So much for the promises of politicians. First, it was going to be anonymity for the presumptively innocent accused of rape until conviction. Then, that was scrapped for anonymity until charge. Now the politicians don't want any legislation but want "to see whether a voluntary agreement could be reached on the pre-charge reporting of rape suspects." Read it here: http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/189005/U-turn-on-anonymity-for-rape-defendants/
Do we need to repeat the rationale for anonymity? Anonymity does not send a message that rape victims should not be believed any more than anonymity for rape accusers sends a message that the men and boys they accuse should not be believed. The message conveyed by this very limited anonymity policy is that the harm of publicly identifying the presumptively innocent who might have been falsely accused is unconscionable, because a rape claim is singularly loathsome and because, once a rape claim is alleged, unlike other allegations of criminality, it is nearly impossible to disprove.
Women will not stop coming forward to report rape even when the accused are anonymous. After all, women continue to come forward now even when the accused is, for example, a teen male who is legally anonymous. No one has ever made the argument that anonymity for that class of accuseds who are already legally anonymous is harmful to women, and the argument appears to be a false, belated, and gender politicized construction that has no place in the public discourse about a matter so serious.
It is, in fact, likely that more women will come forward if the men accused of rape are anonymous. When women cry rape and the man is identified, since most rapes are of the acquaintance variety, it often isn't difficult to infer who the accuser is. It is reasonable to assume that most rape victims would prefer not to have their identities revealed by inference.
But none of that matters. What matters in politics is power. Women's groups are organized and committed. They have the power. We do not.
But power or no, the next time a young man is beaten, killed, or takes his own life because his name was splashed all over the news for a rape he didn't commit, everyone needs to know who has blood on his and her hands: the spineless politicians who feared women's groups, and, of course, the women's groups themselves. Not that the latter will ever acknowledge their complicity in the evil done by false rape accusers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
47 comments:
This is sad and wrong.
I don't know what else to say.
Do you know that there are a million blog posts a day on the internet?
And that is that. The feminazis have to power to rape innocent men using our legal systems and media, and they will continue to abuse that power as long as they have it.
The good intentions of a few and all the common sense in the world are no match for the feminist political machine. And they are shameless and will never willingly lift a finger to protect innocent men or punish their false accusers.
And let's learn our lesson now: this is going to be a very, very long fight, and there will be no easy victories. The cowards who make up our congresses and parliaments will continue kowtowing to the feminists until we have built a more powerful lobby than they can match.
If there was a moveon.org for men's rights this wouldn't have happened.
Another nail in the coffin of the coalition government.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297421/Work-experience-FO-Not-middle-class-white-male.html
Want a job at the Foreign Office? Well, if you're the wrong sex and the wrong skin colour, don't bother applying, because you're barred.
I just want to throw up now.
It was the very smallest little thing- anonymity till charged, so that maybe evidence could be evaluated. Anonymity till conviction was given up a month or two ago.
Apparently that's too much to ask the current system.
And look at the way this was done. I almost wonder if it wasn't intentional. The "strikeforce" still has that post patting itself on the back, and now at the last minute - heck, I wonder if the fix was in from the start though I tend to think some last minute wheeling and dealing got done behind closed doors by well funded feminist lobbyists.
Oh well :(
If there's a bright spot it's that on the men's side an effort was actually MADE. And in my local woods the Baltimore Sun seems to have adopted a voluntary policy (with little or no fanfare)of keeping the names of those accused anonymous until charges are proffered.
Clarence
But power or no, the next time a young man is beaten, killed, or takes his own life because his name was splashed all over the news for a rape he didn't commit, everyone needs to know who has blood on his and her hands: the spineless politicians who feared women's groups, and, of course, the women's groups themselves.
YES. This.
And when it does happen for it most certainly will, each and every one of the politicians concerned needs to be reminded of this truth. The blood of innocents shall be upon them.
Stop, Stop, Stop.
Shut the fuck up, sit down, and read, carefully and in full the article I am going to link to.
It is about a 27 year old woman who has seen two men convicted of raping her, who is now advising police on sexual abuse, by a newspaper writer who is repeating the same old rape stats lies, and then we get this gem, in this alleged victim's own words.
