09/04/00

Signing the Sex
Consent Document 

Here's Robert Verkaik, the Legal Affairs Correspondent for The Independent

A change in the law that would make it harder for men to fend off rape claims by saying that the woman had consented to sex is being considered by ministers.

The proposed reform switches the burden of proof to the defendant, who would have to present evidence in court to show that the woman had given her consent without the influence of duress or force."

 We're heading directly for having to sign a document every time we have sex.

In other words, men will shortly have to prove their innocence. They will have to provide proof that the woman agreed. They will be found guilty of rape unless they can prove otherwise. We're heading directly for having to sign a document every time we have sex.

I want you to imagine that by the year 2010 it is accepted by society that women need to sign a document of consent before every act of sexual intercourse. No-one complains anymore about this. We've all had enough, and we've all agreed that women must sign a document before having sex, or the men are charged with rape. 

Very civilised indeed.

But this won't reduce rape. It will increase it - because this is what will happen. 

Many couples, in the heat of the moment, or because they're young and inexperienced, or because they're not very bright, or because they don't feel the need, or because they've been drinking, or because they don't have a pen right now, will embark upon sex without the document being signed. They're happy with it, and no-one will know. Who cares? So they jump into bed and have a good time.

But then there's discord over something. The man and the woman argue. The man stalks off. The woman is offended. And the hysterical woman's chat show programme on the TV now reminds her that if the document isn't signed then it was rape.

She becomes even more angry. And that b*stard raped me. That's what the law says. He couldn't even be bothered to get that pen. So that's what he thinks of me. Cheap and easy. That's all I am to him. I'll teach him.

He raped me. I didn't sign that document.

And she phones the police.

 she has re-written the History of it all

My point is that according to the new law, he did indeed rape her. They were happy to do what they did, when they did it. She was a happy woman while she did what she did. But their later argument has changed all that. And she has re-written the History of it all. That b*stard manipulated me and raped me. Rape is what the law calls it. I have been abused.

And when he is found guilty, he will go to prison for raping her. And the very fact that she didn't sign the document will actually be taken as 'proof' that he must have raped her - otherwise she would have had the time to sign the document.

You see, rape will never end. 

There will always be rape.

Because, however we define it, some couples will always cross that barrier. And when it comes to failing to sign a document, more men will cross that barrier, not less - so rape will increase. 

Thousands more men will cross the line in failing to sign a document than would actually commit an act of real assault.

There will, therefore, be THOUSANDS of more 'rapes'! 

The 'rape' figures from the Home Office will therefore escalate. The 'rape' hysteria will therefore be pumped up again. There will therefore be even more demands for more convictions and for more men to be sent down. 

And so it will go on. 

And then, of course, we will have to tighten up the laws even more. 

hundreds of thousands of men every year will be failing to get their sex-consent documents signed

After all, hundreds of thousands of men every year will be failing to get their sex-consent documents signed, and the feminists will be screaming that 1 million women are now being 'raped' every year.

So perhaps the law will then demand that we will all need to go to a lawyer before having sex, so that he can witness the sex-consent document being signed. And even more couples will fail to do this. So there will be even more 'rape'.

The truth is that the feminists and the government simply want women to have the power to disempower and debilitate more men. 

It's as simple as that.

The more dysfunction and disharmony that there is, the more jobs are there for those who work in an ever-growing abuse industry.

And men are the fodder.

Western countries are being heavily influenced by feminist spitefulness and female vindictiveness. And governments are very happy to accommodate to them - which is hardly surprising, since governments are the major beneficiaries of 'crime'.

The proposed changes to the UK law and the further corruption of our justice system will simply lead to more impulsive accusations, more relationship disharmony, more family breakdown and, therefore, more vulnerable and dysfunctional children. 

Have a look at this from Carol Sarler (The Observer 9/4/2000). She reminds us of the ... "Bristol woman who changed her mind during sexual intercourse. She was making love with her fiancé, in the middle of which she asked him to stop. He didn't. She lived with him for a further two months, then he (yes, he) broke off their engagement. She took a further three months to stew over this, then accused him of rape. He went to jail."

