Thanks to #MeToo and the likes of Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Prince Andrew, sexual predation has become a hot topic in recent times.
The problem is, much of the discussion is just useless virtue-signalling and feminist venting that contains little in the way of practical advice.
The incidence of sexual assault has increased significantly over the last decade, and has kept rising as if #MeToo never existed. In fact, during the last two years, sexual assault spiked even higher as sadistic governments forced victims into lockdown alongside their attackers.
One of the reasons the reinvigorated discussion of sexual assault is having little effect is because it largely ignores numerous key contributors to sexual assault. One of these factors is alcohol (to be further discussed in a coming article), another is a popular technology that is keeping sex predators around the world very busy.
So why the head-in-sand approach? No doubt because the two aforementioned factors are immensely popular, socially acceptable, and are often used (and abused) by many of the same people who rail against sexual assault. Other factors are ignored because they don't conform to the popular but myopic portrayal of sexual assault as a crime committed by the white male patriarchy. The reality is sexual assault is committed by people from all socioeconomic levels, ethnicities, sexual preferences and genders. While men form the majority of perpetrators, the majority of men are not rapists and would not commit sexual assault even if they were guaranteed to avoid any negative consequences for their offending. But instead of focusing on the segment of men who do sexually harass and assault and determining what sets them apart from non-predatory men, the woke/feminist narrative has instead focused on deriding men in general, as if being born with a penis is an original sin.
This article will present some hard truths about sexual assault based on official statistics and peer-reviewed research, as opposed to propaganda by biased and often unhinged activists.
No Brains, No Opinion!
Before I kick off the discussion, I want to get something out the way right off the bat. This article is going to upset a lot of people, especially the "no uterus, no opinion!" bigots who think genitals, rather than brains, determine who is qualified to speak out on "gender violence" and sexual assault. As detailed elsewhere on this site (see here and here), I've endured relentless harassment, malicious prosecution and even an illegal trespass by male and female members of the predominantly Anglo-Australian South Australia Police. As part of this harassment campaign, I was arrested on vexatious charges and had my ass groped by one Senior Constable Scott Willi Osborne on September 9, 2017.
On March 13, 2020, after a third in-person encounter with loathsome stalker Harley "Durianrider" Johnstone, I was branded a criminal and given a suspended prison sentence by an abhorrent magistrate known as John "Jack" Gerard Fahey. The incident in question occurred on January 18, 2020, ten days after my-then web host (a bunch of idiots called FastComet) pulled my entire website offline after receiving a vexatious DMCA claim from Johnstone. To say I was livid would be an understatement. This was the culmination of nearly a decade's sustained harassment, and I'd damn well had enough.
After I recognized Johnstone parading around in his "VEGAN" cycling livery with his obnoxious girlfriend and another male at Adelaide's Central Market, I confronted him. Johnstone - who repeatedly boasts that he's been to jail and is "not afraid to go back, man!!!" - tried to run. I grabbed him, batter-rammed him into a shopfront (a butcher, of all places), hoisted him into the air, then body-slammed his sorry ass into the pavement.
Johnstone, for those of you who don't know, is a notorious stalker, violent misogynist and domestic abuser, cyber bully and all-round piece of filth who was accused of sexual predation by two young ladies in 2016. One of those girls accused Johnstone of coercing her into sex, the other accused him of outright rape.
The January 2020 confrontation came about after I finally snapped after years of sustained harassment by Johnstone and his fellow criminals at SAPOL, and after witnessing Johnstone's continued and completely unpunished harassment of others.
A few months after I was sentenced, guilty rapist Matthew Allen Harkins escaped with absolutely no penalty whatsoever for violating a fellow student. Interestingly, that grotesque injustice was met with nary a whimper from the otherwise vocal feminazi crowd. I guess they had far more important things to do, like attack people who don't use gender-neutral words.
