CRYING WOLF ONCE TOO OFTEN

Campus rape Myths                            

It is a long boring job, working the telephone switchboard at a private University college rape crisis centre. Day after day, you wait for the casualties to show up from the alleged campus rape epidemic—but no one calls. Could this mean that the crisis is overblown? No: it means, according to the campus sexual-assault industry, that the abuse of coed female students is much worse than anyone has ever imagined! The infamous tip-of-the-iceberg argument is invoked. If there are no victims it must be because they are too frightened to speak out-so 'we' must, absolutely must; speak up for them. Talking up a tea cup storm is our job! Talking spin into the mute silence is our right; we have to elicit their dumb voice from the emptiness of all endeavour

It means that consultants and counselors need more funding to persuade student rape victims to ‘break the silence of their suffering.’ (MacDonald: 2008). It is all about the funding. Helping victims is secondary. A waste of money. Mostly, there are no victims. Not even one. Victims are rare; the need for money colossal. The big dirty secret of feminism. The empress has no clothes; she is entirely naked.

University campus rape movements highlight the present condition of radical Matriarchal feminism, from its self-indulgent narcissism to its encroachments on ever more vulnerable female victimhood. But this fake movement is an even more important measure of academia itself. In a hysterically funny historical irony, the baby boomers who deconstructed the university’s intellectual superstructure in favor of unbridled sex and protests now administer both. While gender studies professors bang noisily and blow whistles haranguing all men at over-the-top antirape rallies, in the dorm next door meanwhile, undergraduate counselors and deans advise and assist for better sex orgasms and the use of sex toys in a vain attempt to create quality sex via quantity means. Which any one who knows real orgasm and the literature to prove it cannot do so themselves. So uptight guilt ridden Professors of nothingness theory pretend vainly you can get something from them, if only dribbling notions of sex and sexuality. The academic bureaucracy is cozy enough to sponsor both the dull anti-male feminism of the academic false rape movement (which will ruin your life) and the promiscuous fornication & hookup culture of student life (which ruins your life in other ways). The only other item that must not fit alongside these new discourses or texts is a serious university’s educational purpose.

The campus rape industry’s core claim is around one-quarter of all female students supposedly will be ‘raped or be the subjects of attempted rape by the end of their college years (completed so called rapes outnumbering so called ‘attempted rape’ by a ratio, so it was claimed, of about three to two). The girls’ pretend assailants are not terrifying anonymous monsters grabbing them in dark corridors but the cute guys sitting so beguilingly next to them in classics class or at the students’ cafeteria. In other words naive young men like themselves.

This hysterical report, first printed in the infamous Ms. Magazine in 1987, unsubstantiated, took the gullible academics by stormy and biased onslaught. By the start of the 1990s, campus rape centres and 24/7 hotlines were starting across the nation, funded by tens of millions of dollars of federally and specifically targeted aid. Line up feminists and pay this embezzlement all back; all of it, every single penny, cent and multiplied dollar– every lying one. Victimhood ceremonies sprang up institutionalizing the ill-based trend: first there were theTake Back the Night gatherings, in which falsely alleged rape victims (all ‘licensed’ in their acting portrayals by the most high moral agony ) reveal their made up stories to assembled feminist-groupie fans crowding streets with candle-holding supporters; next came the Clothesline Project, where T-shirts made by self-absorbed rape survivors (meaning they had had some regrettable or clumsy sex with ‘someone’; or maybe not!) are stretched out on campus, while recorded noises of gongs and drums set a slow beat for phony ‘casualties’ of the “rape industry.” A special pleading rhetoric emerges: victims’ family and friends are co-opted as melodramatic goons or “co-survivors”; or “survivors” existing in a greater cowshit “community of survivors.” Unbelievable; theatrical agony forms mob rule ideology; and they want us to take feminist matriarchy seriously.

An army of salespersons passively submit to hiking the road, selling counsel to University administrators on how to structure University wide sexual-assault procedures, and lecturing feminist students on the “undetected rapists” in their midst. Making life hell on earth for all male undergraduates. Well-funded rape bureaucrats setting in train a huge state apparatus exchanged notes at University feminist gatherings as the Inter Ivy Sexual Assault Conferences and as the New England College Sexual Assault Network. Organizations like One in Four and Men Can Stop rape tried to persuade college boys to redefine their masculinity away from the “rape industries culture.”

This later thinking was like telling the entire community they must stop thieving, and were completely responsible for the actual thieves in their midst. In regard to actually catching thieves. Whereas in the real world away from the Mickey Mouse University nightmare, one targets actual thieves, methods for catching them, and advises the community NOT to ‘stop ’harbouring thieves in their midst’ but HOW to avoid becoming a target of the theft attempt’. Why do we do this? Because it is efficient, and it works as best practice. It ‘requires a least tax funding approach’ and, despite these constraints is effective and it works. Not all thieves are caught of course: that is probably not even theoretically possible. For example, we could ‘arrest everyone’ to be absolutely sure we got every thieving one of them– that is the Cuban/Chinese/Soviet Union approach (no kidding they actually do this kind of thing) – but too many innocent would suffer; and the entire country grinds to a halt. Nevertheless this is exactly the type of thinking of many of these utterly crazy feminists; they actually want to eliminate all men. Valerie Solanas, Dworkin et al – in some kind of feminist super state-they would prefer we pursue as some kind of uncosted ‘goal’. Toward the ‘vision’ of eliminating all men. Is this how feminist Matriarchs at University Nirvana Ninnies approach this? Somewhat in effect; certainly emotionally by affective action and politically emotive campaigning.

Let’s briefly examine what might happen if one first followed the rational, reasonable and logically workable best practice similarly, sort of-as if Universities are Rational Institutions-though it seems they’re not -even for false rape accusations-and see what happens.

1                 Advise how to not attract rapist. (Wow. We’ll look at that in detail later)

2                 Target crime as it occurs or as shortly as possible after; concentrating on the cases with the best evidences that will stand up in court. Compile suspect lists.

3                 Not take ‘victims’ word for it. After all as in the case of theft-it could be an insurance scam right? They could have sold the item, in a theft case, and want to receive more for it. Excuses for false accusations range from alibis for not handing in assignments to the unforwarned idea that they had tired of the boy (after having sex with him of course); how many men in America are now in Jail because of her late essay assignment, or her unreliable love life? Let us not trivialize men; he is in Jail for Eight YEARS because one moment’s lie of a few seconds, passed her skinny little lips.

 

In ancient times, when there was a real Patriarchy– she would have had her tongue ripped out for that; slowly. She is alive: he in a real living hellhole ‘fate worse than death’ situation. How does an unprincipled feminism answer that? Does feminism answer for its own mistakes? What punishments does it mete out for female infringement of its ‘high’ standards? None? Then away with it; it is an ideology of accusation! Without any evidence as well; this is what is so frightening about it. It could land on any male for whatever reason. Most seldom having anything to do with real rape with violence, bruises, cuts, lacerations or even a weapon or tools like ropes etc, . Completely innocent men can fail their unjust tests. Rather Feminism punishes those within it that mildly question or doubt some of its activities; a surer sign we are dealing with a criminal fanaticism that has already destroyed Universities credibility and all legitimate authority. They should have stood firmer against the bullying female mobsters in their midst. Yet this very extreme unfairness is feminisms undoing. When told the tales of their ideological, statistical and economic abuses, anger rises to the skies, forming a feminist pollution all of its own. Then all men and fair minded women can see the rank hysteria and fanaticism for what it is; mad, bad and mind numbingly boring to know. That is the death of feminism. We no longer need to fear it. They will then be reduced to looking after their few injured sisters out of their own ‘concerned’ pockets.