But even now that I'm 27 and supposed to be getting better, I'm not 100 per cent sure I haven't made the whole story up
Well, not surprising really as she only "knew" this childhood abuse happened when her sister told her it happened, many years later, when she was an adult.
This is the face of the enemy, this is the face of the people who do not want anonymity for the accused, this is the face of feminism.
the link
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/open-to-abuse-did-being-molested-as-a-baby-make-rebecca-moran-an-easier-target-for-sex-offenders-later-in-life-2031902.html
The way to deal with this is to "out" all rape acusers until victims (i.e. those accused) are granted anomynity. This could be accomplished by an activist group setting up a website in an offshore country. Accused men could then secretly email the website with the names of their acusers and voila they are both public.
You're talking some sort of wikileaks.
The insurmountable problem here is credibility.
The addressable problem is the unfounded credibility given to all women who make accusations of rape and / or domestic violence.
AfOR: Considering you tell others to read the article 'carefully and in full', your comment is rather misleading. First of all, neither of the men convicted (one of rape, the other of "vaginal penetration of a child between the ages of 13 and 16 years of age") were the one you're referring to later - the childhood abuse her sister told her about, for which her grandfather was seemingly never convicted. You also took the quote out of context by chopping off the end of the sentence "and that actually it was my fault." which makes it clear that her doubts are about whether it was her fault and not about whether these things happened at all.
There are, however, relevant parts of the article - warning people of the dangers of not believing rape allegations. All of this might be true. The trouble is that believing all rape allegations has even worse consequences. That said, genuine rape victims are not the enemy. Acknowledging the trauma they experience and how difficult it is to report a rape, stand up in court and relive the experience and then secure a conviction doesn't weaken the case for anonymity. Those who attempt to protect victims of false accusations by downplaying rape and belittling its victims only make our position appear less sympathetic and so hold back progress. It's the same thing many of those who try to help rape victims do by ignoring or downplaying the existence of false accusations and those who suffer as a result of them.
"Those who attempt to protect victims of false accusations by downplaying rape and belittling its victims only make our position appear less sympathetic and so hold back progress."
As someone who has done this in the past, I nevertheless agree.
It can be hard to be rhetorically disciplined at times when you get so fucking angry at these feminists in government who, for instance, opposed this measure which would have only HELPED INNOCENT MEN, not harmed women in any way ... it's pure misandry, they just want us to SUFFER, and it's hard to stay calm and rational. There's always a need to vent which can greatly harm our message. I guess simply being aware of this problem might go some way to preventing outbursts.
Archivist, just a comment.
Does it help to say presumptively innocent, or would it be better to just say 'innocent'?
I mean, we're not really concerned with the men who are guilty -
It's the men who are innocent, falsely accused, who we stand for, right?
So ..... amongst the 'presumptively innocent' will be both innocent and guilty - and because of the presence of innocent among them, there SHOULD be anonymity granted to them all. (Since, obviously, we cannot know who is innocent and who is not.)
But our only concern is that this is a blow to the INNOCENT - not the innocent and guilty who are charged.
Another blow to the innocent accused of rape: the UK's anonymity plan is DOA
To me, that packs more of a punch. It makes it more clear that we're talking about horrible injustice.
I know what you mean, but I've never been convinced this is as much of a gender issue as people make out. I think people are angry about how easy it is to get away with rape - gathering evidence is difficult, it generally amounts to one person's word against another, victims often feel ashamed, reporting and reliving it in court etc is traumatic... So people campaign to make the whole process easier - encouraging victims to come forward, shaming rapists and encouraging other victims to come forward by publicising their names, encouraging everyone to believe rape victims... And I'm sure some will consider this naive, but I genuinely believe this is done with justice and compassion in mind, not misandry.
The trouble is that some women take advantage of all this for revenge or attention or god knows what twisted motives. For those trying to help rape victims, this is a highly inconvenient truth which it's difficult to get around. It could destroy the progress they've made. It's easier to downplay and ignore false accusations because the nature of rape makes it so difficult to protect both victims of rape and victims of false rape accusations. They're blinded to the pain, and even existence, of the falsely accused because to acknowledge it would make it difficult to continue. I think this is why the proposal failed. I think they confuse protecting the falsely accused with protecting rapists because it's so difficult to tell them apart and they don't want to believe false accusations are a problem.
