Thursday, February 18, 2010

Women Never Lie About Rape - Chapter 7019: The Vanishing Allegations against David Copperfield

For my next trick, I will make these false allegations disappear!

Before going any further, let me state that I understand that women never lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, or abuse. I know this because feminists tell me that it is so.

I know that the social costs - such as fear of embarassment, being victimized a second time by the system, and the personal fear of being hunted down by their abuser - is so great that women simply cannot gain by lying about rape. On top of that, I understand that women are far too righteous to ever manufacture charges against the innocent for any reason. The womanly virtues of compassion, cooperation, unity, nurturing, and respect for humanity would never allow a woman to participate in such activities. It is the male characteristics of greed, dominance, vengeance, and competition that lead to immoral behavior, of course.

For instance, if I were an aspiring male model and I were having a difficult time becoming established in my chosen trade, I might do something immoral just to give my career a boost. I
might, for instance, appear in a porn movie, or move into O.J. Simpson's guest house, or manufacture false allegations against somebody famous in an attempt to raise my profile. After all, men are, from a very young age, through all that yucky sports and all that other competitive nonsense, taught that what matters is not how you win, but that you win.

On the contrary, however, if I were an aspiring female model and I were having a difficult time becoming established in my chosen trade, I would likely just suffer in silence while writing
feminist poetry about how the deck is stacked against me, or perhaps get a job as a waitress and hope to be discovered while brightening people's day with my uber-heart-of-gold and making all kinds of sacrifices to raise awareness about breast cancer and be a good mother to my kids.

So, as I say, I get all that. Women don't lie.... heart of gold... etc. etc. Which makes the strange case of David Copperfield's disappearing charges all that more difficult to interpret. For the story seems to fly in the face of what I know to be true, having been told the truth by feminists.

On January 25, 2007, Lacey Carroll, age 21 (as of this writing, age 23) of Kirkland, Washington, who was recently named the first runner-up in the 2010 Miss Washington USA pageant, was
attending a performance by magician David Copperfield in the Seattle area. As she and her entourage entered the performance, she was approached by one of Copperfield's staffers, who are apparently trained to scope out foxy chicks prior to performances and sit them in special seating - seating from which "volunteers" for certain tricks will be solicited during performances. And, *ahem*, from the sound of it, it seems as if Mr. Copperfield might sometimes solicit volunteers from this group for special, backstage performances, if you get my drift.

Lacey Carroll, the vile face of feminism: lie and lie again, because it really is all about you!

Copperfield later invited both Ms. Carroll and her family to dinner, and, in classic "I'm-a-famous-producer" fashion, promised Ms. Carroll that he could help her with her modeling career.

One wonders if Mr. Copperfield was wearing mirrored sunglasses and a hefty collection of gold necklaces when he extended this offer, but I digress. One also wonders if this "helping her modeling career" was phrased in terms of "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch my itch", but I digress again.

Whether for counseling purposes, a photo shoot, or a meeting with Stephen Speilberg, or perhaps Copperfield had some really great recommendations on the illusions made possible by makeup, we may never know - but Copperfield, after exchanging email with Carroll for some time, eventually worked up the nerve to invite Ms. Carroll to his private compound on the island of Musha Cay, 85 miles from Nassau, Bahamas. Undoubtedly, Ms. Carroll believed that she would be meeting Mr. Speilberg, if not on the island, at least through a conference call when she arrived.

Alas! When she arrived on the island in July of 2007, only Ms. Carroll and Mr. Copperfield were present on the island! Horrors! Had David Copperfield made all the Hollywood producers, famed photographers, and (gasp!) even Stephen Speilberg disappear!?!?

So for two days, Ms. Carroll stayed on the island. Unfortunately, so did Copperfield. And Copperfield, of course, raped and beat her repeatedly, nay, constantly during the two-day stint.

But then, you didn't need me to tell you that, did you? Because Copperfield is a white male, and white males exist only to rape, dominate, pillage, and harm.