What do we do in the case of Universities emotional responses to this essentialist hysteria? We do take the girls word for it and utterly shoot ourselves in the foot; Universities are now seen as harbingers of terrorist accusations for the well lawyered sons of the wealthy. The Universities stand to lose LARGE sums from class action suits where sons have been brought to suicide by these fanatical fundamentalist feminist mobettes rule by accusation: the very thing Universities should not ever come to represent. The rule of unreason and mob rule over that of rationality and sweet reason. Universities have completely broken the Social Contract to provide intellectual services based on this ideal. The only reason anyone rational pays them. Perhaps we should all seek refunds for a bad educational product.

The college rape industries ideology showed no sign of a slowdown. In 2006, for example, Yale instituted a new Sexual Harassment and Assault Resources and Education Centre, despite copious resources for supposed many rape victims already left underused on most University campuses and also at Yale itself.

If ever the one-in-four guesstimate is correct—it is often relayed as “one-in-five to one-in-four”— University rape appears as a crime wave of hysterical proportions. No other herstorically serious crime, much less one supposed as serious as rape (We shall look at that assumption also), has a victimization ratio remotely like 20 or 25 percent, even spread across many years. For example 2006 saw violent crime rates in Detroit, one of the more violent cities in America, at 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 inhabitants—a rate of 2.4 percent. The one-in-four statistic must be false, otherwise it would mean that each year, millions of young qualified women meet with a suffering rate greater than anyone in history including the Gulag and the Holocaust. Nothing like that occurs of course; it is fictitious. Things had certainly gone mightily way too far.

They are supposed to have suffered the most terrifying assault, short of murder, that a woman or anyone can experience. Worse than avalanche, earthquake and car crash combined into one frightening five minute period; the length of time the majority of such ‘reported’ rapes take. Such a crime wave would require nothing less than a state of martial law—Take Back the Night rallies and 24-hour phone lines would hardly be adequate to counter this tsunami of sexual violation. Admissions policies letting in tens of thousands of vicious male ‘criminals’ would require a complete revision, perhaps banning boys entirely. The nation’s nearly 10 million female undergrads would need to take the most stringent safety precautions. Certainly, they would have to alter their sexual behavior radically to avoid falling prey to the rape epidemic.(Macdonald)

None of this emergency response occurs, of course —because the crisis does not in the least way actually exist. During the 1980s, feminist statistical researchers committed to the rape-industry for their own incomes had discovered that asking women directly if they had been really raped yielded too low and thus disappointing results— not even very few feminist women said that they had been handled as bad as that. They could not themselves call it that. So Ms. commissioned University of Arizona public health professor Mary Koss to organize a different method of assessing the prevalence of rape. Instead of asking female students about violent rape as such, Koss asked them if they had experienced milder actions that were then reclassified as rape. Such as undergraduates virginal fumbling’s interpreted as full out deliberate, planned and weaponised violations and serious sexual assaults: as if planned and executed by a serial criminal with a long police record. These were innocent boys! Koss’s method produced the required 25 percent rate, which Ms. Magazine so unwisely published.

Koss’s study had many serious flaws. Her survey instrument was highly ambiguous, as University of California at Berkeley social-welfare professor Neil Gilbert has pointed out. But the most powerful denials and refutation of Koss’s research were voiced by her own subjects: 73 percent of the women whom she characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been really raped at all. Further— though it is inconceivable that a true rape ‘victim’ would voluntarily make love again with the fiend who supposedly attacked her—42 percent of Koss’s purported victims had full sexual intercourse again with their alleged assailants up to 2.1 times on average overall! (MacDonald)

So much for violent regret. In other words say, you have sex three times with a young woman; but are disappointed –in a real ‘male dominated patriarchal world’ a male student could then claim out of his one-in-three dissatisfactions that the first one was a ‘sexual violation’ of his male rights and academic freedom and both sue the university and require the instant unproven dismissal of the girl. Great way to unnerve any academic competition and get rid of her entirely. Without any self-reproach or moral recriminations visited back on him of any kind. So much for moral hazard. Universities and feminists seem to have no regard whatsoever for justice, academic freedom for either male and female students, or balanced academic discussion over political gender issues. Academic protections for staff; but none whatever for male students.

Possibly the entire male gender should sue government and academic institutions for gross violations of basic human and educational rights.

It is not inconceivable that the U.N. could fail entirely as a reliable unbiased institution-untrusted by half of all humanity-on the grounds of exactly such an issue as this.

All subsequent biased feminist ‘rape’ studies derived from Koss’s methodology have resulted in this discrepancy between the researchers’ conclusions and the subjects’ own views. A survey of sorority girls at the University of Virginia found that only 23 percent of the subjects whom the survey characterized as rape victims felt that they had been really raped at all—a result that the university’s director of Sexual and Domestic Violence Services calls “discouraging.” He should have welcomed this rare rate of incidents. It exactly squares with the reality out there despite all the feminist hype of fear, terror and fake emotion; mainly to generate funds for their own precious employment-serving women only. How selfish can you get. Trampling over really valuable principles for a purely notional, and temporary, false peace. An academic standard that should earn failing Universities an ‘F’ for institutional integrity. Former students both male and female should sue them in open courts for gender discrimination, aiding and abetting tyranny and favouring perjurers and slanderers. Equally damning was a 2000 campus rape study conducted under the aegis of the Department of Justice. Sixty-five percent of what the feminist researchers called “completed rape” victims and three-quarters of “attempted rape” victims said that they did not think that their experiences were “serious enough to report.” The “victims” in the study, moreover, “generally did not state that their victimization resulted in physical or emotional injuries,” so we should report the researchers as manufacturing lies, a conspiracy of cruel and fierce lies, privileging one group only; a tiny minority of bigoted feminists hustling media for financial funding, time, resources and money.

Just as a reality check, consider an actual student-related rape: in 2006, Labrente Robinson and Jacoby Robinson broke into the Philadelphia home of a Temple University student and a Temple graduate, and anally, vaginally, and orally viciously penetrated the women, including with a gun. Or consider the case of a man knifed by an angry violent female assailant; as her weapon aggressively penetrates his wounded body many times-cutting his arm repeatedly, slicing his torso and ripping his muscles to shreds on one side of his badly mauled body. The chance that the victims would not consider this event “serious enough to report,” or physically and emotionally injurious, is exactly nil. In short, believing in the campus rape epidemic depends on ignoring women’s own interpretations of their experiences—supposedly the most grievous ideological sin in the phony feminist political code.

None of the obvious weaknesses in the research has had the slightest drag on the emotion driven campus rape movement, because the movement is an irrational political vein in society and media, not the empirical vein of scientific facts. Its license is the postmodern philosophy it is wrapped in; romantic Marxist economics and the usual dystopian ‘utopias’ from an obsolete socialist perspective. These things are the ruination of the West. In a rape industry, which advances a poisoned vision of physical imprisonment and emotional terrorism against men as a norm. Sexual assault will actually wind up underreported, argued the director of Yale’s Sexual Harassment and Assault Resources and Education Center in a March 2007 newsletter. You don’t need evidence for the rape culture; you simply know somehow intuitively that it exists: you infer it from vague matters like tip-of-the-iceberg theory and other feminist methodological nostrums. But if you do need hard scientific evidence, the underreporting of rape is the best soft core feminist proof there is.