And when deranged nutter Lei "Gavin" Guo angrily slapped and kicked a young Adelaide waitress in 2021 - for no other reason than he mistakenly thought she was talking about him to her boss - none other than the abhorrent Fahey described him as a "good man" of "excellent character"!
That's right: According to Fahey, I'm a bad man for finally snapping after years of abuse from sleazy Johnstone and the criminals at SAPOL, but some wingnut who violently attacks a young waitress who did absolutely nothing wrong is a "good man."
Sorry folks, but in a country where I've been harassed and maliciously prosecuted by male and female cops for the heinous crime of fighting a garbage traffic fine, inappropriately felt up by an Anglo-Australian member of South Australia's taxpayer-funded street gang, where I get labelled a criminal by an Anglo-Australian member of a profession renown for sexual harassment while real criminals escape without penalty, and where during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s I was repeatedly called a "greasy wog" and "dago" by male and female Anglo-Australians, I'm really, really struggling to feel the "male privilege" that feminazis bang on and on about.
So, please, spare me the bullshit lectures about patriarchy and "white male privilege." Save that for truly spoiled white wankers like the terminally corrupt Joe Biden (who gropes and fondles visibly uncomfortable young children while you SJWs happily look the other way), his terribly degenerate son Hunter, and creepy hypocrite and tyrant Justin Trudeau (who, let's face it, you 'liberals' just adore). Save it for the likes of Jack Fahey, who gets paid over $335,000 annually to tell violent men who bash young waitresses that they are "good men" of "excellent character."
I'm here to present the facts without fear or favour. If you don't like them, but can't refute them, then you need to grow up and get over it.
Rant over.
Let's now begin our reality-based discussion of sexual assault by taking a closer look at the #MeToo movement, and why it won't produce any meaningful change in the incidence of sexual predation.
#MeToo: Just Another Woke "Me Too" Product?
The phrase "Me Too" was initially used by activist Tarana Burke to call out sexual harassment and rape culture on social media in 2006. The movement shifted into overdrive on October 15, 2017 when actress Alyssa Milano wrote: "If you've been sexually harassed or assaulted write 'me too' as a reply to this tweet." Thanks to the simultaneously emerging allegations about Harvey Weinstein, #MeToo quickly became a household term around the world. Victims shared their stories, some prominent men were outed and lost their jobs, and truckloads of ink were devoted to pontifications, demands for action and promises of change.
While anything that encourages genuine sexual assault victims to come forward and out their assailants is a welcome step, the question has to be asked:
Has anything fundamentally changed over the last five years?
Bill Cosby - the first celebrity tried and convicted in the #MeToo era - later had his conviction overturned and was set free from jail. Not because he was subsequently found innocent, but because of a legal technicality.
Other powerful men who were outed and lost their jobs are already making comebacks, including Bill O'Reilly, Al Franken, Matt Lauer, Louis C.K. and Charlie Rose. The latter recently interviewed Warren Buffet, the famed investor and one of the world's richest men. Buffet's willingness to sit down with the likes of Rose is proof that money can buy just about everything except decency.
Me too has also suffered its own credibility issues. After the Weinstein scandal in 2017, actress Asia Argento - the philandering former girlfriend of late celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain - became a leader of the movement. That starring role came to an unceremonious end in August 2018 when The New York Times revealed Argento had been accused of sexually assaulting actor Jimmy Bennett in 2013, when he was just 17 and she was 37 (the alleged offence occurred in California, where the legal age of consent is 18). Argento settled the sexual assault accusation for the sum of $380,000.
Then there was the case of "Grace," the 22-year old idiot who publicly outed comedian Aziz Ansari for the heinous crime of - wait for it - wanting to have sex with her. There is nothing in Grace's account to even suggest sexual assault. Certainly not the part where she willingly got her kit off and performed "sex acts" on him. Nor the parts where Ansari repeatedly complied with her requests not to engage in penetrative intercourse. Even other women who consider themselves "feminist" couldn't understand just what Grace's problem was. Legal analyst Ashleigh Banfield, host of HLN’s Crime & Justice, asked: "what exactly was your beef? That you had a bad date with Aziz Ansari?” Kimberlee Kaye, senior contributing editor at Legal Insurrection, noted: “Unfortunately, far too many women (and some men) are confusing their remorse for crossing sexual boundaries with which they’re uncomfortable with sexual assault.”