In the same way, it's easier for people trying to help the falsely accused to downplay rape and distrust anything said about rape, rape victims or accusations that could hurt the cause. There's a tendency to conflate victims and false accusers, again because telling them apart is so difficult.
The thing that's hard for anyone to admit is that victims of both rape and false accusation deserve protection and justice, but in an imperfect system we can't only convict the guilty and only free the innocent, as nice as that would be. As our justice system is based on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", we must side with letting men guilty of rape go free as this is preferable to letting innocent men rot in jail. However, the fact remains that many rape victims will go through the trauma of reporting and testifying for nothing and the guilty men who go free may well do it again. I think this is why there's so much resistance to helping the falsely accused, not because of a hatred of men.
"And I'm sure some will consider this naive, but I genuinely believe this is done with justice and compassion in mind, not misandry."
I think it depends on who is doing it.
Certainly, there are some feminists who have made their views -perfectly clear- that this is done out of hatred for men and an utter disregard for innocent males.
And the others, who may well do it for justice and compassion - I ask, justice and compassion FOR WHOM? Not just for the victims, because when you preach 'believe the woman!' then a lot of those you support ARE NOT VICTIMS AT ALL, and you are helping the actual criminal to victimise an innocent man.
So, even those supposedly in this for altruistic reasons turn a blind eye, and consciously so, to the innocent men victimised by their reforms. Long and short of it is: they just don't care about male victims. Justice and compassion sure, for women only, and at any price to men it seems.
Anon@11.51:
Yes, I said most of what you've just said in my comment. I appreciate it was very long, but did you read all of it?
I agree there are some people with malicious and misandric motivations. I meant to say I believe most people have justice in mind - but as I said, they're only focusing on justice for rape victims and ignoring victims of false accusations. I think this is because it would hurt their cause and because it's hard to acknowledge that their efforts to help victims have had some horrible consequences and that so many people would lie about such things. I really don't think in most cases it's because they're evil and on a crusade against men and I don't think it helps to believe this. If you understand someone's motivations, you can use this to change their beliefs.
Basically, there are two groups of people - the accusers and the accused. There are innocent and guilty people in both groups. Unfortunately, because it's so difficult to know which is which, helping the innocent in either group will unintentionally benefit the guilty and therefore hurt the innocent in the other group. That's a hard thing for people to admit, so many just focus on the innocent in one group and the guilty in the other and downplay the existence of the guilty people they're helping and the innocent they're persecuting.
It's ironic really. It ends up being a fight between those helping rape victims and those helping the falsely accused when really false accusers and rapists are common enemies.
Anonymity until charged is really the least they could do. I think the trouble is they see it as anonymity for rapists, not anonymity for the falsely accused, because that's how they see the accused group.
And I'm sure some will consider this naive, but I genuinely believe this is done with justice and compassion in mind, not misandry.
***
Yes, that is naive, especially if you've been reading this blog regularly.
These "feminists" are driven by their maniacal loathing of all things male -- they are not "accidentally" enabling false rape accusers. Basically, the feminists are Hamas and false rape accusers are their suicide bombers.
"Yes, I said most of what you've just said in my comment. I appreciate it was very long, but did you read all of it?"
Yes I did, and no. You didn't.
Sickening...
Maybe we should all get the word 'GUILTY' tattooed on our foreheads and be done with it...
I've read all the comments, and my questions are to those who visit regularly, those who have been falsely accused, and those who advocate for us -- what do we do now? What's next? How do we bring the issue of false rape claims to the attention of the world so that our message is clearly understood? How do we overcome a political machine that is hell-bent on promoting the interests of one gender over another? What do we do with a system that promotes one type of crime through the attempted elimination of another crime?
How many people will go to prison and die there or will commit suicide before this ends? If we can't end the discrimination against men and boys, then we must educate them about the perils and double-standards that exist and provide them with a method and a system in which to bring about social change. What now?
We continue to participate on blogs and other online forums, and we contribute a reasonable amount of money on an annual basis to men's rights organizations and other groups that are interested in protecting the falsely accused and convicted, and we write letters to our representatives, and we continue to make the common sense arguments that will eventually lead to the end of the mass insanity known as feminism.
When enough men make men's rights their main political issue -- the one that always drives their votes and contributions -- the feminists won't roll over us so easily.