University rape researchers do feel that they assess better than female and male students themselves about the students’ sexual experiences (unbelievably-no males are asked these questions), but the students are voting with their feet and staying away enmasse from the massive rape apparatus built up since the Ms. article. Referring to rape hotlines, rape consultant Brett Sokolow laments: “The problem is, on so many of our campuses, very few people ever call. And mostly, we’ve resigned ourselves to the under-utilization of these resources.” They still do not recognize that they are barely needed at all; and nothing is provided to men except their incredulity.

Federal United States law requires American colleges and Universities to publish reported crimes affecting their students. The numbers of reported of supposedly sexual assaults, rapes and other violations —the law does not require their strict confirmation— usually run under half a dozen a year on private tertiary campuses and possibly two to three times that at larger state and public universities. You might consider that having so little on reports of sexual violence a year would be a point of pride; in fact, it’s a source of embarrassment for activist feminist student politicos and politically correct administrators alike. Yale’s associate general counsel and vice president were clearly cowed when asked by their own Yale alumni magazine in 2004 about Harvard’s somewhat higher numbers of reported assaults; the reporter might as well have been mocking them about a Harvard-Yale football score. “Harvard must have double-counted or included incidents not required by federal law,” complained the academic officials. The University of Virginia does not publish the number of its sexual-assault hearings at all because it is so low as to be politically incorrect. “We’re reluctant to publicize it when we have such a small perpetrator ratio,” says Nicole Eramu, Virginia’s associate dean of students.

Campuses do everything they can to get their numbers of reported and adjudicated sexual assaults up, as high as possible—adding new categories of lesser offenses, lowering the burden of proof, and organizing hearing procedures in such a dubious way that will elicit more assault charges. All in order to convict more and more innocent male students; who paid them to study; not have the academic authorities study them in rigged examinations! At Yale, it is the accuser who decides whether the accused may confront her—a sacrifice of one of the great Anglo-Saxon truth-finding procedures. “You don’t want them to not come to the board and report, do you?” asks physics professor Peter Parker, convener of the university’s Sexual Harassment Grievance Board. Acknowledging this open bias and bigotry enshrined within the institutions.

The scarcity of valid victims and of reported violent sexual assaults means that the women who do report them must be treated as if they were precious rare treasures. New York University’s Wellness Exchange counsels people to “believe unconditionally” in sexual-assault charges because “only 2 percent of reported rapes are false reports” (a ubiquitous claim that dates from radical feminist Susan Brownmiller’s dubious1975 special pleading book Against Our Will which starts off in her introduction making dubious claims about both male and female sexuality and especially one female hormonal sexual response, relevant to the entire theory of rape). This book you are reading now has discovered the likelier true result is approximately just two or three percent of FBI ‘reported’ incidents. Making actual rape one of the least important crimes in the United States by absolute number. Including the high possibility that up to sixty percent of men, mostly black men, are in Jail for rape are completely innocent. Especially so if we calculate that since sixty percent of successful reports prove false and do not lead to successful prosecution; then these sixty percent to unsuccessful ratio-if repeated within the successful prosecuted ratio, means that sixty percent of the remaining forty percent are also very likely as false-just successfully false. In terms of a biased based conviction; believing women innocent over even their later retractions. Concluding, together with other falsification procedures, a result critically analyzed to be far significantly lower than highly suspect feminist driven hysterical figures seem.

As Stuart Taylor and K. C. Johnson point out in their book Until Proven Innocent, however, the rate of false feminized reports is at least 9 percent and probably closer to 50 percent. Just how powerful is the insane “believe unconditionally” idea in law? David Lisak, a University of Massachusetts psychology professor who lectures constantly on the antirape college circuit, acknowledged to a hall of Rutgers students this November that the “Duke case,” in which a black stripper falsely accused three white Duke lacrosse players of rape in 2006, “has raised the issue of false allegations.” But Lisak didn’t want to talk about the Duke case, he said. “I don’t know what happened at Duke. No one knows.” This is disingenuous. Actually, we do know what happened at Duke: the prosecutor ignored clearly outlined exculpatory evidence and alibis that mitigated those results and virtually cleared the defendants completely; this Judge was later disbarred for his feminist bending misconduct. But to the ubiquitous corporate campus rape industry, a lying female plaintiff remains a victim of the patriarchy, and the accused man remains forever under suspicion.

So what reality does lie behind the feminist driven campus rape industry? A booze-fueled hookup culture of one-night, or sometimes just partial-night, stands. Students in the sixties demanded that college administrators stop setting rules for fraternization. “We’re adults,” the female students shouted. “We women can manage our own sexuality. If we want to have male members of the opposite sex in our women’s dormitory rooms at any hour of the day or night, that’s our right.” The colleges meekly complied and opened a Pandora’s Box of boorish, sluttish female behavior that sexually gets wildly cruder each year. Do the politically incorrect boys, riding the supposed testosterone wave, act super thuggishly toward the predatory hormonally hyped girls? You bet! Do the feminist girls try to match their crass sensitivity? Indubitably.

College feminists drink themselves into near or actual oblivion before and during mixed sex parties. That drinking is often goal-oriented, suggests University of Virginia graduate Karin Agness: it frees the drinker from responsibility and “provides an excuse for engaging in behavior that she ordinarily wouldn’t.” A Columbia University security official marvels at the scene at homecomings: “The women are shit-faced, saying, ‘Let’s get as drunk as we can,’ while the men are hovering over them.” As anticipated, the night can include a meaningless sexual encounter with a guy whom the girl may not even know. This less-than-romantic denouement produces the “roll and scream: you roll over the next morning so horrified at what you find next to you that you scream,” a Duke coed reports in Laura Sessions Stepp’s recent book Unhooked. (Stepp) To any extent that they’re remembered at all, these are the fumbled couplings that are occasionally politically transformed into “rape”—though far less often than the campus rape industry wishes. One wonders why. A kind of indirectly monetized sexuality-prosto-fornication-with sundry forms of ‘payout’ including boilerplate degree passes engendered by tutorial/markers sympathy. This validates female studies students and undergraduates while ending and finishing an entire boy’s economic life!

The magazine Saturday Night: Untold Stories of Sexual Assault at Harvard, produced by Harvard’s Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, provides a first-person account of such a coupling:

What can I tell you about being ‘raped? Very little. I remember drinking with some girlfriends and then heading to a party in the house that some seniors were throwing. I’m told that I walked in and within 5 minutes was making out with one of the guys who lived there, who I’d talked to some in the dining hall but never really hung out with. I may have initiated it. I don’t remember arriving at the party; I dimly remember waking up at some point in the early morning in this guy’s room. I remember him walking me back to my room. I couldn’t have made it alone; I still had too much alcohol in my system to even stand up straight. I made myself vulnerable and even now it’s hard to think that someone here who I have talked and laughed with could be cold-hearted enough to take advantage of that vulnerability. I’d rather, sometimes, take half the blame than believe that a profound evil can exist in mankind. But it’s easy for me to say, that, of the two of us, I’m the only one who still has nightmares, found myself panicking and detaching during sex for many months afterwards, and spent more time looking into the abyss than any one person should.

The inequalities of the consequences of the night, the actions taken unintentionally or not, have changed the course of only one of our lives, irrevocably and profoundly.

