Law of Causality: Actions Have Consequences

There are no sexual encounters, any longer, under any circumstances, in any context, which a woman cannot claim to be rape. Sign a consent form, video her giving consent, video record the entire encounter, with a waiver signed for doing so: and she can still claim that she was coerced.

There are, literally (not figuratively), no circumstances in which a man can engage in sex with a woman and he is safe from the possibility of false accusation.

In spite of this: Feminists continue (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5) to advocate for even looser definitions of rape and even more gender biased laws. Such as “Yes means Yes” / “Affirmative Consent” (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6). Which began in California and spread to most major Universities. A law which uses a Preponderance of Evidence standard and the accused is guilty until proven innocent.

Legal Dictionary “Preponderance of Evidence”

“A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant has carried his or her burden of proof.”

Under “Yes means Yes” / “Affirmative Consent” (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6) the accused –
-Has no right to face his accuser
-Has no right to legal counsel
-Has no right to a jury of his peers
-Has no right to presumption of innocence
-Has no right to anonymity

Judith Grossman, a feminist AND an attorney, spoke at length about her direct first hand experience seeing this broken system up close:

Wall Street Journal “Judith Grossman: A Mother, a Feminist, Aghast

“What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice’s looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.”

This law, for now only dictates how college campuses are to conduct rape accusations. “Yes means Yes” / “Affirmative Consent” (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6) is actually so broken that even it’s co-author, Democratic Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, has no idea how one could prove one’s innocence.

Time “Campus Rape: The Problem With ‘Yes Means Yes’”

“When the San Gabriel Valley Tribune asked Lowenthal how an innocent person could prove consent under such a standard, her reply was, “Your guess is as good as mine.”

As this trend continues, and “Yes means Yes” / “Affirmative Consent” is slowly slipped into criminal law at the behest of Feminists: MGTOW will increase in volume and men will systematically avoid women. Think that’s paranoia? Behold, it’s actually already begun and has been noticed.

Washington Examiner “Fallout from campus sexual assault hysteria: College men now suspicious of women”

This is about men actually avoiding contact with women because they’re afraid a simple kiss or date could lead to a sexual assault accusation.

Bloomberg reporters John Lauerman and Jennifer Surane interviewed multiple men from colleges like Harvard and Stanford who expressed concern over what was once known as a “hook-up culture” but is now labeled by feminists as “rape culture.” The change in terminology ensures that all responsibility is placed on men, just because of their gender.

Ok, on college campuses sure, you can see how that would give men reason to avoid women like a plague. Surely outside of college, out in everyday real life this doesn’t come into effect right? Certainly things aren’t looking as grim as holding up a “The end is at hand” sign right? This same process is already well underway in the work place as a result of Feminist HR laws.

The Telegraph “Well done, feminism. Now men are afraid to help women at work”

“A new book claims that male office workers are now so afraid of being on the receiving end of a sexual harassment case, they are reluctant to mentor, assist, befriend and even hold open doors for female colleagues.

Ludicrously, Elsesser cites examples of men who have been dragged in by their HR departments for simply opening a door for a female colleague or complimenting her on a new suit. “Stories like these spread around workplaces, instilling a fear that innocent remarks will be misinterpreted,” she says.”

Feminists have even complained that men are avoiding women – out of fear – that they will be falsely accused of a crime. The men, mitigating their risk of being falsely accused of a crime, are being blamed for doing so: by Feminists.

Jezebel “Men in Congress Are Trying to Avoid Being Alone with Female Staffers”

In the first quote affirming that these men are actively attempting to avoid false accusation Jezebel says:

“A new report from the National Journal says that many Congressmen have adopted policies that keep them from being alone with their female staffers. The idea is to avoid the appearance of “impropriety,” but those female staffers told the Journal that the policies are hurting their professional advancement and their ability to do their jobs.”

