Terrifying. Absolutely terrifying. Hysteria has replaced reason to the point where my liberty is dependent upon an after the event decision based on the subjective and mutable opinions of others.
There's no way you could prove this. Even if the woman signed something, how can you prove it was not under duress? How can you prove she didn't change her mind 10 seconds later and say no?
I date exclusively out of the UK these days. I date only foreign women (because unlike British women, they are actually pretty) who live overseas, so I should be safe, but others won't.
I have also applied for dual citizenship, so a few months and I'll hopefully be able to begin the 5 year process of migrating my mind and my assets out of here.
I can't see this law lasting long, there'll just be too many innocent men sent to prison. There is a limit to the extent lunacy can exist before things fall over.
It is funny that we as a species had to trick ourselves back into common sense rules of courtship. Because that's where things like this end- the establishment of social rules we should never have moved away from in the first place.
Hey Cap, I saw the article yesterday and had a field day taking it apart. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on it.
Also, I wrote a follow-up of sorts on your thoughts on travelling through Europe. I hope I accurately captured the reasons behind your frustrations on that trip.
Drop me a line sometime, I've been following your work for years and would be honoured to chat.
Yes, be careful out there, but recognize it's the leftist controlled system that's the problem, not the women. See my post at; https://wisdomdistillery.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/women-are-not-the-enemy/
the solution is simple. if you are not a slave to your desires, you dont need the hassle.
and even better, with the future coming; guys with decent jobs are going to be rare. if you got one, you can take your pick. congrats liberals, you killed the femine movement with every other aspect of "progress".
The bit about "being financially dependant" is aimed at getting peak males -- those who are now in positions of power -- sacked.
Or screwing with husbands when the wifey wants out.
The reaction of men? Frosty does not cover it. I expect petitions akin to the goodwives of England demanding the banning of coffee so that their husbands would come home and service them to occur -- but this time with an ick cause.
Because criminal sanctions should be applied for ick.
If on a jury, vote innocent. Refuse plea bargains. Better still, avoid all women anywhere in countries where feminist hags write the regulations.
Illegally record the act? Oh, wait, that's illegal without both party's consent.
Practically, this is simply a law that says "we will believe anything a woman has to say, and the man's word is suspect unless he can prove otherwise."
Which we all know he won't be able to.
False rape accusations is Britain are as good as gold - no one will question them, because the law sas they don't have to.
Basically if you sleep with a girl then she can always ruin your life from then on if she chooses to. Like "J" said, she can undo all of the proof if she wants. If they are insane enough to pass a law like this then they would certainly be insane enough to think, "Well, she said 'yes' but only because she was manipulated into it...Rape! 15 years."
So how would you defend yourself against a false accusation then? The woman falsely accuses and you have to prove she said yes in a situation that never even happened.
Headline is misleading: there has been no change in the law since 2003 (afaik) - altho that law in itself reverses the burden of proof in certain circumstances, e.g. requiring the defendant to show "steps taken to establish >>>reasonable<<< belief of (capacity to) consent" if the complainant is judged to lack the capacity to consent e.g. if complainant is >>>too drunk<<<. How drunk is too drunk? and what is or is not reasonable basis for belief in consent? are undefined in law, and are left up to the jury. Compare and contrast R vs Evans with R vs MacDonald. Two men had sex with the same woman, in same room, within same hour. She had no memory of it, both men said she said "yes" to sex. Court held that altho conscious, she was too drunk to consent. The two were tried together: MacDonald = not guilty, Evans = guilty. Entirely hinged on how / how much the men had interacted with the woman earlier.
Anyway, what this recent announcement means is cops / DPP / CPs will waste more money & time bringing cases with inadaequate evidence to court. All part of constant push not for justice, but just more convictions - and at a time when rates of rape have fallen and continue to fall. So, not quite as insane as headline and article would have you believe...
Re: taping sex "illegally". If you are falsely accused of rape, what would you rather be sentenced for?
A) Breaking the Data Protection Act (and the Domestic Violence legislation, and law against revealing rape accusers ID) by making a recording without asking her, just in case - that if falsely accused, you then later use to exonerate yourself from the false rape charge in the eyes of the law by submitting a transcript as evidence (and exonerate yourself in the public eye by putting it up on the internet)? or B) rape?
A) will get you fines/maybe some time, but B) will get you serious time, sex offenders registry and hunted down by vigilantes who will try to beat/castrate/kill you.
California Penal Code 633.5 allowed me to legally videotape without consent. I was able to admit videotapes to evidence which included parts in my video here (http://youtu.be/fbQhkgTZUto). She was extorting me to not divorce her or ruin my career in the air force, file false charges against me, and to give her $8k.
Captain,
ReplyDeleteIs that what you mean by "frosty" ?
http://sellgosell.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/mini-wheat.jpg
Terrifying. Absolutely terrifying. Hysteria has replaced reason to the point where my liberty is dependent upon an after the event decision based on the subjective and mutable opinions of others.
ReplyDeleteThere's no way you could prove this. Even if the woman signed something, how can you prove it was not under duress? How can you prove she didn't change her mind 10 seconds later and say no?
I date exclusively out of the UK these days. I date only foreign women (because unlike British women, they are actually pretty) who live overseas, so I should be safe, but others won't.