The official "me too" website (metoomvmt.org), home to Tarana Burke and her team, doesn't do the cause any favours either, using woke-idiot language like "birthing people" - an insult both to mothers everywhere and to people who know women who bear children are mothers. On one hand me too rails against the objectifying of women, on the other it uses intelligence-insulting language that trivializes and dehumanizes mothers - the one group of female people who really can do something no man (read: a biological male) could ever do.
Commenting on the recent Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v Wade, a metoomvmt.org press release absurdly claims the "decision is directly tied to racism, capitalism and state violence." The disjointed rant further complains about "systemic opression fueled by a culture of patriarchal violence and white supremacy." (sic)
Really? Let's take a look at the twenty-four countries where abortion is completely illegal:
Andorra; Haiti; Malta; Republic of the Congo; Aruba; Honduras; Mauritania; San Marino; Curaçao (territory); Iraq; Nicaragua; Senegal; Dominican Republic; Jamaica; Palau; Sierra Leone; Egypt; Laos; Palestine; Suriname; El Salvador; Madagascar; Philippines; Tonga.
Doesn't look like a very "white" or "capitalist" list to me.
A read through the credentials of me too's "team" reveals a focus on anti-capitalism, racial justice and "gender-based violence" (no mention of same-sex violence which, as you'll learn shortly, is a very real problem). The bio of me too's "Program Coordinator" Mari Morales-Williams, for example, reads:
"As an internationalist and anti-capitalist Mari is committed to helping Black, Brown, and poor communities expose the root causes of sexual violence while cultivating collective liberation and joy from the inside out. She is an Aquarius sun, Virgo moon, and Leo rising (*cue Earth, Wind, and Fire, “Let’s Groove.”) and loves working barefoot in her garden with her cat, ChaChi."
If this is Ground Zero for the assault on sexual assault, we're in big trouble.
I submit that any movement claiming "gender violence" and sexual assault is a product of capitalism - a historically recent system of economic exchange - has absolutely no clue about the true psychopathology of rape. And little clue about life in general. Unlike feudalism, moocher Karl's communism, hunky Benito's fascism, or whatever other oppressive authoritarian system the gender-neutral "disrupters" at me too fancy, capitalism has allowed unprecedented numbers of women to achieve financial independence - even to start their own businesses and become very wealthy. And to portray rape as a predominantly white problem is, well, racist. Here are the 20 countries with the highest incidence of reported rape per capita:
Now take a close look at the top 10 – the only “white” country in there is Sweden. Rape is not a predominantly “white” phenomenon, it is a violent behaviour that afflicts every nationality and ethnicity. To claim otherwise is to be either hopelessly deluded or shamelessly dishonest.
Fake rape claims, it behooves me to add, also know no racial boundaries. Black men falsely accused of rape by white women are no doubt wondering where they can get hold of some "male privilege." Well, at least those who are still alive.
Oh, and did I mention how Time’s Up, the legal fund created to finance #MeToo cases, declined to support a woman with an allegation against Joe Biden? Time’s Up claimed that because Biden was a candidate for federal office, assisting a case against him could jeopardize the organization’s nonprofit status. As one legal professor pointed out, this was pure bunkum.
The more I learn about me too, the more it sounds like just another leftist Trojan horse using hot button social issues to sneak woke-Marxist ideology past our protective barriers of reason and critical thinking.
No wonder little is changing. Powerful and not-so-powerful men are still getting away with rape, and mentally unstable idiots are still fomenting doubt and discrediting genuine victims by crying wolf and equating their crap one night stands with sexual assault.
And the best the likes of me too seem to offer is a bunch of pseudo-intellectual leftist babble about capitalism, the patriarchy and white supremacy.