At the end of this two-day orgy of violence, Copperfield did something very strange: he let Carroll go, put her on a plane, and made her promise not to tell.

This is the problem when one is spinning a tale - it is easy enough to simply use the prefashioned templates provided by the local women's shelter in trying to get the tale spun: white male, violence, rape, patriarchal society, fear, sexism in math class. But eventually you have to use some creativity to properly craft the denoument. For a man has violent as Copperfield, merely
putting a chick victim on a plane and eliciting her mild promise not to tell doesn't sound very convincing. Next time, she might want to use that whole "sexism in math class" angle. But again, I digress.

The progress of the story, once it was spun, is pretty predictable thereafter except for the ultra-cool international angle and the FBI raid on one of Copperfield's warehouses: she tells her family that she was taken advantage of, she goes to the local women's shelter where they take a rape kit and coach her on her story (in the future, make sure you spend as much effort in devising an effective ending to the story as you do on the whole rape & pillage part, willya?), the "rape" is reported to Seattle police - who do nothing (Typical patriarchal authorities! Don't they know that women don't lie about rape???) because they have no jurisdiction in international cases (oh, sorry), so they call the FBI who promptly become involved and convene a grand jury for investigative purposes in October of 2007.

No indictment seemed forthcoming... and no charges. Just an endless investigation. As 2007 ended, and 2008 ended, and then 2009 ended, the investigation continued....

And apparently the hopes of becoming the next Tyra Banks had, uhhhhhh, vanished.

So it is important to find a source of reliable income while waiting for your criminal charges to come through so that you can adequately extort a proper settlement from Mr. Moneybags, uhhhhh, Mr. Copperfield.

So she turns to one of the oldest professions in the history of feminism. Prostitution, you guess? No, I said in the history of feminism, not in the history of the world. Rather, Ms. Carroll turns to the finely-tuned feminist fundraising method of extortion.

So yeah, she hangs around in hotel lobbies and fondles the clientele like a normal hooker. But the truth is that most hookers have a slightly more evolved system of ethics than does Ms. Carroll. Most hookers won't manufacture fake charges when guys refuse to become their clients....

So she meets a guy. On a streetcorner, in a hotel lobby, in a bar, or at the restaurant where she works - who can say? She fondles him. Drapes herself all over him. Suggests sex. Suggests a threesome. Becomes so graphic in her suggestive loquaciousness that a second girl abandons the party as being a mite too vulgar for her tastes. So Carroll and her male victim continue the petting party, travelling to and fro looking for a short-term hotel set up, eventually arriving at the Bellevue Westin. While the party waits for their room key, groping, kissing, and all sorts of "romantic" activity occurs - in front of the security cameras. Ms. Carroll, according to hotel staff, is heard to regret that the other chick had abandoned the party, inasmuch as she found the prospect of a threesome quite appealing. She even offered to make a few calls and maybe scare up an additional chick....

Now see? If she hadn't pissed Copperfield off so badly, maybe he coulda made the threesome happen by sawing a woman in half or something!

According to the Bellevue (WA) Reporter:

"Carroll allegedly engaged in foreplay with a 31-year old man in a Bellevue hotel room and then offered to participate in additional sexual acts for $2,000."

Lacey Carroll, liar and feminist, shown here passed out in a car and being taken advantage of while complaining that a threesome seems to be less likely than earlier in the evening.

A bit pricey, if you ask me.

Apparently our 31-year old protagonist thought so as well, inasmuch as he perfected a vanishing act in dispatching Ms. Carroll forthwith. He then called police and reported that he had been the victim of an extortion attempt. Phone call time: 11:02 p.m.

In the meantime, noting that the hotel staff weren't exactly responding to her claims that the man she had been making out in the lobby with, and whom she had willingly ascended into a
hotel room with, had "taken advantage of" her, Ms. Carroll called and reported a sexual assault. Phone call time: 12:30 a.m.

