The presumption of innocence, as it is not specifically iterated anywhere in the Constitution, will not attach to sex crimes. Instead, all individuals will be presumed to exist in a state of non-consent . . . . As such, defendants accused of sex crimes will bear the burden of proof, and will have to prove their innocence. There is a danger inherent in such a system that a few innocent men will be punished, and this is quite unfortunate. It is not, however, more unfortunate than men raping with impunity in epidemic proportions simply because their victims are unable to prove to a room full of misogynists that, despite the ridiculous presumption of a default state of consent, they did not consent to a sex act. Victims will decide whether a crime has occurred, and defendants will not. This might frighten men, some of whom will claim that women will use the law to punish men out of vengeance. That might happen once in awhile, but our job is to protect the largest number of people possible, and false rape accusations are about a hundredth as common as rapes that go unpunished (by my calculation.
. . . .
Any defendant convicted of rape will be assumed to have proven he is incapable of responsibly exercising his sexuality in society. As such, the penalty for rape will be immediate and irreversible castration.
The inanity and misandry at work here are utterly breathtaking. Her logic is the same as that employed by any number of demented dictators throughout history to justify punishing innocent members of a group that poses a perceived threat to the dictator.
The rape "epidemic" she references is, of course, non-existent. To claim there is a rape epidemic, one must posit "under-reporting" of rape claims of Biblical proportions. The logic goes like this: how do we know there is a rape epidemic? We know it because of under-reporting. How do we know there is under-reporting? We know it because of all these rapes that must be occurring that no one is reporting. Which proves, of course, that there is a rape epidemic. Get it?
And we need not mention the dishonesty in her assertion that false claims are rare.
Aside from the castration aspect of the post (and would any rational person suggest mutilating a female body part, regardless of the crime, with the ease that this woman suggests lopping off the balls of innocent men?), my favorite part of the whole thing is the way she converts rape into a sort of free-floating crime that is defined not by any objectively verifiable definition but by whatever subjective whim a woman deigns to conjure up depending on her false and belated, ex post facto feelings. Forget her objective manifestations of assent that reasonably led the man to believe she assented to sex -- her subjective, after-the-fact hissy fit of regret trumps any semblance of rationality. This, of course, leaves men of good will who would never dream of raping a woman (which is the vast majority of men) utterly clueless as to whether their conduct will be transmogrified into a felony merely because a woman later deigns to cry rape. And we haven't even touched on the Constitutional infirmities inherent in this frankly stupid suggestion.
It is posts such as this woman's that engender disrepute of the entire feminist movement, let's be candid. The author of that hate site should not be permitted within 2,000 feet of our sons or, for that matter, any male.