How is any man to have any faith in justice or in the security of a relationship when a perverse and corrupt legal system aids and abets any vindictive woman who changes her mind, or lies, at any time? 

the massive feminist propaganda machine is there to inflame women daily

And the massive feminist propaganda machine is there to inflame women daily, and to urge them, daily, to make false or frivolous allegations against their partners.

It will not be long, therefore, before men will just have to avoid completely any close relationships if they have got any sense. 

And, as I have shown you, the situation will not change, even if we all agree to have the woman sign a sex-consent document. 

As the thresholds for what are deemed to be 'abusive' behaviours move further and further into the realms of behaviours that are relatively normal, not only will thousands more actually cross these thresholds, but there will be an even greater number of people using them in order to make spurious accusations.

A double whammy!

The feminist-inspired hysteria concerning rape is not about assault, and it is not about rape. It is about feminists wanting women to have complete control over every man in the country by allowing them to make false accusations without fear and with impunity. 

And our politicians, for their own self-serving purposes, are supporting them. 

After all, the more alleged "rapes" that there are, the bigger can their various empires grow.

Yet there could hardly be anything more damaging to a society than for it to pour so much energy into creating more inter-gender disharmony.

Indeed, can you imagine what injustices there would be if, for example, every police officer who was accused of assault had actually to prove his innocence!? - and if he was unable to do this, then he would go to prison!?

It would be an injustice against police officers of massive proportions to instigate such a policy.

And yet, when it comes to women accusing 'men', it seems that massive injustices just do not matter.

Here is an example of how the government inflates and distorts the statistics concerning 'sex offenders', in this case by prosecuting men for the most trivial of incidents. ...

30/06/2005

Branded Sex Offender for Pat on the Bottom 

Sir: 

Yesterday afternoon I represented a young man who had made the stupid mistake of patting a woman on the bottom as she walked past him in a discotheque one Saturday night. The woman complained, with the result that my client was charged with an offence under the new Sexual Offences Act 2003 of a form of sexual touching without the woman's consent. To this matter my client co-operated completely and entered a plea of guilty. 

Yesterday afternoon, in addition to an order of compensation and costs, my client was given a community sentence requiring him to do 60 hours' community service work. Because a community sentence was imposed on my client, he is now forced to register with the police as a sex offender and to inform the police of any change of name and address for the next five years. 

While I would not wish to condone boorish behaviour of this kind, have we lost all and any sense of proportion? Is a young man who pats a woman on the bottom in the middle of a discotheque on a Saturday night really a dangerous sex offender who must be forced to register with the police? 

When will this hysteria stop?

29/01/04

Uninvited Oral Sex

The Herald Nova Scotia

It didn't take long for a jury to find a Sydney Mines man not guilty of performing oral sex on his then-girlfriend without her consent.

At noon Tuesday, the 12 jurors hearing the sex assault case received instructions on their duties from Supreme Court Justice Frank Edwards.  They were then served sandwiches, cookies and drinks, only to return 10 minutes after 1 p.m. with a verdict.

The jury was told Monday during the one-day trial, which involved four witnesses, that the 31-year old accused had been dating a 21-yr old Glace Bay woman for about a month in August 2002 when he began performing oral sex on her as she slept on her stomach one night.

The pair had had consensual sexual intercourse days earlier after watching a pornographic movie with another couple who retired to another room in the complainant's apartment.

The complainant said her normal bedtime routine was to invite her boyfriend, who was also living in Glace Bay at the time, back to her bed where they would have a smoke and talk about the day's events before she fell to sleep.

On Aug. 16, the night of the alleged assault, the boyfriend was caressing her before she fell asleep, and she did not object.  But she awoke some time later to find her boyfriend performing oral sex on her.  She yelled for her brother, who entered her bedroom and told the man to leave.

The woman, recently separated from her husband, reported the incident to police about five days later, after a bitter fight with her boyfriend on a street.  She and her current boyfriend held hands in court.

The accused told the court that he performed oral sex on the woman regularly, and on the night in question, she was awake throughout the sex act, "moving around,' "moaning" and "laying on her back at the time."

As the verdict was read to the court, the complainant ran out of the courtroom and down the hallway, crying.

The accused also cried, hugging his mother and lawyer.