Oh, that'll stop rapists dead in their tracks. Not.
Sexual Assault is Increasing and Authorities Don't Seem to Know (or Care) What to Do
Historical data shows reported incidents of forcible rape steadily increased from 1960 to 1993, peaking at 42.8 per 100,000 people. What followed was a welcome decline - by 2013, the rate of reported rape had decreased to 25.9 per 100,000 people, a drop of 39.5%.
The decrease in reported rape up until 2013 was attributed to various factors, including feminism.
I find it exceedingly difficult to attribute a decline in a crime whose victims are mostly women and whose perpetrators are mostly men to a movement replete with hate-spewing women who seem hell-bent on vilifying and alienating men. If anything, you would expect such a movement to have hampered progress in reducing a crime that is often perpetrated by men harboring hostility towards women.
And sure enough, when we widen the lens and view the data for violent crime overall, we learn the the decline in reported incidents of forcible rape actually lagged behind the drop in overall violent crime.
Until 2013, the trajectory for violent crime followed a near-identical path to that of forcible rape, which almost certainly means their rise and fall was caused by the same factors. A meaningful discussion of those factors is beyond the scope of this article, but I highly recommend this article by Kevin Drum.
The incidence of violent offences peaked in 1991 with 758.1 reports per 100,000 people, then declined to a low of 372 per 100,000 people in 2014 - a drop of 51%.
The incidence of murder peaked in 1980 with 10.2 reported homicides per 100,000 people, then declined to a low of 4.4 reports per 100,000 in 2014 - a drop of 57%.
Aggravated assault reached a peak of 441.8 reports per 100,000 people in 1992, then declined to 229.2 reports per 100,000 in 2014 - a drop of 48%.
During this time, remember, the incidence of reported forcible rape dropped by only 39.5% by the time it bottomed out in 2013.
And that's hardly the end of it.
The Post-2013 Sexual De-evolution
If you're reading this, you don't need me to remind you the world didn't end in 2013. Almost a decade has passed since and, sadly, the more recent figures for rape incidence are nothing to celebrate.
In 2014, reports of forcible rape in the US promptly recommenced an upward trajectory, reversing the decades-long downward trend. The rate of reported rapes jumped even higher in 2016, when the FBI began including all genders in the Forcible Rape category (prior to 2016, only rape reports involving female victims were counted).
This stands in stark contrast to overall violent crime in the US, which remained relatively stable through to 2019 (the last year for which Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program figures have been posted).
While violent crimes, including homicide and aggravated assault, plateaued in the same time period, the rate of forcible rape rose from 25.9 reports per 100,000 people in 2013 to 42.6 per 100,000 in 2019. While differences in counting methodology could explain some of the post-2016 difference, a similar trajectory has been noted elsewhere using female-only figures.
Here in Australia, for example, the official data shows that the rate of sexual violence against women has risen dramatically since 2012. Between 2012 and 2016, sexual violence against women rose by 33% - even though overall violence decreased in that same time frame.
More recent Australian Bureau of Statistics data show the rate of sexual assault in Australia has continued to climb, with an especially notable spike in 2020, the year Australia turned itself back into a prison island.
So the obvious question, then, is what development occurred around 2012-2013 that had little effect on violent crime overall, yet encouraged sexual violence in countries like the US and Australia?
Welcome to Tinder, the Dating Rape App
Years ago, the romantic process typically kicked off when people actually saw each other in person and experienced some sort of attraction towards each other. The spark may have been physical attractiveness, pheromones, the person's body language, the way they dressed, groomed themselves or spoke - but something about them triggered the spark we call "chemistry."
No, it wasn't a perfect process, as history will readily attest. But what we've increasingly replaced this in-the-flesh method of attraction with is a big, dehumanizing step backwards.
I'm talking, of course, about online dating, which gained popularity as more and more people became comfortable with the idea of turning themselves into digital classified ads in order to attract romantic partners.
