---Redefining and redirecting... A feminist Mantra

So, once again the femikooks are all in a tither over what is or is not rape. I submit to you, a new term - "gray rape". Funny how I, an MRA/FRA have never heard of this term until a feminist mentioned it....

Supposedly, "gray rape" is like not 'real' rape, but rape none-the-less. Like when a guy and a girl start going at it and then she all of a sudden decides, for whatever reason, to withdraw consent. To me, this IS a gray area. If two people are already in the throws of intercourse, as in he has penetrated her, or in the supposed case below, oral sex has begun, and she wants it to stop, and he doesn't well... by definition, it is rape. But is certainly is a little gray wouldn't you say?

Read the alleged "rape" story:

The young woman calls what happened to her something akin to “gray rape,” a term she learned from an article in Cosmopolitan written by Washington Post journalist Laura Sessions Stepp. Hunter admits she initiated the encounter. But she eventually withdrew her consent, she says. “The whole thing was very confusing to me, and I didn’t know what to do about it for such a long time,” she says.

His mattress was on the floor pushed up against a wall, she says. “I’m sitting up against the wall on his mattress, and he’s standing over me,” she continues.

“It started happening, and then he, like, twisted his fingers around my hair and started pulling it and being just kind of violent. I started choking because he was just, like, pushing my head.… I started gagging and choking, and I couldn’t really breathe.”...She says she started pushing on Shaw-Fox’s abdomen to tell him to stop. “And he was like, ‘Yeah, that’s right, choke on it.’”

Now, I ain't no rocket scientist, but since when is giving a blow job called "it started to happen"? He is standing over her, she is performing oral sex on him. That much is very clear. So instead of stating that SHE was performing orally on him, the story teller (or the writer herself) chose to minimize her part in this "ordeal" by using cutsie worlds like "it started to happen"... Can't make "the victim" look like she was somehow responsible - at ANY level... right?

So if you femikooks have issues with terms like "gray rape", why is it that you have no issue with a woman sucking a cock and defining it as "it started happening"? What if HE used that term? "Your honor, I don't know what happened... I was standing over her with my cock out, and "it started happening". Uhuh... Thought so.

Getting back to the alleged "rape", he started acting like an ass by grabbing her hair & head (most women don't like that BTW pal) and shoving his penis deeper into her mouth. So far that she was having problems breathing. She got scared (understandably IMO) and tried to push him away...This is disgusting and pathetic, yes. But "rape"? Honestly, I am not sure.

Now, notice that the story doesn't go any further. Did "the deed" stop there? Did actual intercourse happen? Who knows. What we see is an example of an asshole, no doubt. But I would have a serious problem with trying this as a "rape" case. Especially if we find out that intercourse did actually happened AFTER the BJ. But I will err on the side of caution and assume that it went no further than this act.

So what do we have here then? We have an allegedly consenting adult woman blowing an allegedly adult male, he becomes crude and forceful and now he is a rapist? I think not. Again, an asshole? You betcha! But a rapist. No.

This IMO, IS an example of an asshole. And if there is such a thing as "gray rape" by definition, then this "COULD" be considered it; I am just not sure.

But let's go one step further just for the hell of it. Let's say that intercourse happened AFTER the blow job. Is this still rape? Is it a "gray rape"? Not at all in my opinion. Nothing more than a bad sexual experience... no more, no less.

Now let's look at a feminist's view on this:

"Rape can be confusing, it doesn't make it "gray." Feminists have long fought to dispel the myth that initially consenting to one form of intimacy does not make it okay for someone to force another kind on you. In this case, the young woman was hooking up with her eventual-attacker when he forced her to perform oral sex on him."

Notice? Anyone? Can you see the ever so slight twists and turns? Here, let me help you...

First we have this nice little example of redirection....

"...that initially consenting to one form of intimacy does not make it okay for someone to force another kind on you."

Notice the implication that he somehow did 'something else'. It's not just the BJ that happened according to this femikook. Or maybe it's that there IS IN FACT more to this story, but she chose to omit it... nawwwwwww... nice empowered, educated, and strong women don't do that sort of thing right?

Was she there? Does she know what this supposed "victim" consented to? I mean really! She is sucking his wee wee! Obviously she was at least consenting to that particular part of this so-called intimacy! DUH!

Follow me here....

The femi goes on to say;

"...In this case, the young woman was hooking up with her eventual-attacker..."

First, we have the typical knee-jerk conviction. "Eventual-attacker"... WTF is that shit? It was inevitable that he was going to "rape" her? Is that what she is implying? I guess so, since he does in fact have the patriarchy patented tool that is called the penis!

Then she goes even further in her redefinition of the supposed event(s). To whit;

"...when he forced her to perform oral sex on him."

Uhm.... "He forced her"? Is she reading the same thing I am? According to the alleged victim, "it started happening". Remember? There appears to be no actual responsibility on either party according to her account...

"It started happening"... You know, like rain and snow. A force of nature 'en all.