Police arrive. With great seriousness and sincerity, statements are taken. The statements of the hotel employees seem to square more with the accused than the accuser. No matter - the
police checked the security cameras. And they see Ms. Carroll willingly making out with the guy. They see her taking an elevator, alone, while he orders drinks. Somehow, the police are
having trouble squaring all of this with Ms. Carroll's story that she had blacked out in a car and only awakened in the Westin's room with some lumbering brute on top of her.

Wellllllllll, OK. But we are cops, and we know that women don't lie about rape. We know this because we have been in dozens of indoctrination programs sponsored by feminist organizations that taught us that women don't lie about rape, domestic violence, and abuse. So in spite of all the evidence, we are gonna do a rape kit on this chick.

So Ms. Carroll is taken to Overlake Hospital. A rape kit was completed.

But, oddly enough, police do not, in most jurisdictions, have an automatic right to examine the results of a rape kit without a court order. Normally, this presents no problem, inasmuch as
victims (both real and fake) will sign a waiver allowing the private medical results to be revealed to police. They do this, whether they are telling the truth about rape or lying (now, again, I
realize that women NEVER lie about rape), because generally there IS, in fact, the sperm of the accused within them, so it becomes a question of whether that sperm entered her consensually or not. The presence of sperm within a woman obviously always helps her case, because cops know that women do not lie about rape. If the sperm is there, they know the woman was raped! All neat and tidy, huh?

Odd. Ms. Carroll refused to sign over the results of the rape kit to the cops.

"Well, now honey," muttered Sgt. Mumblefuster of the Bellevue Police Department, "if you don't let us have the results of the rape kit, how can we prosecute? Why won't you sign over the results to us?"

"Because," replied Ms. Carroll, "the results of this rape kit might adversely affect my case against David Copperfield."

So the federal investigation of David Copperfield, magician, has disappeared. Any promise of Ms. Carroll enjoying the fruits of extortion have similarly, likewise vanished. And several
chimeral aspects of the Feminist False Allegations Project are revealed....

1) Women DO lie about rape - and it happens frequently. In fact, there are some chicks who are professional liars when it comes to the feminist-favored sexual allegations of rape, domestic
violence, sexual harassment, and abuse.

2) Women are vicious in their capability to lie about rape. Lacey Carroll lied about rape in regards to two seperate innocent men in a period of only a couple of years - both in attempts to
extort money. If the relatively minor amount of $2,000 for a sexual foray that never took place is sufficient to motivate a woman to lie about rape, do you honestly think that they will not lie
for custody, to cover up their own adultery, to ensure a favorable disposition of marital assets, or to gain vengeance on a husband or lover?

3) Women recognize that they no longer even have to be crafty in their use of false allegations. Feminism, the state religion of the legal system, has so corrupted judges, lawyers, police
departments, and every other aspect of the legal system by making them receptive to false allegations that, no matter the evidence, the allegations are welcome. And unless you have
millions of dollars to spend on legal defense (as the Duke Lacrosse players or David Copperfield did) or the good fortune to have security cameras nearby, the wheels of injustice simply start to turn until its innocent victims are ground up.

4) Lacey Carroll, likely because she was a prostitute, is being charged for her false allegations. Remember, however, that less than 5% of women who file false allegations are charged. Even
today, Crystal Gail Mangum has never been charged with the crime of filing false allegations against the Duke Lacrosse team.

What any fool would know, but mind you, feminists are not just any fools, is borne out by the spate of false allegations that are plaguing the country. When you make it easy to bring false allegations, people - whether they are men or women - will accuse with bluster. When you not only make it easy to bring false allegations, but remove the consequences of doing so, people will bring them by the ton.

Let's hope that you, who may or may not have millions to spare, are as successful at dispelling the false allegations when they hit you.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Women Don't Lie About Rape, Chapter 6321 - Even Nutty Chicks Can't Lie!