I have also applied for dual citizenship, so a few months and I'll hopefully be able to begin the 5 year process of migrating my mind and my assets out of here.
I can't see this law lasting long, there'll just be too many innocent men sent to prison. There is a limit to the extent lunacy can exist before things fall over.
It is funny that we as a species had to trick ourselves back into common sense rules of courtship. Because that's where things like this end- the establishment of social rules we should never have moved away from in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIt's only a matter of time before this makes it to the US.
ReplyDeleteFilm everything.
Hey Cap, I saw the article yesterday and had a field day taking it apart. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I wrote a follow-up of sorts on your thoughts on travelling through Europe. I hope I accurately captured the reasons behind your frustrations on that trip.
Drop me a line sometime, I've been following your work for years and would be honoured to chat.
I'll be sure to bring notarized paperwork and two independent witnesses along on the honeymoon.
ReplyDeleteYes, be careful out there, but recognize it's the leftist controlled system that's the problem, not the women. See my post at;
ReplyDeletehttps://wisdomdistillery.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/women-are-not-the-enemy/
the solution is simple. if you are not a slave to your desires, you dont need the hassle.
ReplyDeleteand even better, with the future coming; guys with decent jobs are going to be rare. if you got one, you can take your pick. congrats liberals, you killed the femine movement with every other aspect of "progress".
The population of England will take another dip. They might as well import more Muslims and implement Sharia law. England is lost.
ReplyDeleteI think of it as the "Mandatory Sex Tape Law"... record the whole thing and you can prove that she gave consent and never revoked it.
ReplyDeleteThe bit about "being financially dependant" is aimed at getting peak males -- those who are now in positions of power -- sacked.
ReplyDeleteOr screwing with husbands when the wifey wants out.
The reaction of men? Frosty does not cover it. I expect petitions akin to the goodwives of England demanding the banning of coffee so that their husbands would come home and service them to occur -- but this time with an ick cause.
Because criminal sanctions should be applied for ick.
If on a jury, vote innocent. Refuse plea bargains. Better still, avoid all women anywhere in countries where feminist hags write the regulations.
How do you prove it?
ReplyDeleteIllegally record the act? Oh, wait, that's illegal without both party's consent.
Practically, this is simply a law that says "we will believe anything a woman has to say, and the man's word is suspect unless he can prove otherwise."
Which we all know he won't be able to.
False rape accusations is Britain are as good as gold - no one will question them, because the law sas they don't have to.
Basically if you sleep with a girl then she can always ruin your life from then on if she chooses to. Like "J" said, she can undo all of the proof if she wants. If they are insane enough to pass a law like this then they would certainly be insane enough to think, "Well, she said 'yes' but only because she was manipulated into it...Rape! 15 years."
ReplyDeleteSo how would you defend yourself against a false accusation then? The woman falsely accuses and you have to prove she said yes in a situation that never even happened.
Headline is misleading: there has been no change in the law since 2003 (afaik) - altho that law in itself reverses the burden of proof in certain circumstances, e.g. requiring the defendant to show "steps taken to establish >>>reasonable<<< belief of (capacity to) consent" if the complainant is judged to lack the capacity to consent e.g. if complainant is >>>too drunk<<<.
ReplyDeleteHow drunk is too drunk? and what is or is not reasonable basis for belief in consent? are undefined in law, and are left up to the jury. Compare and contrast R vs Evans with R vs MacDonald. Two men had sex with the same woman, in same room, within same hour. She had no memory of it, both men said she said "yes" to sex. Court held that altho conscious, she was too drunk to consent. The two were tried together: MacDonald = not guilty, Evans = guilty. Entirely hinged on how / how much the men had interacted with the woman earlier.
Anyway, what this recent announcement means is cops / DPP / CPs will waste more money & time bringing cases with inadaequate evidence to court. All part of constant push not for justice, but just more convictions - and at a time when rates of rape have fallen and continue to fall. So, not quite as insane as headline and article would have you believe...
Re: taping sex "illegally". If you are falsely accused of rape, what would you rather be sentenced for?
ReplyDeleteA) Breaking the Data Protection Act (and the Domestic Violence legislation, and law against revealing rape accusers ID) by making a recording without asking her, just in case - that if falsely accused, you then later use to exonerate yourself from the false rape charge in the eyes of the law by submitting a transcript as evidence (and exonerate yourself in the public eye by putting it up on the internet)?
or
B) rape?
A) will get you fines/maybe some time,
but
B) will get you serious time, sex offenders registry and hunted down by vigilantes who will try to beat/castrate/kill you.
Pick a door.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2030471/Wicked-women-jailed-accusing-man-rape-showed-police-pictures-consensual-threesome.html
ReplyDeleteHookers seem to be, more and more, a less expensive and legally safer alternative.
ReplyDeleteSociety is headed to the toilet. In West Hollywood, CA it's now against the law to have gender specific restrooms.
California Penal Code 633.5 allowed me to legally videotape without consent. I was able to admit videotapes to evidence which included parts in my video here (http://youtu.be/fbQhkgTZUto). She was extorting me to not divorce her or ruin my career in the air force, file false charges against me, and to give her $8k.
ReplyDelete