This lazy, dehumanizing, commoditized approach to dating and mating jumped to a whole other level in 2012 with the advent of Tinder. The app was founded in 2012 using an algorithm designed by Sean Rad and Justin Mateen, who had met at the University of Southern California. After initially being trialed in a series of US college campuses (well known havens for sexual assault), Tinder was fully rolled out to "great success," processing 350 million swipes per day by late 2013 (4,000 per second), rising to one billion swipes per day before the end of 2014.
All of which correlates very neatly with the sudden increase in rape and sexual assault reports.
I've never used Tinder, because I think the entire premise behind it is abhorrent. I remember when a friend in Melbourne first excitedly showed me the app circa 2013-2014, explaining how you just swipe past the photos you don't like and tap the ones you do, in the hope that the tappees will return the favour.
"That's it?" I asked. "You don't even bother reading what these jokers have to say about themselves?"
My highly considered assessment of this new technology, if I recall correctly, was "that's fucked."
My assessment remains unchanged.
In the interests of balanced reporting, I must add that - to my enduring amazement, considering the platform - my friend actually met a truly nice, high-achieving Asian-Australian girl on Tinder soon after, and they're still together to this day.
Others, however, have not been so lucky. Type in the words "tinder rape" into any search engine and then look on in horror at the never-ending string of dating app encounters that went terribly wrong, some ending in murder and many involving serial offenders.
In a Slate interview last year, Nancy Jo Sales, who has written extensively about the dark side of dating apps, put it bluntly: "I think dating apps are rape culture."
She's right: Dating apps have proven themselves to be a sex predator's dream.
It's not just the nature of the platform, which allows sex predators to lure targets from the comfort of their keyboard. Tinder and its parent company have proven time and time again they don't really give a damn about the staggering number of sex predators who use the app to commit sexual violence. Four Corners, one of the few things that is still admirable about Australia's ABC, did an excellent exposé on this back in October 2020.
In the US, a Propublica investigation revealed that industry giant Match Group - the Dallas-based corporation that owns 45 online dating brands including OkCupid, Hinge, PlentyofFish and Tinder - fails to screen for registered sex offenders on its free products despite doing so on its paid platforms. The overwhelming majority of dating app users are engaging with the free versions; of Tinder's 75 million monthly active users in 2021, only 9.6 million were paid subscribers.
Just as numerous other investigative journalists have reported, Propublica found some dating app users either received inadequate responses to their rape complaints or none at all.
Because no one collects official statistics on online dating sexual assault in the US, Columbia Journalism Investigations surveyed more than 1,200 women who said they had used a dating platform in the past 15 years. As CJI cautions, the survey is a non-scientific questionnaire about an underreported crime, and the results represent only CJI’s specific group. The results are nevertheless disconcerting: Among the 1,244 women who fully completed the questionnaire, more than a third said they were sexually assaulted by someone they had met through a dating app. Of these women, more than half said they were raped.
Sexual assaults arising from dating app encounters have also jumped markedly in the UK, reported sexual offences linked to dating apps doubled between 2017 and 2020, a BBC Three investigation found. FOI requests lodged by BBC, to which 27 out of 45 UK police forces responded, revealed more than 6,000 people reported crimes linked to online dating platforms between this time period. The BBC's investigation suggested a quarter of people who've used dating platforms in the last four years experienced sexual assault while on a date, whilst a third said they experienced harassment or abuse on a dating app. Of those who said they’d reported someone to the service, almost half said they were dissatisfied with the dating platform’s response.
Ironically, or perhaps fittingly, CEO Greg Blatt resigned from Match Group and Tinder in 2017 following allegations of - you guessed it - sexual harassment. Blatt was accused of groping and sexually harassing a female colleague at a 2016 holiday party, but insisted the encounter was consensual. What followed was a legal shitshow of counter-claims and accusations that formed the plot for a subsequent Law and Order SVU episode (in the TV show, the dating app CEO ended up going to jail; in real life, Blatt returned to Match as a chairman).