Dating back to the time of Joseph in the book of Genesis (cf. Genesis 39:), mankind has recognized that women file false charges of a sexual sort as a means of exacting vengeance on men. More recently it has become widely recognized that such charges are filed as a means of getting one's way (i.e., custody battles) or eliciting sympathy.

And when women who are reckoned to be sane by our culture are prone to falsely accuse merely out of a desire for vengeance or control, how much greater is the propensity for false allegations when a woman has a diagnosable mental disorder? It should also not be overlooked that one of the primary correlatives of false allegations is what is nominally called "mental illness", but what really isn't illness at all, but what many professionals consider to be "character malformation."

"The growing prominence of character disorders... may be seen as a natural and inevitable response to - or an expression of - our contemporary culture. As Christopher J. Lasch notes in The Culture of Narcissism:

'Every society reproduces its culture - its norms, its underlying assumptions, its modes of organizing experience - in the individual, in the form of personality. As Durkheim said, personality is the individual socialized.'

{Kreisman continues} American culture has lost contact with the past and remains unconnected to the future" (p. 62).


"Over the past two decades, therapeutic settings have seen a basic change in psychopathology from symptom neuroses to character disorders" (p. 66).

From I Hate You - Don't Leave Me: Understanding the Borderline Personality by Jerold J. Kreisman, M.D., and Hal Straus

Kreisman continues that certain personality disorders are reckoned to be the nearly exclusive domain of women - by a factor of two to one or more - and that one of the reasons for this is the inability of women to reconcile the expectations of the nouveau-feminist culture with their innate sense of what they really want and what they really are, based on their prior role models and personal capabilities and desires (p. 67-75).

Enter John Fund, an intrepid reporter of the old school (meaning that he reports facts rather than the neurotic perceptions and preferences of a libtard establishment and is therefore labeled "conservative" and "reactionary")....

John Fund, an innocent man who was raped by feminism.

John Fund was a contributing writer to U.S. News & World Report who worked his way up to a job as a contributing editor at the Wall Street Journal. He was a man odious to liberals for his writing (such as the notorious "Arkansas Project," which formed the backbone of what Hillary Clinton believed to be a "vast, right-wing conspiracy") during the various Clinton scandals, which of course means he told it like it was rather than giving Billy Bob Clinton and the Arkansas Mafia the pass that, say, CNN and the New York Times was pleased to give him.

Fund met a woman named Morgan Anne Pillsbury who was aged 29 (though her passport says that she is named Carolyn Anne Pillsbury and is 36, but then again she was born as Carolyn Barteaux) and began a relationship with her. By his accounts, it wasn't all that serious precisely because she was a smidgen unstable. By her accounts, they were planning to be married.

Further, by her accounts, one night Fund simply walked out on the marriage plans and then beat her up. She was raped. He dated her mother and impregnated both her and her mother. Worse than all that, Fund was revealed to be a terrible housekeeper {shudder!}.

Fund was arrested - all the while maintaining his innocence. Police were unresponsive to his protestations because, of course, rape is such an intimate violation that women never lie about it. Of course, they learned this during the Anita Hill slander-fest, in which one feminist after another mechanically mouthed that "it is the seriousness of the allegation, not the nature of the evidence, that matters," giving birth to the New Era of Feminist Inspired False Allegations. The media, though there were indications from the very beginning that the story didn't quite jibe, didn't really care about innocence or guilt - the liberal media rejoiced that Fund was finally getting what he deserved for his participation in the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy."

Eric Alterman, a liberal journalist, wrote,

"...the smearing of Fund raises questions that define us morally and politically. It did not take a lot of investigation on my part to conclude that Pillsbury was not the kind of source one could legitimately use to hang a man in public. Why were so many so eager to use her that way? No principle was at stake. It was all about payback."

