to protect women from people like me. [EW: from the other article "‘The law has been changed for f*****s like you. If you’re too drunk to give consent then it’s rape.’ ". What our matriarchal legal system has wrought].
I was completely thrown, just bewildered.
Putting aside the obvious issues of equal protection under the law and feminine accountability, of which neither were much present in this case, this guy screwed up by the numbers and ended up being screwed by this cougar. In more ways than one. Enumerating, in no particular order:
- He allowed himself to be alone with a female who was not a member of his immediate family. Bad move #1.
- He slept with a woman who was not his wife. Bad move #2.
- He slept with a woman who had been drinking. Bad move #3.
- He slept with a woman who had recently banged other men, also while she was drunk. And he was aware of this. Bad move #4.
- She was an attorney. Bad move #5.
- She was old enough to be his mum. Bad move #6.
- He did the gentlemanly thing and stuck around for the morning after. Bad move #7.
At any point in this mishap chain, had he exercised some better judgement, this would not have happened. Luckily he was acquitted, other guys aren't so fortunate after rolling the dice in this manner. But like he says, it would be preferable for him to have been accused of murder and not rape, for his DNA is in a registry, he has a record, and his name has been soiled forever. Sex crimes have been so politicized by the hysterical class that simply being accused of one is sufficient evidence of where-there's-smoke-there's-fire guilt in the eyes of many men and nearly all women.
What I don't understand is why he is protecting the name of the child-like woman--despite her physical maturity--who falsely accused him of rape. She needs to be named and shamed. Justice requires it, otherwise other men will suffer the same fate. It is precisely because immature women like her can do what she did to him with impunity that the epidemic exists and spreads. She must be held to public account for her outrageous and reckless behavior--and I'm not just talking about the provocative clothing that this officer of the court evidently wears to Court. She must be taught that simply because she claims to not remember the previous evening's funnery, or if she regrets the sex after the fact, that does not constitute rape. Otherwise, disinterested men such as myself learn quickly to take the claim of rape by a woman with a grain of salt.
Still, one needs to be responsible for one's actions. As we've seen, western civilization seems to have an allergy to holding women accountable for theirs. Thus, men need to be extra-special cautious when dealing with the female sex as a result. To wit: the primary ways for men to get into trouble with the matriarchal state in this day and age almost all involve a woman/girl to some extent or another. Thus, probably the biggest thing a man can do to ensure his freedom is to not shag a chick before you're married to her. Barring that, prudence dictates avoiding being alone with a female of any age who is not your sister or mother, that is unless you have a wingman (or capture everything on tape). Also not bedding a woman who has had one drop of alcohol is a good idea. And so is maintaining sperm surety, especially when shagging a lonely older woman with a possible case of baby rabies.
Take note of the misfortune of others, my brothers, and act accordingly.
HT: Archivist at False Rape Society