You are currently browsing the daily archive for December 15, 2012.
Hypocrisy is flowing from the anti-choice sites like turds from a overfull diaper. The idea that they are somehow committed to the preservation of life is the weapons-grade bullshite that religious thinking actively promotes. The pious f*cks are equating abortion to the recent mass murder at Sandyhook Elementary School.
How dare you?
You (fetus fetishists) purport to have moral standards and then crassly use the murder of children to further your own anti-woman agenda. I’m certainly glad that religion is such a fine moral compass and guide for behaving as a caring empathetic, human beings.
An image repost, but hey its still amazingly relevant.
So stop, just stop with the “what about the baaaaby” whinging and try to clear your addled cotton-filled heads for one microsecond. Promote your toxic anti-female agenda – go to town (usually church) – awesome, we need exemplars to show how incredibly wrong you are.
But don’t use the deaths of innocent people to enhance(?) your attack on women. It is gross and disgusting.
This post magically disappeared. Looks like someone has a shred of decency.
Susan Brownmillar examines the role of the justice system with regards to rape. Or perhaps more accurately the “male-justice” system.
[On raping a minor under the age of consent]
[…] States with a high age of consent usually employ the chastity standard for the upper-age limits. In some states the burden of proving prior chastity, that is virginity, falls on the prosecutor; in others, the burden of proving prior unchastity falls on the defense. Previous unchastity on the part of a young victim means there can be no conviction for statutory rape.
[…] According to the Yale Law Journal, “Evidence of the complaining witness’s consent to previous acts of coitus with the defendant may be admitted, via the theory of ‘continuing state of mind’ to prove her consent to the act in question. Also, evidence of her general moral character is usually admissible. Courts apparently reason that a reputation of ‘loose moral character’ probably has a basis in fact and that a girl with such a character is more likely than not to consent to intercourse in any given instance.”
All jurisdictions allow testimony regarding previous acts of intercourse between offender and victim. In addition, many states allow testimony as to specific acts of intercourse between the victim and other men at other times in her life in an effort to prove her “loose moral character.” Some states restrict admissible testimony to a general appraisal of her “reputation for chastity in the neighbourhood in which she lives” from any number of witnesses, to be answered by “good” or “bad.” Still other jurisdictions allow testimony concerning a woman’s prior sexual history on the grounds that such information has a bearing on her “credibility.”
-From Against our Will by Susan Brownmiller p. 370-371.
Mad yet? You should be.
Here is a quaint idea that deserves some legal traction. Consent has fuck-all to do with “moral-character” or any sort of antediluvian notion of “chastity”. The first pico-second that a woman decides in any situation that activities need to stop signifies the end to her consent. Anything after said consent is removed is assault and/or rape.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…