Fund retained counsel and began to spend thousands of dollars to prepare for his defense. He was, however, unable to keep his arrest out of the media, and he eventually lost his prestigious job at the Wall Street Journal and was demoted to writing for

Then documents began to drip out from Ms. Barteaux/Pillsbury. An affidavit. A letter to the Wall Street Journal. Various public statements. The rape didn't occur, but the beating did. Well, maybe the beating didn't. Actually, none of it did. Well, it did, but Fund made me write that it didn't with the threat of imminent force. Did I mention that I was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder?

She admits that one of the distinguishing features of Borderline Personality Disorder is the inability to distinguish fantasy from fiction - in either the perception thereof or the telling thereof. How many lies have you told in your life, Ms. Barteaux/Pillsbury? "Too many to name."

Fund, of course, is widely recognized today to be the innocent victim of a slanderous, vengeful, and unstable woman's flights of fantasy. The problem was, it was apparent from the beginning. Did the police care? No. Did the District Attorney care? No. Did the media care? No. In fact, the media kind of approved - Fund bested our boy (Clinton), and now he is getting his from this crazy woman.

Fund, though innocent, has never regained his position at the Wall Street Journal.

John Fund is an innocent victim of a feminist culture which encourages the use of slander as a weapon in the culture war. John Fund, and millions like him, is an innocent victim further of a feminist-designed culture in which women are encouraged to use false allegations as a way of settling accounts. Feminists have brainwashed law enforcement into believing that all allegations of sexual misconduct are valid by their mere utterance - arrests MUST be made, and no-drop prosecutions follow, no matter how flimsy the evidence. Yet it is now known with certainty that the rate of false reporting for feminist-favored crimes such as rape occurs at a rate anywere from seven to twelve times that of false reporting for other crimes! (The Washington Post estimated that the rate of false reporting for rape exceeds 30 per cent, but other estimates exceed 60 per cent.)

See how feminism works: It produces a culture which encourages maladaptive thinking and behavior patterns in women (Sometime when you have a moment, try to reconcile the twin feminist assertions that "Women can do anything that men can do!" and "We need to lower standards so that more women can be admitted to law school/serve as policemen and firemen/become generals and admirals like men are already doing!" and see if YOU don't blow a mental gasket.). It persuades law enforcement and media that failure to treat the consequent neuroses as reality is a sign of incipient "sexism" and is evidence of the existence of a "patriarchy." It removes procedural hurdles to keep neurotic women from assaulting the innocent (The standard of evidence for the filing of a Domestic Violence Protective Order in most states is "the subjective fear of the complainant," and police are allowed, nay, encouraged to use the complaint itself - filed under this wholly subjective standard and irrespective of any evidence -as a basis for the filing of charges!). And then it denies that when you make it easier to lie about something that people have a tendency to lie about anyway, you will get more lies (Did you know that, under Bill Clinton's modifications to the Violence Against Women Act, women cannot be charged with perjury based on the filing of a Domestic Violence Protective Order complaint? Has anyone heard about the Durham D.A.'s plans to prosecute Crystal Gail Mangum yet?).

The truth of the John Fund story is this: at least one rape did, in fact, occur. John Fund was willfully, coldly, and intentionally raped by a neurotic woman, the legal system, and the media. And whether we are talking about his professional life or his personal life, he will likely never recover. And John Fund's story is a valuable morality play in that it demonstrates how thoroughly the system itself has been corrupted by feminism: now the innocent are willingly sacrificed to the feminist goddesses because evidence simply doesn't matter in a world dominated by a false ideology.

The entire culture has been corrupted by feminism: and the police, the legal system, the population at large, and even the media are willing to substitute feminist neuroses for the perceptions of their own eyes. So corrupt has the system become that even after a man's name is cleared of all wrongdoing, he can expect to pay the price for being falsely accused for the remainder of his life.

John Fund, as of this writing, is still a columnist for He has never regained his original position with the Wall Street Journal.