Pathetic. Feminists always appear to be right on top of these sort of things (pardon the pun) but in reality they are only on top of it long enough to redefine and redirect responsibility.

I would gather that if women like this femikook had their way, any and all actual ejaculation would be considered rape. Pull out and spooge on her? RAPIST! Spooge into the condom when she "is not ready"? RAPIST! Oh! And if you dare to spooge IN HER MOUTH when she said that she didn't want you to... that is the new and improved UBER RAPIST!

Ever wonder why men are getting more and more tired of this sort of crap? Constantly redefining terms and words to fit their dementia...er I mean ideologies... Constantly redirecting responsibility so that it is ALWAYS the man's fault... Think about it ladies.. and I use that label lightly, one plus one actually does equal two. Not sometimes three, or in a leap year, five.....

This is a clear case (based on the small amount of information given - intentionally I am sure) of a sexual encounter with a creep. Yes, I said it. He was a creep. He was so into his own personal pleasure that for some ungodly reason, he 'forgot' that if you clog the throat of someone, they just might have a problem breathing. He was so into what he was doing that he made crude comments (at least to her) like "Yea, that's right, choke on it!". Asshole? You-betcha!

But "rape" it is not.

...and there ain't no gray here either....

TMOTS

Click here for more.

We Are Woman?

So much for the “monolithic women vote.” Hillary Rodham counted on it. And, since it does not exist, it did not come through for her in Iowa.

In fact, it appears that both John Edwards and Barrack Obama outpolled the nation’s leading gender feminist among Democratic women in Iowa. And these were DEMOCRATS. Translate that result to an entire country that includes a majority of independents and Republicans, and the outlook for the “we are women” strategy of Hillary Rodham is looking rather bleak. That won't stop Hillary's pals in the media, though, as they try to soil Obama any way they can.

A change in strategy is surely in the works. But maybe the pungent smell of victim oriented gender feminism will stick to Hillary no matter how hard she tries to morph into something she is not. Certainly, enough grown men realize that she is poison for men and fathers. And my guess is that there are plenty of mothers of sons out there who are appalled by the messages their little boys are getting in their public schools. They know where this misandrist philosophy comes from and who supports it.

So, the self-anointed heir apparent to the Democratic nomination – probably the White House in her own mind – must be loosing something of her sense of entitlement. Don’t count on it just yet though. The true nature of a candidate can often be seen in how they accept loss. Hillary’s speeches after getting trounced in Iowa not only did not concede defeat but sounded as if she had won. But I think New Hampshire will have a different view on the matter.

Truly, I am astounded. Over the years, I have found politics to be increasingly dismal. Particularly the entire election process for President. A long, drawn out 2 years of non-stop pundits and spin from the candidates in the rigged two party system, leading to an absurd “primary” season that keeps most of the country out of the process of choosing the ONLY two candidates, and finally the Presidential election with its virtually scripted debates. All that hot air when we may as well just auction off the White House since money raised is the best predictor of success.

My cynical view, indeed the view of anyone that has watched this process for at least a couple of decades, would be that Hillary Rodham pretty much had the entire thing wrapped up. Obviously not because she is the best person for the job, but because of the massive money supporting her, a husband who is arguably the best natural politician of the unfortunate (for us) baby boom generation, and just her sheer will to conform to the political winds and say pretty much anything in order to win at any cost. (Of course, what she says and what she would do in office are two completely different concepts). I pretty much expected Democrats to be brainwashed into mumbling “Hillary, Hillary” by now and robotically voting for her. Not so.

The corollary, of course, has Romney and his enormous chest of money winning as well. Huckabee – an honest guy with a positive outlook and a winning personality – proved that wrong. Meanwhile, while McCain is a big yawn, there is always Ron Paul to keep things interesting, especially in New Hampshire. Obama is well funded, but the money does not appear to be winning in, surprisingly, the party of money, the Republicans.

Could it be that people are actually thinking again? Could it be that someone as vile and full of hate as Hillary Rodham is not able to hide her true ugly nature despite the heroic status the mainstream media gives her?

Could be. In the meantime, it’s time to think about what to do in the Washington Primaries. Since the two party duopoly has rigged the system so that you must select a party in the primary vote (which leaves alternatives out of the picture), we should turn their system on its head and vote in a way that has the most impact. That means, of course, that you should vote within the party that you do not support and against the most vile, in your own view, of their candidates. Of course, what this means is that I will be voting among the Democrats and voting against Hillary Rodham and for Obama (who I kind of like anyway).

If you are a Republican and feel remiss about not voting for your candidate, think of it this way: your candidate will not win the Presidential election popular vote in the State of Washingon in November. Voting for a Republican in this state is a waste of time and a waste of your vote. My suggestion to all Republicans in the state is to vote in the primary election as a democrat and vote against Mrs. Entitlement. That will get the gender feminist dominated Democrats of this state all worked up and, hey, that is always a fun thing to do!

Click here for more.