One thing that would be great would be if we had a credible men's rights organization that endorsed candidates, based on how supportive they are of men's rights, without regard to their positions on economic and other unrelated issues (except the ones involving anti-male bias).
It's really hard to know who to vote for sometimes.
Anon @ 4:27, a simple website could do that. Could list candidates and what they have previously said, done, and voted on in terms of men's rights.
I'm talking about endorsements for candidates across the nation, both on the state and federal level, though.
" . . . what do we do now?"
For one thing, we could use some help on this site.
Our readers couldn't know this, but over the past month, this blog has been contacted by virtually every major UK news outlet regarding anonymity. I don't publicize that but we are lightning rod on this issue, and I don't have the resources to adequately respond to all of it. We need to be able to respond, in an intelligent and authoritative manner, to these news outlet requests. We need people to go on the air, or to speak to reporters. I am at the point where I can't even respond to all the email we receive from the falsely accused and their families. And if I can't respond intelligently, it's better not to try to respond at all.
I've put out several calls for contributors, and I know there are talented writers out there, but they'd rather spend their time venting about men's rights in general on their own blogs or commenting on The Spearhead. Or responding to wastes-of-time like Julian Real on this site. That's not a criticism; it's a fact. Venting is fine; it has its place and I do a lot of it on this site. But we've got a site here that attracts an enormous amount of attention, and we focus on an important issue. If I could assemble a larger team, aside from the three of us we have, I am certain we could become an important voice in the rape area.
"Our readers couldn't know this, but over the past month, this blog has been contacted by virtually every major UK news outlet regarding anonymity."
Hey wait ... what?!! Really?
See, if I'd known that, then ...
"they'd rather spend their time venting about men's rights in general on their own blogs or commenting on The Spearhead. Or responding to wastes-of-time like Julian Real on this site."
... things might have gone differently.
I think I've said it to you before, though; everything I personally have had to say on the issue has been said in those few articles I already submitted here. Beyond that, all I can really do is condemn the latest case and the media's (mis)handling of it, and repeat the arguments for anonymity. I got nothing else.
But this is a big thing.
And you're right, if they're paying us attention now, we need to STRAIGHTEN UP AND FLY RIGHT ... LOL!
"I am certain we could become an important voice in the rape area."
Imho, this is just one of the problems. The rape area is just one area where men's rights are ignored/ blown off. It is good that there is so much focus on such but, there are other areas to focun on as well. There has to be created, at least one site that emcompasses, focuses and, addresses all areas where men's rights are being ignored and violated. Think about this; Feminists do not focus solely on women's choice in the debates concerning abortion. They also focus and address the so-called " prevelance of violence against women". They have covered almost everything that does and can possibly affect women. We MUST do the same. there are so many brilliant members of the MM, MRM, counter-feminist and, MRA movements. There must be a place where all of these brilliant and intelligent human beings can mesh, exchange ideas, get input and, attack all of the issues that affect men; a sort of Headquarters Department of Defense for men and men's rights/issues.
Does anyone remember the impact of "the million man march"?
A million or more men marching and converging together in a very prominent and public place to make their presence known and their voices heard. I don't think there was one media outlet that didn't cover it.
This is just one thing we as men need to do. We don't have to use violence nor do we have to tolerate it. If none of the women that marched to raise support/membership for The National Oranization of Women, would NOW exist? Men must stop being afraid.
part 1 of 2
Archivist said:
"Our readers couldn't know this, but over the past month, this blog has been contacted by virtually every major UK news outlet regarding anonymity. I don't publicize that but we are lightning rod on this issue, and I don't have the resources to adequately respond to all of it. We need to be able to respond, in an intelligent and authoritative manner, to these news outlet requests. We need people to go on the air, or to speak to reporters. I am at the point where I can't even respond to all the email we receive from the falsely accused and their families. And if I can't respond intelligently, it's better not to try to respond at all.... But we've got a site here that attracts an enormous amount of attention, and we focus on an important issue. If I could assemble a larger team, aside from the three of us we have, I am certain we could become an important voice in the rape area."
Ok. So, my next questions are:
1. If you want a team to help you, what specifically would you want them to do? Give me an example laundry list of specific initiatives and actions that such a team would take.