See this for a summary of John Fund's story by the liberal writer, Eric Alterman:

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Women Don't Lie About Rape Chapter 5997 - Worthless Whores

In the world of prostitution (so I hear – I have never knowingly been in the presence of any prostitutes other than Democrat politicians) there is a sharp dividing line between streetwalkers, viewed as the bottom-feeders in the world of whoredom, and escorts, who command large fees, are viewed as being largely “clean,” and who often serve/service a top-line clientele (such as the Attorney Generals and Governors of various states).

I am thinking that a new category is going to have to be created.

Now, I don’t smoke, so I stand open to correction. But it is my considered opinion that a pack of cigarettes can generally be obtained for anywhere from $3 to maybe $7 tops.

Now again, I don’t frequent hookers, but at least from watching movies, I am guessing that the sort of bottom-line ballpark price for a streetwalking hooker is in the realm of $20. Based on my movie observations, one can expect either significant upselling to take place from there or can expect to be murdered by a sociopathic whore for the price of a mere $20. Again, I welcome any corrections in this regard.

Two Tennessee women recently were arrested for filing false rape charges against a man whom they had agreed to, ummmmmmmm, service, for a paltry fee of one pack of cigarettes.

I thought all the chicks in Tennessee smoked corn-cob pipes! Why, then, do they need to engage in “sexy time” for Marlboros?

So anyway, more about my proposed tripartite division of the hooker genre: I am for keeping the terminology already in use, the “escorts” can be young, fresh, talented, high-class pleasurers of the rich and famous while the “streetwalkers” can be those whose vocabulary has yet to progress beyond, “Need a date, Sugar?”

But then what do we do with the hookers who screw for a $3 pack of smokes?

Well, for one, we load up on antibiotics…. I mean… well, the way I see it, the $20 whore is cheap, so we can’t really call these cigarette whores cheap, can we? I mean, they are whores for sure, but what is of a lower value than cheap?


So I propose a new category for whores who can’t even garner the regular $20 fee and have to screw for packs of cigarettes or packages of bacon or books of stamps or what have you. So, from here on out, the term “worthless whore” will be used to refer to our protagonists.

So 18 year old Jessica Kathleen Alexander and 29 year old Tammy Nicole Ortega were flirting (or, based on their pictures, belching) with a guy on one of those telephone flirt lines. And maybe the guy says something like, “You chicks sound really hot, but I gotta go smoke a Camel.” Perhaps one of the worthless whores then responded, “We are so broke right now we can’t even afford tobacco [pronounced “backer” in Tennessee] for our corn-cob pipes. How about if the two of us bang you for a while and then you give us a pack of them there Camels?”

You'd have to pay ME, and not in cigarettes!

Contracts in Tennessee, it turns out, often are bereft of certain necessary legal language….

Well, who wouldn’t be up for that kind of a deal? Three dollars in smokes - why that works out to only a dollar and a half per whore! What a bargain!

Actually, though, based on their pictures, I think I would have insisted that they each give ME a pack of cigarettes. And again – I don’t smoke!

Now the story really gets interesting (!). Turns out our intrepid dude wasn’t a very good lay. Apparently our worthless whores were disappointed in his, uhhhhh, performance.

This is where a clause demanding a multiple-hour foray into sexual misadventure could have easily been inserted into the contract by a competent lawyer, by the way.

So the worthless whores gathered up their panties (which were undoubtedly in a wad, based on the events which follow), their cigarettes, and their disappointment, and they run off to the police station!

What?, you ask, the worthless whores ran off to the police station?

Indeedy. Truth being stranger than fiction, they ran off to the cops and….

Now, before we finish that sentence, let me go ahead and admit that I truly understand that women do not lie about rape. I am well aware of the fact that Susan Estritch once noted that the primary accomplishment of feminism was to have removed all suspicion that women might not tell the truth about such a thing from the collective mind of the legal system. I am not, after all, a barbarian. I get that women are victims of a patriarchal society by virtue of their mere existence within it, and I get that women are continually re-victimized, both by the system and by their own feelings of guilt and shame. I get all that. So, let that be the prism through which the following statement is interpreted….