Now perhaps the male willfully exploited the narrator’s self-inflicted incapacitation; if so, he deserves censure for taking advantage of a female in distress. But to hold the narrator completely without responsibility requires stripping women of volition and moral agency. Though the Harvard victim does not remember her actions, it’s highly unlikely that she passed out upon arriving at the party and was dragged away like roadkill while other students looked on. Rather, she probably participated voluntarily in the usual prelude to intercourse, and probably even in intercourse itself, however woozily. Moreover the male student too also was likely as drunk-see my constructed narrative earlier in this book. Possibly he too could construct a ‘profound’ retelling of being taken advantage of, -yet how ‘insistent’ she may have been at one o’clock in the morning. She ‘speaks’ for both-‘only one of our lives’-thus preempting our listening to him, let alone hearing or understanding his point of view. Though expresses matriarchal power in reality, both by such preemption, and within the context of knowing politically she will be believed in preference to the polite silence expected of him. Such a malicious environment of gossip and slander only witnesses to violent feminist exercises of crude lying power; now that is profound, and has important implications. No man is a stakeholder in academic or university college society. The student contract with undergraduates-to provide a safe environment for learning has been broken. Thus insurrection is lawful and could have vast legal and financial costs incumbent upon universities both morally and universally.

 

Even if the Harvard victim’s drunkenness cancels any responsibility that she might share for the interaction’s finale, is she equally without responsibility for all of her behavior up to that point, including getting so drunk that she can’t remember anything? Campus rape ideology holds that inebriation strips women of responsibility for their actions but preserves male responsibility not only for their own actions but for their partners’ as well. Thus do men again become the guardians of female well-being?Dr. Warren Farrell emphasizes this aspect as the male ‘role’ expectation to always be the protector and gentleman. The man’s account is not listened to ever in these situations. The females greatly enhanced account-note the double use of the word ‘profound’-is the only one given a hearing.

As for the story’s maudlin melodrama, perhaps the narrator’s life really has been “irrevocably” changed, for which one sympathizes. One can’t help observing, however, that the effect of this “profound evil” on at least her sex life appears to have been minimal—she “detached” during sex for “many months afterwards,” but intercourse she most definitely had. Real rape subjects, however, can fear physical intimacy for years, along with suffering a host of other terrors. We don’t know if the narrator’s “look into the abyss” led her to reconsider getting plastered before parties and initiating sexual contact with casual acquaintances. But if a Harvard student doesn’t understand that getting very drunk and becoming physically involved with a boy at a hookup party carries a serious probability of intercourse, she’s at the wrong university, if she should be at college at all.

A large number of complicating factors make the Saturday Night story a far more problematic case than the term “rape” usually implies. Unlike the campus rape industry, most students are well aware of those complicating factors, which is why there are so few rape charges brought for freewheeling college sex. There is another truer code operating; an ad hoc code universally understood as superior to the artificial and euphemistic ‘politically correct’ code of moral behavior; the politically correct code is the falser ‘constructed’ code; constructed by phony feminist theorists and wussy hangers-on. But if the rape industrialists are so sure that foreseeable and seemingly cooperative drunken sex amounts to rape, there are some obvious steps that they could take to prevent it. Above all, they could persuade girls not to put themselves into situations whose likely outcome is intercourse. Specifically: don’t get drunk, don’t get into bed with a guy, and don’t take off your clothes or allow them to be removed. Once you’re in that situation, the rape activists could say, it’s going to be hard to halt the proceedings, for lots of complex emotional reasons. Were this advice heeded, the campus “rape” epidemic would be wiped out overnight. As much as it emulates classical Christian or traditional recommendations. Feminism is the moral code you have when you do not want a moral code for women; but the men are held to the old code at the same time. One more case of moral hypocrisy designed to entrap men and let women commit sex crimes as great without penalty.

But suggest to a rape bureaucrat that female students should behave with greater sexual restraint as a preventive measure, and you might as well be saying that the girls should enter a convent or don the burka. “I am uncomfortable with the idea,” e-mailed Hillary Wing-Richards, the associate director of the Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and women’s Resource Center at James Madison University in Virginia. “This indicates that if [female students] are ‘raped it could be their fault—it is never their fault—and how one dresses does not invite rape or violence. . . . I would never allow my staff or myself to send the message it is the victim’s fault due to their dress or lack of restraint in any way.” Putting on a tight tank top doesn’t, of course, lead to what the bureaucrats call “rape.” But taking off that tank top does increase the risk of sexual intercourse that will be later regretted, especially when the tank-topper has been intently mainlining rum and Cokes all evening. Furthermore there is evidence that dress increases the chance of a pick-up-in dating for instance; another field where projection of ones ‘sexual’ assets improves the likelihood of success. Try dressing down and see how successful one is. Why else do prostitutes favour a certain style of clothing over others? They must for economic reasons dress loudly, declaratively; and, inevitably-in what is called a ‘sexy’ manner. Who can therefore be fooled by arguments about rape that enticing clothing does not increase ones sexual encounter opportunities. Do role models like models, celebrities, stars, ever dress in any way less than glamorously in order to market their talents and enhance their profile? With evidence like that who believes spurious arguments denying the obvious? dressing like a slut encourages exactly that response and dressing more modestly would likely make one almost invisible except to those who knew one personally. Marilyn Monroe showed this by dressing down and going openly in crowded New York with one reporter without once being recognized.

The baby boomers who demanded the dismantling of all campus rules governing the relations between the sexes now sit in dean’s offices and student-counseling services. They cannot turn around and argue for reregulating sex, even on pragmatic grounds. Instead, they have responded to the fallout of the college sexual revolution with bizarre and anachronistic legalism. Campuses have created a judicial infrastructure for responding to post-coital second thoughts more complex than that required to adjudicate maritime commerce claims in Renaissance Venice.

University of Virginia students, for example, have at least three different procedural channels open to them following carnal knowledge: they may demand a formal adjudication before the Sexual Assault Board; they can request a “Structured Meeting” with the Office of the Dean of Students by filing a formal complaint; or they can seek voluntary mediation. The Structured Meetings are presided over by the chair of the Sexual Assault Board, with assistance from another board member or senior staff of the Office of the Dean of Students. The Structured Meeting, according to the university, is an “opportunity for the complainant to confront the accused and communicate their feelings and perceptions regarding the incident, the impact of the incident and their wishes and expectations regarding protection in the future.” Mediation, on the other hand, “allows both you and the accused to discuss your respective understandings of the assault with the guidance of a trained professional,” says the school’s sexual-assault center.

Rarely have primal lust and carousing been more weirdly paired with their opposites. Out in the real world, people who regret a sexual coupling must work it out on their own; no counterpart exists outside academia for this superstructure of hearings, mediations, and negotiated settlements. If you’ve actually been ‘raped, you go to criminal court—but the overwhelming majority of campus “rape” cases that take up administration time and resources would get thrown out of court in a twinkling, which is why they’re almost never prosecuted. Indeed, if the campus rape industry really believes that these hookup encounters are rape, it is unconscionable to leave them to flimsy academic procedures. “Universities are equipped to handle plagiarism, not rape,” observes University of Pennsylvania history professor Alan Charles Kors.

“Sexual-assault charges, if true, are so serious as to belong only in the criminal system.”

Risk-management consultants travel the country to help colleges craft legal rules for student sexual congress. These rules presume that an activity originating in inchoate desire, whose nuances have taxed the expressive powers of poets, artists, and philosophers for centuries, can be reduced to a species of commercial code. The process of crafting these rules combines a voyeuristic prurience and a seeming cluelessness about sex. “It is fun,” writes Alan D. Berkowitz, a popular campus rape lecturer and consultant, “to ask students how they know if someone is sexually interested in them.” (Fun for whom? one must ask.) Continues Berkowitz: “Many of the responses rely on guesswork and inference to determine sexual intent.” Such signaling mechanisms, dating from the dawn of the human race, are no longer acceptable on the rape-sensitized campus. “In fact,” explains our consultant, “sexual intent can only be determined by clear and unambiguous communication about what is desired.” So much for seduction and romance; bring in the MBAs and lawyers.