You have already hinted at a few:
* need to be able to respond, in an intelligent and authoritative manner, to these news outlet requests. (Ok. What are they requesting? You need a press secretary to handle these things. Anyone with a degree in public relations out there? )
* We need people to go on the air, or to speak to reporters. (Ok. My question is, why are you not willing to do this, Archivist? I can definitely understand from my own perspective as a falsely accused why one would not want personal media attention due to the media's ability to distort and de-contextualize any given position that does not fit with their metanarrative on any given subject. In spite of this, a media interview takes only a few minutes to a few hours. As an observation (and definitely not an attack) I also notice that you do not use your real (or perhaps full) name on this blog. The only attorney named Harlan I can find in PA is Thomas P. Harlan http://www.henrybeaver.com/harlan.asp . Is this you? Anyone that joins your team is going to want to know who you are.
"I am at the point where I can't even respond to all the email we receive from the falsely accused and their families."
Great!! Then let's get a clearinghouse going. How about a state-by-state legal reference. I am sure we could contact lawyers in each state that have a vested interest in criminal defense of the falsely accused, in civil rights, etc. that would be willing to help. Perhaps some of them after knowing more about FRS would have the public relations ability to meet with the press.
If I had to vote on one person to be a public voice and image on this issue it would be Dr. Demosthenes Lorandos http://www.psychlaw.net/Practice-Areas/Falsely-Accused.shtml . If you (or all of us who are interested) were to write him (hint-hint) perhaps he would know best how we could organize to address the issue. Dr. Lorandos has already been on NBC's Today Show with a high profile false accusation case:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/37103788/
and elsewhere:
http://trustuswereexperts.blogspot.com/p/701-tonya-craft-demosthenes-lorandos.html
http://www.pasattorney.com/
The fact is that we need bold leadership. Dr. Lorandos is already showing that leadership.
-continued-
part 2 of 2
What I would request from you:
* give us a specific list of measurable initiatives and actions that you'd like to see us take. If such initiatives and actions are time-critical, give us a schedule and deadlines.
* give us a tally of the actual numbers of falsely accused and their families that have contacted you. This number should be put on the FRS site and updated daily.
* Pierce, Give us your credentials in full so that we know who you are. If I were to become a team member, I want to know with whom I am dealing.
I made a three-part comment back in January in response to "How can I light a fire under you?"
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-can-i-light-fire-under-you.html
It's time to implement some of my suggestions.
Which is better then a rapist getting away with raping an innocent young boy or an innocent man being accused of rape?
Don't you think it's rather alarmist to assume that everyone who opposes anonymity is a feminist? Perhaps they just want to ensure rapists are put away? Your conviction rate red herring is ridiculous.
Anonymous - "Perhaps they just want to ensure rapists are put away?"
Okay then,
Do attempt to explain how having the identity of of the accused made public helps get a given rapist convicted in a given case.
PS - don't give the retarded and woefully ignorant feminists line about "other victims coming forward". Even if they are not just lying attention/money seekers, and if there are other legitimate victims, their individual cases would have to be filed separately.
And, their allegations, unless they can be strongly substantiated, are not going to be admissible as evidence in extant cases (otherwise, there would ALWAYS be man-hating feminist-agitators coming forward in every single rape case, claiming to also be victims, in order to help secure convictions).
Off-topic:
Dr. Lorandos' youtube channel on Parental Alienation Syndrome:
http://www.youtube.com/user/PASAttorney
"Don't you think it's rather alarmist to assume that everyone who opposes anonymity is a feminist?"
I suppose they could also be misandrists who do not personally identify as feminist. There are plenty of those, after all.
"Anonymous said...
Which is better then a rapist getting away with raping an innocent young boy or an innocent man being accused of rape?"
Jul 26, 2010 11:05:00 AM
Are you asking a serious question or are you ad hominem "gender" baiting?
Your question is illogical, it makes no sense as it is indirect.
Anonymous - "Are you asking a serious question or are you ad hominem "gender" baiting?"
No need to put it in the form of a question (this isn't Jeopardy, after all). Of course it's baiting.
But, the idea that such a choice must necessarily be made is simply a "straw man". Advocating for the rights of the falsely accused (including anonymity during the course of investigation) is in no way ensuring that child rapist will go free.
Ridiculous baiting questions such as was deposited above should not evoke any other response from us than to point and laugh at the weak attempts which represent the very best that their side can do.
Just mock them.