The worthless whores ran off and lied to the cops, claiming to have been raped.

Why did they make such a claim? According to a Washington County Sheriff’s department press release, because they “didn’t enjoy the sex.”

Now, don’t get me wrong – I know that women do not lie about sex. I know that the social cost of being a victim is so high that women never lie about rape, sexual harassment, domestic violence, or abuse. I know that, when a woman is getting divorced and is faced with the prospect of getting a job and supporting herself or living off of ex-hubby’s salary for a year or so, monetary gain and a year of ease is not enough to motivate her to lie! I know that, when a woman’s adultery and/or drug and alcohol abuse is revealed in court and she is about to lose custody of her kids (and the umpteen years of child support payments that accompany them!), even the loss of kids (and child support) is not enough to motivate her to lie! I know that when a woman is passed over for a job promotion that she really wanted, with all of the money and prestige and “self-esteem” that goes along with it, she could never be persuaded to lie about sexual harassment. I know that women are never vindictive enough to lie about sex – that their anger and instability could never be so intense as to motivate them to simply seek to destroy what they cannot control! No, women are not like that. Women would not lie about sex when REALLY BIG matters like thousands of dollars in child support and alimony are at stake. They would not lie when REALLY BIG matters like custody are at stake. They would not lie when REALLY BIG matters like job promotions are at stake. I know this because feminists assure me that it is true.

But oddly enough, feminism seems to have fostered a culture in which women feel perfectly comfortable lying when REALLY SMALL matters (no pun intended) like whether or not you enjoyed sex with a stranger for a pack of cigarettes are at stake.

But wait… maybe I am wrong. Maybe the truth is that if we now live in a cultural climate in which false allegations are so much a part of the fabric of society that women feel comfortable lying about rape, violence, sex, and abuse when only small matters are at stake, could they feel doubly comfortable in lying when really important matters are at stake as well…?

Or maybe feminists would have us to believe that we have a society in which women can feel comfortable lying over a dime, but in which they blush to lie over a dollar?

It appears to me that, with the story of the two Tennessee worthless whores, we now possess objective proof that the false allegation is the tool of choice for any woman in Western culture to solve any problem, no matter how big… or small.

Monday, February 8, 2010

Women (and Children) Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 5942

A recent issue of the Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer demonstrated the utterly contrariness of modern feminist dogma, and the conundrum in which it places our culture. An article in the January 15, 2020 issue by Hilary Kraus titled "Facility's sex stats scrutinized" recounts a recent sex scandal at a detention center. This story profoundly illustrates that what we all know by
sheer common sense about feminism is true....

We all know that women don't lie about rape. They do not do this, feminists say, for several reasons, not the least of which is the sheer moral superiority of the woman. So beyond sin is
the character of the woman that it could never happen that she would lie about rape (or domestic violence, or abuse, or sexual harassment - even if to do so would give her a great amount
of leverage during custody battles, divorce proceedings, or consequent to not being hired or promoted, etc.). We know that women do not lie about rape also because they are so horribly
victimized by "the system" that for a woman to merely complain of rape to the authorities (who are likely to be unenlightened white males who read Plato or the Bible at some point in their lives!) is to submit to being victimized twice: once by the rapist and again by police and the courts.

We have seen much evidence that women do not lie about rape in recent years. We have seen that strippers performing for Lacrosse teams do not lie about rape. Oh, wait a minute....

Well, anyway, we have seen that women never try to seduce college basketball coaches and then extort money from them using false allegations of rape. Oh, *ahem*, well, anyway....

So at least we have seen that well-known performers are never targeted with false allegations of rape....

OK, so journalists are never targeted....

But of course, feminist activists never manufacture false allegations of rape, because they know what is at stake!!! Oh, wait....

Well, anyway, thank God for feminists who tell us that women never lie about rape! Otherwise, the sheer weight of the evidence to the contrary likely would have convinced us that they might deign to do so!