The campus sex-management industry locks in its livelihood by introducing a specious clarity to what is inherently mysterious and an equally specious complexity to what is straightforward. Both the pseudo-clarity and pseudo-complexity work in a woman’s favor, of course. “If one partner puts a condom on the other, does that signify that they are consenting to intercourse?” asks Berkowitz. Short of guiding the thus-sheathed instrumentality to port, it’s hard to imagine a clearer signal of consent. But perhaps a girl who has just so outfitted her partner will decide after the fact that she has been “‘raped”—so better to declare the action, as Berkowitz does, “inherently ambiguous.” He recommends instead that colleges require a logocentric “clear verbal consent” for sex, a policy that the recently disbanded Antioch College introduced in the early 1990s to universal derision. For, as anyone knows, neither romance nor seduction or flirting is possible with clearly stated intentions-it takes the mystery and poetry out of sensual expressions of sexuality. So much

so that even 'yes' or 'no' is a romance killer. All sex

depends on sweet nothings.

The university is sneaking back in it’s in loco parentis oversight of student sexual relations, but it has replaced the moral content of that regulation with supposedly neutral legal procedure. The generation that got rid of parietal rules has re-created a form of bedroom oversight as pervasive as Bentham’s Panopticon.

But the post-1960s university is nothing if not capacious. It has institutionalized every strand of adolescent-inspired rebellion familiar since student sit-in days. The campus rape industry may decry ubiquitous male predation, but a campus sex industry puts bureaucratic clout behind the message that students should have recreational sex at every opportunity.

In late October, for example, New York University’s professional “sexpert” set up her wares in the light-filled atrium of the Kimmel Student Center. Along with the usual baskets of lubricated condoms, female condoms, and dental dams (a lesbian-inspired latex innovation for “safe” oral sex), Alyssa La Fosse, looking thoroughly professional in a neatly coiffed bun, also provided brightly colored instructional sheets on such important topics as “How to Female Ejaculate” (“First take some time to get aroused with slow sex activity. Smear fingers with oil up your fingers and let them do the walking”) and “Self Pleasuring Tips for Girls” (“draw around your clitoris with the pointing finger”). In a heroic effort at sexual inclusiveness, she also provided a pamphlet called “Exploring Your Options: Abstinence,” but a reader could be forgiven for thinking that he had mistakenly grabbed the menu of activities at a West Village bathhouse. NYU’s officially approved “abstinence options” include “outercourse, mutual masturbation, pornography, and sex toys such as vibrators, dildos, and a paddle.” Ever the responsible parent-surrogate, NYU recommends that “abstinence” practitioners cover their sex toys “with a condom if they are to be inserted in the mouth, anus, or vagina.”

The students passing La Fosse’s table showed a greater interest in the free Hershey’s Kisses than in the latex accessories and informational sheets; very occasionally, someone would grab a condom. No one brought “questions about sexuality or sexual health” to La Fosse, despite the university’s official invitation to do so. NYU is not about to be daunted in its mission of promoting better sex, however. So it also offers workshops on orgasms—“how to achieve that (sometimes elusive) state”—and “Sex Toys for Safer Sex” (“an evening with rubber, silicone, and vibrating toys”) in residence halls and various student clubs.

Similarly, Brown University’s Student Services helps students answer the compelling question: “How can I bring sex toys into my relationship?” Brown categorizes sex toys by function (“Some sex toys are meant to be used more gently, while others are used for sexual acts involving dominance and submission . . . such as restraints, blindfolds, and whips”) and offers the usual safe-sex caveats (“If sharing sex toys, such as dildos, butt plugs, or vibrators, use condoms and dental dams”). UCLA’s Arthur Ashe Student Health and Wellness Center advises on how a man might “increase the amount of time before he ejaculates”; Tufts University’s 2006 Sex Fair featured a “Dildo Ring Toss” and dental-dam slingshots; and Barnard College suggests that participants in sadomasochistic sex, “where ‘no, please don’t’ . . . can be a part of the fun,” agree on a “safeword” that “will stop all play immediately.” A Princeton student who thinks that a “docking sleeve” may be some kind of maritime hardware, or a “suction device” something used for plumbing, had better bone up, so to speak, before playing the school’s official “Safer Sex Jeopardy” game, because these objects are in the “grab bag” categories of penile toys and nipple toys, respectively. Encyclopedic knowledge is advisable: game developers list six types of vibrators, including the “rabbit vibrator,” and eight kinds of penile toys, including the “pocket pussy.”

By now, universities have traveled so far from their original task of immersing students in the greatest intellectual and artistic creations of humanity that criticizing any particular detour seems arbitrary. Still, the question presents itself: Why, exactly, are the schools offering workshops on orgasms and sex toys instead of on Michelangelo’s Campidoglio or Pushkin’s Eugene Onegin? Are students already so saturated with knowledge of Renaissance humanism or the evolution of constitutional democracy, say, that colleges can happily reroute resources to matters readily available on porn websites?

Strange Bedfellows at William and Mary

Anyone who still thinks of sorority girls as cashmere-clad innocents, giggling hysterically as they wait by the phone for that special someone to call, won’t understand much of the campus “date rape” scene. A few incidents at the College of William and Mary, a pioneer in sexual-assault awareness, may correct lingering misconceptions.

In October 2005, at a Delta Delta Delta formal,

drunken sorority girls careened through the host’s

house, vomiting, falling, and breaking furnishings. One girl ran naked through a hallway; another was found half-naked with a male on the bed in the master suite.

A third had intercourse with her escort in a different bedroom. On the bus back from the formal, she was seen kissing her escort; once she arrived home, she had sex with a different male. Later, she accused her escort of rape. The district attorney declined to prosecute the girl’s rape charges. William and Mary, however, had already forced the defendant to leave school and, even after the D.A.’s decision, wouldn’t let him return until his accuser graduated. The defendant sued his accuser for $5.5 million for defamation; the parties settled out of court.

The incident wasn’t as unusual as it sounds. A year earlier, a William and Mary student had charged rape after having provided a condom to her partner for intercourse. The boy had cofounded the national antirape organization One in Four; the school suspended him for a year, anyway. In an earlier incident, a drunken sorority girl was filmed giving oral sex to seven men. She cried rape when her boyfriend found out. William and Mary found one of the recipients, who had taped the event, guilty of assault and suspended him.

But in the fall semester of 2005, rape charges spread through William and Mary like witchcraft accusations in a medieval village. In short succession after the Delta Delta Delta bacchanal, three more students accused acquaintances of rape. Only one of these three additional victims pressed charges in court, however, and she quickly dropped the case.

In other words the females acted up; then accused the men.

A fifth rape incident around the same time followed a different pattern. In November 2005, a William and Mary student woke up in the middle of the night with a knife at her throat. A 23-year-old stranger with a prior conviction for peeping at her apartment complex had broken into her apartment; he ‘raped her, threatened her roommate at knifepoint, and left with two stolen cell phones and cash. The rapist was caught, convicted, and sentenced to 57 years in prison.

Guess which incident got the most attention at William and Mary? The Delta Delta Delta formal “rape.” Like many stranger rapists on campus, the knifepoint assailant was black, and thus an unattractive target for politically correct protest. (The 2006 Duke stripper case, by contrast, seemingly provided the ideal and, for the rape victim industry, sadly rare configuration: white rapists and a black victim.)