Not to be baited, but a false rape charge is never justifiable, and is the single worst thing a state can allow. Please see our post on Dwayen Dail if you want to understand what can happen to a young man wrongfully charged with a rape he didn't commit. Mr. Dail was convicted and had done to him the very thing he did NOT do to his accuser, repeatedly, over the course of his 18 years in prison. Thanks to a woman who wrongly pointed the finger of guilt at him, the state for taking the case in the first place when it should not have done so, and his rapists in prison.
Any other questions?
"Anonymous said...
Which is better then a rapist getting away with raping an innocent young boy or an innocent man being accused of rape?"
***
The former, and our tradition of presuming innocence backs me up on this.
I suspect "David Cameron" will soon become the most popular name for pet mice.
"Anonymous said...
Which is better then a rapist getting away with raping an innocent young boy or an innocent man being accused of rape?"
The thing is whatever has happened to the boy has already happened. Nothing will ever change the past. Yes it's horrible and yes his rapist should be brought to justice, but destroying an innocent man and leaving him to rot in jail for many years should always be avoided. This is the way the justice system works - innocent until proven guilty. You can't stop innocent people being accused of crimes but you can stop them being convicted in most cases.
Would you be happy to spend your life in jail for a crime you didn't commit if it meant that more criminals were convicted due to a lowering of the standard of proof necessary?
Anonymity doesn't prevent criminals from being convicted. It only keeps the names of the accused secret until they're charged or convicted. This has become necessary due to the prevalence of false accusations and the effects these have on the falsely accused.
I expanded on the reasons I think some people oppose this in my comments from Jul 25th 8:58AM, 10:17AM and 1:06PM. I hope it's of interest to someone.
----
Anon at 1.10PM:
There seems to be a general tendency for people to think that the only reason others would disagree with them is because they're stupid or evil. Think about the evolution vs creation debate for instance, theists vs atheists, pro-life vs pro-choice, and the way each side views the opposition. I think you make more headway by treating your opponents as rational beings with reasons for their beliefs; you're never going to convince someone by treating them as evil and/or stupid (or "driven by maniacal loathing"). By doing this you just ensure that they dismiss you out of hand. Sure some will be, but with widespread views like these, most will just be normal people and these are the ones to convince. You won't get anywhere with the ones who actually are stupid or evil.
If you tell someone who opposes anonymity that they're "driven by their maniacal loathing of all things male" and that you think they go around sending metaphorical "suicide bombers" to make false accusations, most people will know this isn't true of them or anyone they know and so your position will appear to be based on insane premises and thus not worth considering. If you're passionate, but still rational and reasonable, you'll seem like someone worth listening to.
But some people are both stupid and evil. There is no point to giving those people and their vile sprew any more credence than it deserves.
Furthermore, false rape accusers are the suicide bombers of feminism. They are taking feminist lies and hate to their logical conclusion, and most of the time our legal systems enable them.
11:24, you seem to think that the goal is to persuade the bad guys (or girls, rather) to stop being evil. But that isn't the goal.
The goal is to show the good guys why they need to do something about this.
No that's not what I'm saying. I explicitly said that some people are stupid and evil and that there is no point in trying to persuade these people of anything. (And a quote: "You won't get anywhere with the ones who actually are stupid or evil.")
2:36, I agree with you. I'm not talking about trying to persuade people who actually do hate men or stopping false accusers (again, as I said above). I'm talking about MPs, rape victim advocates and ordinary people who have only really heard/thought about rape victims, their needs and the consequences for them of any measures for supporting victims of false accusations. I'm talking about people who believe the 2% statistic and other such claims, don't realise how devastating a false accusation can be, and are resistant to anonymity as a result of all this, not out of malice. I think to persuade ordinary people it's important to publicise the plight of victims of false accusations, the source of the 2% claim and such whilst still being sympathetic to rape victims, condemning rape and not alienating people by looking like extremists.
From Anonymous @Jul 26, 2010 10:29:00 AM
Archvist, you never did answer my questions. Do you plan to do that, either here or in an email?
"I know what you mean, but I've never been convinced this is as much of a gender issue as people make out"
First of all, it's "sex", not "gender".
Second, nobody gives a flying fuck about male prisoner rape, which very likely occurs more often than rape of females. So don't try to tell me this isn't about sex.
Post a Comment