Authorities: Still a Pack of Useless, Overpaid Wankers
Don't expect authorities to come to the rescue anytime soon. In Australia, one of Australia's most prominent cops - shady NSW police commissioner Mick Fuller - came up with the kind of suggestion that only an Australian bureaucrat (a group of people paid very handsomely to be utterly useless) could come up with. Fuller's genius idea was to create yet another app (he already lost me at that bit), this time one that would digitally record "sexual consent" to address a rise in sexual assault cases.
Fuller may be many things, but intelligent clearly isn't one of them. Any half-wit cop should know that rape is an act of criminal coercion. So if a rapist has no qualms about forcing a person to have sex against their will, why should we believe the assailant won't force them to click "yes" on their new SoCanWeBonkNow.gov.au app?
And even if agreement is achieved by non-forceful means, any person who subsequently changes their mind and decides they no longer want things to progress sexually would legally screw themselves, because they've already created a binding digital record on Mad Mick's dodgey consent app stating they gave a big green tick to sex and therefore whatever followed was consensual.
Australian Police: A Bunch of Criminals Helping Criminals Since 1788.™
Hey, Where Did all the Activists Go?
This all begs another obvious question: Where are the man-haters feminists and politically correct wankers wokesters now? Why aren't they rallying and waving banners to protest at the rape culture of dating app companies?
No doubt because they are a bunch of weak-willed hypocrites who use dating apps themselves. For those who are into commoditized romance and casual sex, online dating apps offer something for everyone. While anyone can use apps like Tinder and OK Cupid, no matter their sexual persuasion, gays have their own specialized apps like Grinder and lesbians have the likes of HER.
This underscores my contention that most modern activists are really virtue-signalling, validation-seeking hypocrites whose real motivation is the dopamine hit they get from self-righteousness and moral pontification, rather than any real desire to improve the lot of future generations. Climate activists are a classic case in point - I have yet to meet a single climate change believer who has backed up their professed disdain for fossil fuels by eschewing modern-day comforts and living in a hand-built mud hut, wearing hand-woven clothes made from strictly hand-sourced natural materials and procuring their food solely in hunter-gatherer fashion. Instead, these deluded hypocrites tell others to reduce their fossil fuel consumption while living in fossil fuel-dependent homes, shopping in fossil fuel-dependent stores for products whose manufacture and transportation depends on fossil fuels, driving around in trendy electric vehicles whose manufacture and powering relies on fossil fuels and using smart phones comprised of rare earth metals retrieved by poor African kids working in truly inhumane conditions.
But I digress.
That the love affair with rape-enabling dating apps crosses all gender and sexuality barriers brings me to my next inconvenient little factoid.
All That Glitters and Flaunts Rainbow Colours is Not Gold
While it is indisputable that the majority of sexual assaults involve male perpetrators and female victims, it is also indisputable that females sexually assault females, females sexually assault males, and males sexually assault males.
Despite this, many commentators still insist on discussing sexual assault - and domestic violence - solely as crimes committed by men against women.
So it's time for another reality check: If you are a female in a homosexual or bisexual relationship, your odds of experiencing violence at the hands of your partner are actually higher than those in heterosexual relationships.
Sorry to burst yet another sacred bubble, but it's a finding that has been confirmed time and time again.
A recent literature review by Rollè et al returned the following estimates of lifetime prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) in LGB couples:
-61.1% of bisexual women and 43.8% of lesbian women, compared to 35% of heterosexual women.
-37.3% of bisexual men and 26% of homosexual men, compared to 29% of heterosexual men.
When episodes of severe violence were considered, estimated prevalence rates were:
-Bisexual women, 49.3%; lesbian women, 29.4% versus heterosexual women, 23.6%.
-Homosexual men, 16.4% versus heterosexual men, 13.9%.
Returning to the feminist/me too narrative which portrays gender violence as a specialty of the white male 'patriarchy,' Steele et al found black and Latina non-heterosexual women reported significantly more IPV than white non-heterosexual females.