Stranger rapes also provide less opportunity for bureaucratic expansion. After the spate of “date rapes,” William and Mary’s vice president for student affairs announced that the school would hire a full-time sexual-assault educator, in addition to its existing sexual-assault services and counseling staff and numerous sexual-assault awareness organizations. Freshmen would now have to attend a gender-specific sexual-assault awareness program. None of this new apparatus —for instance, the “Equality Wheel,” which explains the “dynamics of a healthy relationship”—has the slightest relevance to stranger rapes.

However, the cross-currents of campus political correctness are so intense that they produce some surprising twists. William and Mary’s sexual-assault resources webpage invites visitors to “listen to what people affected by sexual assault are sharing.” It then offers ten audio accounts of sexual assaults, exactly half of which are male. “My experience came very close to killing me,” one man reports. One would need the skills of a Kremlinologist to interpret this gender lineup, and the site doesn’t explain who exactly these voices are— but it’s hard to escape the impression that William and Mary has admitted either a huge gay community or some very beefy women. Diversity politics, gay politics, and the sexual-assault movement produce strange bedfellows.

Columbia University’s Go Ask Alice website illustrates the dilemma posed by a college’s simultaneous advocacy of “healthy sexuality” and of the “rape is everywhere” ideology. Go Ask Alice is run by Columbia’s Health Services; it answers both nonsexual health queries and such burning questions as: “Sex with four friends—Mutual?” and “Will it ever be good for me?” (From a virgin). In one post, titled “I’m sure I was drunk, but I’m not sure if I had sex,” Alice takes up the classic hookup scenario: a girl who has no recollection of whether she had intercourse during a drunken encounter and now wonders if she’s pregnant. Alice’s initial reaction is pure hip-to-free-love toleration: “Depending upon your relationship with your partner, you may want to ask what happened. Understandably, this might feel awkward and embarrassing, but the conversation might . . . help you to understand what happened and what steps you might decide to take.” Absent that pesky worry about insemination, there would presumably be no compelling reason to engage in something as “awkward and embarrassing” as a post-roll-in-the-hay conversation.

But then a shadow passes over the horizon: the date-rape threat. “On a darker note,” continues Alice, “it’s possible your experience may have been non-consensual, considering that you were drunk and don’t remember exactly what happened.” Alice recommends a call to Columbia’s rape Crisis/Anti-Violence Support Center (officially dedicated to “speaking our truths about sexual violence”). Alice’s advice shows the incoherence of the contemporary university’s multiple stances toward college sex. It’s hard to speak your truths about sexual violence when your involvement with your potential date-rapist is so tenuous that it’s awkward to speak to him. And the support center can’t know whether the encounter was consensual. But Alice declines to condemn the behavior that both got the girl into her predicament and erased her memory of it.

The only lesson that Alice offers is that the girl might—purely as an optional matter—want to think about how alcohol affected her. As for rethinking whether she should be getting into bed with someone whom, Alice presumes, she would be reluctant to contact the next day, well, that never comes up. Members of the multifaceted campus sex bureaucracy never seem to consider the possibility that the libertinism that one administrative branch champions, and the sex that another branch portrays as rape, may be inextricably linked.

Modern feminists defined the right to be promiscuous as a cornerstone of female equality. Understandably, they now hesitate to acknowledge that sex is a more complicated force than was foreseen. Rather than recognizing that no-consequences sex may be a contradiction in terms, however, the campus rape industry claims that what it calls campus rape is about not sex but rather politics—the male desire to subordinate women. The University of Virginia women’s Center intones that “rape or sexual assault is not an act of sex or lust—it’s about aggression, power, and humiliation, using sex as the weapon. The rapist’s goal is domination.” This is classically played out with a weapon or instruments exhibiting some effort at planning. Usually by serial rape perpetrators. Not all of whom are men. The data on women perpetrators of sexual assaults are ideologically unsought. So the rape discourse swerves violently itself in the direction of a sparse monologue developed solely to promote one side of every story.

This characterization may or may not describe the psychopathic violence of stranger rape which is highly rare and mostly comes from people with a record of serial sexual assaults. What is troubling to masculists is the lack of information in regard to surveys, data or sought information.. But it is an absurd description of the barnyard rutting that undergraduate men, happily released from older constraints, seek. The guys who push themselves on women at keggers are after one thing only, and it’s not a reinstatement of the patriarchy. Each would be perfectly content if his partner for the evening becomes president of the United States one day, so long as she lets him take off her panties tonight.

One group on campus isn’t buying the politics of the campus “rape” movement, however: students. To the despair of rape industrialists everywhere, students have held on to the view that women usually have considerable power to determine whether a campus social event ends with intercourse.

Rutgers University Sexual Assault Services surveyed student athletes about violence against women in the 2001–02 academic year. The female teams were more “direct,” the survey reported, in “expressing the idea that women who are ‘raped sometimes put themselves in those situations.” A female athlete told interviewers: “When we go out to parties, and I see girls and the way they dress and the way they act . . . and just the way they are, under the influence and um, then they like accuse them of like, oh yeah, my boyfriend did this to me or whatever, I honestly always think it’s their fault.” Another brainwashed victim of the rape culture.

Equally maddening must be the reaction that sometimes greets performers in Sex Signals, an improvisational show on date rape whose venues include Harvard, Yale, and schools throughout the Midwest. “Sometimes we get women who are advocates for men,” the show’s founders told a Chicago public radio station this October, barely concealing their disbelief. “They blame the victim and try to find out what the victim did so they won’t do it.” Such worrisome self-help efforts could shut down the campus rape industry.

“Promiscuity” is a word that you will never see in the pages of a campus rape center publication; it is equally repugnant to the sexual liberationist strand of feminism and to the Catherine Mac-Kinnonite “all-sex-is-rape” strand. But it’s an idea that won’t go away among the student Lumpenproletariat. Students there refer to “sororistutes”—those wild and crazy Greek women so often featured in Girls Gone Wild videos. And they persist in seeing a connection between promiscuity and the alleged campus rape epidemic. A Rutgers University freshman says that he knows women who claim to have been sexually assaulted, but adds: “They don’t have the best reputation. Sometimes it’s hard to believe that kind of stuff.”

Rape consultant David Lisak faced a similar problem this November: an auditorium of Rutgers students who kept treating women as moral agents. He might have sensed the trouble ahead when in response to a photo array of what Lisak calls “undetected rapists,” a girl asked: “Why are there only white men? Am I blind?” It went downhill from there. Lisak did his best to send a tremor of fear through the audience with the news that “rape happens with terrifying frequency. I’m not talking of someone who comes onto campus but students, Rutgers students, who prowl for victims in bars, parties, wherever alcohol is being consumed.” He then played a dramatized interview with a student “rapist” at a fraternity that had deliberately set aside a room for raping girls during parties, according to Lisak. The students weren’t buying it. “I don’t understand why these parties don’t become infamous among girls,” wondered one. Another asked: “Are you saying that the frat brothers decided that this room would be used for committing sexual assault, or was it just: ‘Maybe I’ll get lucky, and if I do, I’ll go there’?” And then someone asked the most dangerous question of all: “Shouldn’t the victim have had a little bit of education beforehand? We all know the dangers of parties. The victim had miscalculations on her part; alcohol can lead to things.”