And in the last paragraph Jezebel ignores it’s own statement of ‘avoid the appearance of “impropriety,”’ and follows up by dismissing the possibility of false accusation entirely.

“Surely it would be easier to just not have an affair with your female staffers, right, members of Congress? Rather than surround yourselves with a protective phalanx of dicks and shrink away from interacting with the women you hired?”

It is exactly the feminist mantra “listen and believe” (#1, #2) which is what makes a man’s entire career subject to absolute and utter destruction based on nothing more than a woman’s word. Valid or invalid, coherent or incoherent, rational or irrational, true or false. What’s more… Feminists then complain when men take appropriate action to guard against that very possibility.

Men apparently aren’t permitted to not be sacrificed on the alter of feminism at a woman’s chosen time. Either by having rights to due process to protect against wrongful conviction: or by preemptively taking steps to avoid false accusation.

As this broken system continues to become even more egregious than it already is: we will see MGTOW grow in the same pattern and volume with which the grass eater’s movement in Japan has.

The blame will belong to those involved.
-Feminists first and foremost for being the supremacists holding the lash.
-Women second and nearly tying feminists for supporting supremacist laws and cheering as the lash strikes.
-Men for bowing their heads and accepting that they be lashed as they support any law which they are told will protect women.

It is we the afeminists, anti-feminists and libertarians who will have been the only voices in the chorus which spoke out against the denial of rights. Our conscience will be clear as we watch the birth rates plummet (IE: Japan 1), and see society’s infrastructure crumble due to lack of manpower (IE: Japan 2). We will be the ones who watch, with eyes unclouded by supremacist dogma, shaking our heads and shouting from the roof tops.

“We tried to tell you!”, “You wouldn’t listen”.

The future doesn’t look good…

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.” ~ George Orwell, 1984.

Observing Libertarian

Observing Libertarian

I am a Humanist small L libertarian Minarchist. In that order - As a result of this philosophy: I cannot in good conscience condone the actions of any group, movement or organization which seeks to oppress another individuals human rights. By education I have an Associates of Occupational Studies in Gunsmithing, and am qualified to testify in Open Court on the State's behalf as a Firearms expert. I am also an NRA Certified Firearm Instructor. I am currently in the Process of writing two books on Philosophy, and have only recently joined the MHRM.
Observing Libertarian

Latest posts by Observing Libertarian (see all)

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmailby feather

Published by

Observing Libertarian

I am a Humanist small L libertarian Minarchist. In that order - As a result of this philosophy: I cannot in good conscience condone the actions of any group, movement or organization which seeks to oppress another individuals human rights. By education I have an Associates of Occupational Studies in Gunsmithing, and am qualified to testify in Open Court on the State's behalf as a Firearms expert. I am also an NRA Certified Firearm Instructor. I am currently in the Process of writing two books on Philosophy, and have only recently joined the MHRM.

  • JinnBottle

    Surpassing excellent work, Badgers. I Like so many things about Karen’s superb video (for heaven’s sake, dear, DON’T feel bad about being angry on your vid! If that’s a sample of what angry can do, then, with apologies, I’d like to see you angry more often.

    Also, fine article. The 3-item List of the Guilty for letting the West become governed by hysteria is one of the best items, but hard to pickout among so much that is factually crack-shot – and emotionally honest, as well.

    More.

  • Rick Martin

    And people wonder where the term “Feminazi” comes from.

    • El Ratel Igualitario

      I’ve got an article in the making discussing that 😛

      Hint: it has to do with Goebbels and propaganda.

  • Jaime Osbourn

    They have commenced the greatest experiment in social engineering in human history. Only problem is one of the potential costs of their efforts is the complete collapse of western civilization. What benefit do they think they will accrue that is worth that cost?

  • Rarar

    “There are no sexual encounters, any longer, under any circumstances, in any context, which a woman cannot claim to be rape.”

    I didn’t realise that women can literally become rape during sex. 😉 I have to wonder what that would look like, though I’m sure I don’t want to know.