Incidence figures for rape, typically defined as unwanted penetration or being forced to penetrate someone else, will inevitably be lower among lesbian partners for obvious anatomical reasons. But when rape, physical violence and stalking were grouped together, the The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2010 found four in 10 lesbian women (43.8%), 6 in 10 bisexual women (61.1%), and 1 in 3 heterosexual women (35%) reported experiencing one or more of these behaviors within the context of an intimate partner relationship at least once during their lifetime.
(The unusually high rates of assault and violence among bisexuals may be due to perceptions by aggressors that bisexuals have lower sexual barriers).
A recent systematic review of 75 studies by Rothman et al, examining the broader category of "sexual assault" by intimate partners, found prevalence rates for gay/bisexual males of 9.5% to 57% (median 12.1%) and 3% to 45% for lesbian/bisexual females (median 13.3 %).
Statistics Canada recently reported that two-thirds (67%) of "sexual minority" (gay, lesbian, bisexual, or otherwise non-heterosexual) women had experienced at least one type of IPV since the age of 15. This was significantly higher than the 44% of heterosexual women who reported similar experiences. When broken down by sexual orientation, relatively similar proportions of bisexual (68%) and lesbian (61%) women said that they had experienced some form of IPV in their lifetime, though both were significantly more likely to experience IPV than heterosexual women.
More than one-quarter (27%) of sexual minority women reported being sexually assaulted by an intimate partner at some point since age 15 compared with 11% of heterosexual women.
Sexual minority men were also much more likely than heterosexual men to experience both physical and sexual assault by an intimate partner over their lifetime. About one-third (31%) of sexual minority men indicated they had been either physically or sexually assaulted by an intimate partner since age 15 compared with 17% of heterosexual men.
The nuclear family unit has been under sustained attack in recent decades as an archaic arrangement orchestrated by and for the benefit of the white male patriarchy (I'm guessing white males who have been taken to the cleaners during divorce proceedings might hold a somewhat different view).
Meanwhile, "LGBTQ+" lifestyles have been aggressively promoted and glamorized, with little mention that violence in such relationships occurs with even more frequency than in heterosexual relationships. It turns out some of the worst victimizers of homosexuals and bisexuals are homosexuals and bisexuals themselves.
To aggressively promote these "alternative lifestyles" to impressionable young children and teens, without mentioning the aforementioned inconvenient facts, is reckless and wrong. I also submit that it is intentional social engineering by the same globalist tyrants who seek to destroy church and family and make you look to big government and its allies in the mainstream media for life guidance.
So How Bad Are Heterosexual Men, Really?
Research shows the cherished "all men are rapists!" catch-cry of militant sociopaths like Clementine Ford is, of course, nothing more than misandrist hate speech.
But that same research still contains some disturbing revelations, confirming that a sizable portion of men are indeed rapists at heart.
When Malamuth 1989 asked college men how likely it was that they would rape a woman if they were certain there would be no negative consequences, 84% percent said "not all likely." However, when the word "rape" was replaced by "forced sex," the percentage of men who responded with "not at all likely" dropped to 62%. Forced sex was described in the questionnaire as "Forcing a female to do something sexual she didn't want to do," which sounds a lot like rape to me. However, a whole bunch of men evidently believed avoiding the R word when describing sexual assault suddenly made it more acceptable.
Judging by a more recent survey, attitudes have barely changed since the 1980s. In a survey of eighty-six North Dakota college males published in 2014, Edwards et al found 31.7% said they would act on "intentions to force a woman to sexual intercourse" if they could get away with it - but just 13.6% said they had "intentions to rape a woman" if there weren't any consequences. (Bold emphasis added)
Sexual Assault: A Silent and Often Unpunished Epidemic
One of the inescapable problems with rape is that it typically occurs when the assailant and victim are alone, with no witnesses to confirm the assault. Which means trying to establish the veracity of a rape accusation is often a textbook classic his-word-against-hers scenario. Contrary to what the feminazis would have you believe, fake rape claims do occur, which means those charged with rape must be given the opportunity to establish their innocence in a court of law.