In a column this November in the University of Virginia’s student newspaper, third-year student Katelyn Kiley gave the real scoop on frat parties: They’re filled with boys hoping to have sex. She did not call these boys “rapists.” She did not demonize their sex drive. She merely offered some practical wisdom to the “scantily clad” freshman girls trooping off to Virginia’s fraternity row: “That frat boy really is just trying to get into your pants.” Most disturbingly, she advised the girls to exercise sexual control: “So dance with that good-looking guy. If he offers, you can even go up to his room to get a mixed drink. . . . Flirt. But it’s probably a good idea to keep your clothes on, and at the end of the night, to go home to your own bed. Interestingly enough, that’s how you get them to keep asking you back.”

You can read thousands of pages of rape crisis center hysteria without coming across such bracing common sense. Amazingly, Kiley hasn’t received any of the millions of dollars that feminists in the federal government have showered on campuses to prevent what they call rape.

Some student rebels are going one step further: organizing in favor of sexual restraint. Such newly created campus groups as the Love and Fidelity Network and the True Love Revolution advocate an alternative to the rampant regret sex of the hookup scene: wait until marriage. Their message would do more to return a modicum of manners to campus male— and female—behavior than endless harangues about the rape culture ever could.

Maybe these young iconoclasts can take up another discredited idea: college is for learning. The adults in charge have gone deaf to the siren call of beauty that for centuries lured people to the classics. But fighting male dominance or catering to the libidinal impulses released in the 1960s are sorry substitutes for the pursuit of knowledge. The campus rape and sex industries are signs of how hollow the university has become.

Some rape Studies Analysed

A study compared complex relationships among sexual attitudes and experiences, substance abuse patterns, and child abuse histories in college men. The comprehensive survey that was implemented measured risk factors found in the literature to be associated with male sexual aggression. In this group both men and women of a young age are aggressive, active, cheeky and melodramatic as to their feelings, expressions. There is also higher suicide from amoungst the young men today without linking it highly to sex, pornography or alcoholism. All of which is high in this group for both genders. Men lack a supporting ideology in regard to their higher suicide numbers. While feminism call young women goddesses no doubt driven by their lesbian ideological admirers than by any real divine status. If one is an all-seeing goddess of course what one says is reality, is reality; even to accuse a drunk boy who cannot remember passing out let alone, to defend himself whether he '‘raped' someone or not. And anyway who ‘raped him, unzipping his fly while he was out to it. Manipulating him-even by his worst enemy. Some enemy class mate with an agenda of her own; to prove men rape? To prove an academic rival 'out of the game', to get back at him for dumping her? In terms of the results, most of the hypothesized risk factors were predictive of female sexual aggression, including negative gender-based attitudes, heavy liquor use, and Mills & Boon consumption. Few women acknowledged using physical force to obtain sex, whereas more men acknowledged some form of sexual coercion from women. This included pressuring men and saying things they did not mean to obtain sex, using alcohol to obtain drunk sex, and having sex with a drunk man even when he wanted to stop. A few women reported some likelihood of rubbing men's crotch if they could be sure of not getting caught.

Also, a pattern of alcohol-related sexual coercion emerged. Fifteen percent of the men acknowledged using some form of alcohol-related sexual partying. Thirty five percent of the men reported that their friends approved of getting a woman drunk to have sex with her and 20% acknowledged having friends who have gotten a woman drunk or high to have sex. No women were asked this question. Only men are under this suspicion. Experience shows that women are just as keen on this kind of behaviour but it is not considered 'gentlemanly' to pose this consciously to oneself. Or, to ask, how many women got guys drunk, or themselves, in order to have sex too. That would be considered impolite; welcome to the double standard hypocritical lying world of feminist sex, violence and rape research. A world that is full of lies and selective results; hiding data that is collected, burying adverse results and advancing a hate crime agenda against men at every turn. For instance Rene Denfield references an ‘unpublished manuscript’ that no one else can check!

Pornography

Pornography consumption was common among the men in the sample as it is amoung all men, all persons and even amoung women-so such bias can be discounted, as there is no check for comparison; (no one went looking between Mills & Boon consumption and female sexual assault rape and violations of men (Viola! ‘It doesn’t happen’ they’ll say): skewing all results obtained with an intentional bias against all men by fifty percent built in to all feminist statistical data right from the outset (just by simply NOT asking them Dummie), right from the get-go bigotry is factored it in deliberately; there is no way feminist data of any sort is scientifically or mathematically correct; it assumes the results it's looking for right from the start. This is called ‘confirmation error’-and is a well-known statistical artefact. This is not acceptable) if we presuppose something and go looking for correlates then anything can appear to be related this kind of monkey statistical 'research' is meaningless, prejudicial, bigoted, discriminatory and therefore illegal. False data may as well justify stress and may further add to the risk of sexual aggression. Feminism creates its own rapists thereby forfeiting any sympathy for its supposed protected subjects. Why empathise when two out of three successful prosecutions and incarcerations are probably false. How do we know which ones-even the false serial accuser perpetrators will hysterically believe themselves ‘victims’ with all its self-congratulatory payoffs? The easy way for a ‘nobody’ to feel ‘modern’ and part of an advanced enterprise-just plead victimhood and name away some man’s perfect rights into nothing and dust forever. Preferably some boyfriend who has hurt your miserable feelings, but nothing else. No proof required.

RAPE

Though this method has not been tested on women for crotch rubbing perpetrators (for there are none such; no?)-‘Specific violent or rape-theme content of pornography has been associated with propensity to rape and pro-rape attitudes in laboratory analogues, as well as from self-reports of men who have admitted raping.’ (Carr and Van Deusen, 2004).That is if anecdotal or 'clinical' reports of singular individuals is at all valid; one suspects it has no scientific validity at all. A double blind survey would require some control group-such as known pleasantly attired and contextualized (I.e. NOT in a prison setting) rapists interviewed by neutral professionals who do not know these things about them; asking similar questions, to see if they obtain the same results, or to see in which ways they differ; coupled with a further question series of people KNOWN TO BE NOT RAPISTS (how do you ‘get’ either group?)-in a ‘world’ where all men are assumed by certain brands of feminism to ‘all be rapists’-where is the all-encompassing parameter pleasing and satisfactory to all groups. The above is one way of tackling the true difficulties of the scientific problem. Anything else men cannot accept. Mostly academia has accepted as gospel all research funded by woman’s groups and other interested parties. A little like accepting the Tobacco industry’s laboratory reports as unbiased and undoctored to suit the cigarette companies. Without ever including men in the equation; except rarely. Sometimes by accident, while really looking at women, some men have entered the picture. Equal funding for men is the gold standard in such a biased area. Nothing else can be acceptable.

But this test was not carried out on the women because they already believe women have the get out of jail card free because of inherent gender prejudice around the idea that young women of this age group being not sexually active, not sexually liberated, nor are they capable of sexual aggression-which they are; after all what daring does it take to unzip a drunk boys fly or rub his crotch to the point of stimulation while he is drunk? And they do do this. Think drunk young men AND drunk young women of 18 to 24 together with sex on their minds, both groups have sexual adventuring on their minds. Blaming one side alone on gender grounds is illegal. It ruins young men for life, making them bitter angry and violent criminals so that truly it can be said feminism makes vastly more rapists and massively more rape occasions or incidents than masculism. In fact, by that mechanism men make none. Feminism by false accusation may exactly by that mechanism make more. For young men, being falsely accused often anyway, are thus encouraged to think they may as well ‘do it’, as being merely a gamble with inevitability; seeing the innocent accused as ‘mugs’ or ‘dopes’. So feminism encourages and gives life to a bitter cynicism amoung young men so that women as a whole, are then the more endangered.