But even if women sometimes do lie about rape (even though we know they don't!), at least children never lie about rape or molestation. Children are, of course, morally unsullied and can be relied upon to not have been brainwashed by tactics endorsed by women's shelters - which encourage women to manufacture false allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault as a means of furthering their own personal interests and as a means of snagging federal funding for the shelters. Of course, since children have never been in women's shelters, and because they are, by nature, quite innocent, we can be assured that children merely need to be listened to when they make allegations. Children, of course, would never lie about such things.

Unless, of course, such tactics were now so prevalent that one could learn them merely from existing in a culture which encourages the creative use of false allegations for all kinds of purposes. But inasmuch as feminists assure us that there is no culture of false allegations (because, of course, feminists tell us that the rate of false reporting for sex crimes is identical to that of, say, property crimes!), we can be sure that children have not picked up any such strategies or motivations from our culture.

Enter the Samarkand Youth Development Center in Eagle Springs, North Carolina. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sponsored a survey which queried youngsters anonymously at various youth centers about conditions inside. Apparently, one area of concern for the DOJ was how many children were being sexually exploited in these youth centers.

It must be that most youth centers are run, managed, and manned by white men, as we know that white men by their very nature are quite violent and spend most of their off-hours raping and pillaging (except, of course, when they can fit such activities into their actual work hours!).

The statistics returned from the Samarkand Center were so alarmingly high - termed in the article "among the worst" for centers taking the survey - that the North Carolina Department of Social Services was called in to investigate the scandal. Nearly 21% of respondents claimed that they had engaged in sexual misconduct under the duress of force. Nearly one-third stated that they had engaged in some kind of sexual acts with adult staff members.

Lo! and behold! Could it be??? These unstained children??? Whoda thunk it?

Nevertheless, I quote the article: "One of the reasons the facility's statistics were among the worst is because some of the residents didn't tell the truth." Do tell....

According to an investigation by the North Carolina Department of Social Services, many of the girls "admitted to law enforcement officials that they falsified information."

Translation: they lied. How improbable! That they were both women and children, and yet these most unsullied of creatures lied about the one thing that such unsullied creatures never lie about?

I admit, the story is confusing.

Oddly, Linda Hayes (whom we assume to be a woman), the secretary of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in North Carolina, stated that "gathering data anonymously from youth with histories of behavior problems can be unreliable."

Linda Hayes, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, maintains that rape allegations must be filtered
according to the accuser's background, should not be anonymous, and should be
compared with existing evidence. Secretary Hayes must not be a feminist!

Ms. Hayes obviously did not receive the "Women Don't Lie About Rape" memo.

Now wait a minute here....

Let's take that statement about at-risk youth and examine it.

Feminists tell us that when allegations of rape or sexual misconduct are made, the sexual history of the complainant makes no difference.

Yet, Linda Hayes - whom we believe to be a woman - states that people with "histories of behavior problems" can't necessarily be trusted.

Feminists also tell us that making the identities of rape victims known re-victimizes them and is unnecessary to a complete investigation.

Yet, Linda Hayes - whom we believe to be a woman - states that when data is harvested anonymously, it can be unreliable.

Feminists assure us that women simply don't have any motivation for lying about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse, and therefore the negative effects of false reporting are an assurance that false allegations are kept to a minimum.

Yet, Linda Hayes - whom we believe to be a woman - states that anonymously requesting data on sexual misconduct can be "unreliable," even when NOTHING is at stake; these girls were, after all, just filling out a survey.

One might reasonably ask the question: if little girls hiding behind the cloak of anonymity and recognizing that they exist in a legal and cultural mileu in which false allegations are not only tolerated, but often rewarded, will lie about rape, violence, abuse, and harassment when they have absolutely nothing to gain, how likely is it that others, who stand to gain or lose custody, property, promotions, or other perks, would lie under a similar cloak of anonymity and gross tolerance of falsehoods?

I'm just wondering. But since I am a guy, perhaps we could ask Linda Hayes...?