Sadly, most rapes are never reported. But even when alleged perpetrators are reported, charged and found guilty, many walk free with no jail sentence. In the US, rape is often treated like a triviality by authorities and law enforcement. However, if the accused is found guilty, they are highly likely to serve prison time. Eighty-four percent of convicted rapists in 2009 were sentenced to prison, according to a DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics analysis of America’s 75 largest counties (p. 26).
The incarceration rates for Australian sex offenders, by comparison, are truly dismal.
According to the 2016 Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey (PSS), 43% of those found guilty of perpetrating sexual assault did not receive a prison sentence.
This is no doubt due to the fact that, in Australia, many politicians, bureaucrats, members of the judiciary, police, lawyers and other high-profile Australians are sex predators, sex pests and misogynists themselves. These individuals often have far more in common with the assailants they are supposedly prosecuting than the victims they are supposed to be protecting.
This article describes how the South Australian Police and judiciary showed nauseating leniency to rapist Matthew Allen Harkins, allowing him to escape with no punishment or even a conviction despite pleading guilty. And click here to read how convicted pedophile Robert Crick, who sexually abused his 5-year-old grandson, avoided jail in May 2020 after the NSW Court of Appeal felt sorry for him because his claimed health issues might have left him susceptible to catching the "coronavirus" in jail.
Keeping Yourself Safe
The bottom line is most rapists get away with their crimes and that authorities, by and large, aren't particularly fussed.
Feminism is largely angry and self-righteous venting by fanatics whose man-hate repels those with non-extremist sensibilities, while me too is proving itself to be little more than virtue-signalling pseudo-intellectualism.
So when it comes to rape and sexual assault, an ounce of prevention really is worth a tanker load of cure.
Thankfully, there are a number of strategies research has shown to lower the incidence of rape attempts and completed rapes. One of these is avoiding excessive alcohol consumption, the other is reality-based self-defense. I will discuss both in a coming article.
As for dating apps, my advice is to give them the flick and rediscover the joy of meeting people the old-fashioned way. Of course, the number of people reading this who actually follow this advice will probably be somewhere between zero and bugger all. Dating apps appeal to men because they take away the nerve-wracking task of publicly approaching someone they find attractive. Women like dating apps because the influx of attention they receive from men who would normally be too shy to approach them is an addictive (albeit highly superficial) form of validation.
So for those of you who refuse to acknowledge that your swipe habit detracts from other areas of your life (just like your social media habit) and that quantity is no substitute for quality, there are at least some safety steps you can take.
As part of its investigation into the murky world of online dating, Columbia Journalism Investigations analyzed more than 150 incidents of sexual assault involving dating apps, culled from a decade of news reports, civil lawsuits and criminal records. Most victims, almost all women, met their male attackers through Tinder, OkCupid, PlentyofFish or Match (Match Group owned them all).
In 10% of the incidents, dating platforms matched their users with someone who had been accused or convicted of sexual assault at least once. Only a fraction of these cases involved a registered sex offender.
Most incidents occurred during the app users’ first in-person meeting, in parking lots, apartments and dorm rooms.
It saddens me that I even need to point this out, but parking lots, apartments and dorm rooms are not good places to allow yourself to become isolated with a total stranger.
So, for heaven's sake, if you meet someone online, do not throw away all those years of "stranger danger" education and meet that "cute" potential sex offender where no-one can come to your rescue. Getting to know someone first before you allow yourself to become isolated with them might seem like a quaint practice in this day-and-age of instant gratification, but real life is not a screen-written episode of carefree fantasy like Sex in the City. Sex predators are very real, and they are using dating apps to lure their victims into situations that can have very nasty and enduring consequences.
Be smart, be safe, and if all else fails, shred the shit out of 'em.
Leave a Reply