With a new patriarchal 'honour system' all females are somebodies sister, mother or girlfriend so men look out for evil men by themselves within the gender as a group police action (and political correctness shows us how tyrannically effective that ‘policing’ can be: people are arrested, just for words!) thus women suffer less rape-not more in a male rights social system and much more in a feminist driven 'rape industry culture' or an accusatory industry of blaming all on their own. Feminism causes more rape!. By increasing rape incidents. But not participants. Enacted on both men and women. Thus if is really about reducing crimes against women then masculist New Patriarchy is the way to go. Men are good. Men are better if included in the culture. If men are excluded from the public culture then men will behave in illegitimate ways. If they see that the law is against them then they will abscond from the law itself into wilful lawlessness. If they are going to be blamed as a group for that which they do not do. Then it can reasonably occur a type of thinking that if they do the time they may as well do the crime. To reverse a well-known criminal adage. Masculists will make this issue of betraying men on issues like these, retrospective and incumbent upon all state and local officials. We need to believe in fair justice, not biased and bigoted heavy handedness. That has been pre-decided and pre-loaded by a lying industrial culture of accusation beforehand.

The patterns of sexual coercion, aggression, and

rape-prone attitudes found in this study are very similar to patterns reported by other researchers and further strengthens our understanding of factors that may contribute to why a subset of college men accused of rape while the drunken females walk free. (Carr and Van Deusen, 2004). These are in fact men who are least likely to rape, yet stand more likely to stand being falsely accused of rape by hysterically deluded women pumped up by the women’s academic caucus, and by female staff and by feminist students. That is why we forgot to tell all on the women for there was no equal funding coming our masculist way for that little number. That is why young men no longer attend feminist fanatic Universities it is a legal quagmire of injustice and unfairness for all men. We must have male friendly Universities or Male only Universities once again in order to attract them. Or else we shall end up like Canada where 66% of the graduating students are females and their degrees can only become a laughing stock as serious male scholars teach elsewhere and the best male students look for male friendly Universities. That is why I suggest Massey University in New Zealand should become a male friendly University with a well-funded Male Studies department; 'gender studies' is a bad joke of a disguise and simply will not do-and thus attract the best male teachers, students and educators for the best of the best that the entire world has to offer. With no support at all for false accusations against male students, male teachers and males of any kind on staff. The matter now has become that serious.

Peer pressure to have sex and alcohol-related sexual coercion emerged as important factors in the social milieu at the campus surveyed. (Carr and Van Deusen, 2004). This is fair for it shows that drunk men can be victimised by women as in the following scenario. A party where both men and women are seeking sex, but the men are more reluctant because of the high cost of fake rape allegations.

"All are getting equally drunk. A women throws up on the front lawn. She reemerges and seeks out the man she is after, he is lying desultorily on the couch. She approaches him, sits down. “Great party!” she says to him; he grunts his approval with a wan smile. Irony lurking in his brown eyes. She leans close. He is too ill to respond. She brings her face close to his and slides her hand from his knee smoothly up his inner thigh. He moans. Was it from from pleasure or is it his groan from the drunken illness now upon him, his head throbbing. She strokes his crotch. He sucks air. His arm moves clumsily through above then flops as if he intended to wave her away.

Breathing out his fingers weakly rise from his palm. His arm too incapacitated to fully respond. He wants to push her away but cannot. “Do you like this” she says, unzipping his jeans.

She fondles his member.

More air sucky.

Leaning down, with her long hair draping her actions she licks his small exposed knob. It is all corrugated concertina like in a small tidy heap at the crux of his underpants, lightly poking from the side. After a while it responds like an independent body. People have politely left the room.

Her head rapidly rises and falls, cascading hair more deeply enfolds him. She is busy now.

His eyes are shut. He has passed out.

His member erect now; she goes to the door, turning out the lights and shutting the room down as she returns to him. He is out to it.

Meanwhile it like a sentinel slowly flops. She is mouth busy once again. Greedily she mounts him hitching up her pitiless pantiless dress. She has come prepared. Her body a party unto itself. Totally given over to her own pleasure. Cowgirl style she sits astride him holding close while working herself against his groin: the now somnolently dreaming drunk corpse. She sets to in a rhythm of rutting-her moans climb slowly blind to the ceiling; there is no knock at the door. She continues to a point of wild abandon. Completed, she gets off him. “Brown eyed boy, that was good!” she spits out in a low breathless voice. Collapsing, she too falls drunk asleep on the couch.

After a while another stink woman emerges from the shadows and begins manipulating the somnolent dreamer once again..."

As this scenario explores, we see both that female literature is full of such situations (as is lesbian literature with women subjects) and of how real that is in scenes from parties we have all been to. Feminist theory is one thing but parties are another, even the sex education manuals outline how females can reawaken a reluctant lover’s interest; here by outright taking over the self-volition of the man to the point of sexual violation. This is rape. Women rape men all the time. We must take off our Queen Victorian spectacles. Feminists violate men in other ways. Thus exhibiting a kind of indirect proof of women’s willing propensity for dark emotions, like revenge, to drive their lying, their rape accusation mentality, and their real willingness to both feign statistics (statistical rape of men) and to mimic or act out a fake 'belief' in these lies. Knowing damn well how false they are. This they call personal revenge politics. This is the feminist psychopathology of rape fake accusations. It justifies their funding, it suits their bias; it must be OK. But if it is thought OK while not being at all accurate. What does it say of their fittingness to rule over men-who wants to work for a dishonest boss? No doubt that Hilary Clinton could be the Next President of the United States-I am not saying that could not happen-with over 500,000 texts on feminism and still only 200 or so for masculist understandings I am sure it could. Yet it cannot remain so for long. Search Google for ‘wordpress’-a website creation platform-yields About 1,140,000,000 results (0.23 seconds) versus just Fifty million for ‘feminist’ – a rough reality check as to overall context. Feminism is not really that important. Though it overtops male interest so far in a ‘male gender political consciousnesses by around 50 million to 5,000, a ratio of ten thousand to one. Which means in human terms, men’s political voice (politically aware gender consciousness)-the name for which is-masculist-is like for each man who believes this currently : it seems like he is shouting to the next man, hence the appropriate tone for our writing is fierce,-to be heard above the din at all, -of the lying ‘voices’ of ten thousand screaming harpies (female gender consciousness) all contradicting him at once. Nevertheless his voice is to be preferred by men, for its reality is hard won, truly heroic and differs remarkably in its singular authority for talking accurately to men, as a man, in a man’s way.

This above is the current situation. This is changing rapidly toward men’s favour eventually. You can see by the authors further points later how urgent it is we must win.

The question is simple we need to have inscribed into law the situations and the questions; 'if the roles were reversed, if women did this to a man would this be rape'-if no then he should walk free until such time as it is. If a man did this to a woman what she had done to him-would that be rape if she is thought innocent in the reversed case.

Then again, he should walk free.

Either both are guilty, or both are innocent. Law cannot have an instance where if a man does it he is guilty; if a woman does she is innocent. Is law enshrined feminist gender bigotry and hypocrisy? Change the laws. All laws. Everywhere. Now. Between men and women. Being a man is no crime. Ever. Anywhere. Universally. Eternally. It is built in to reality. We have a right to be here.

Release all the men; or arrest an equal number of women. At random, from off the street-that reproduces the situation for men exactly. Sorry ma’am, nice as you are, we are going to have to incarcerate you for nearly twenty years or more, we have no proof, but that mental health patient over there just fingered you and we have to make up the patriarchal numbers to prove we’re right all along. Come on then, hands behind back. Anything else like that is a law no man must obey. It is unjust, unfair, illegal and discriminatory.

What do you think?

Send us feedback!