Feminist claims that bad consensual sex equals rape victimize women just as surely as the McMartin trials victimized children

Loading

Bookworm:

Do you remember the McMartin preschool case in the mid- to late-1980s, when the owners of a small, family-run preschool found themselves accused of satanic sexual debauchery with the children in their care? Although the McMartin case was the most widely publicized, and therefore the most memorable, case, there were similar cases popping up all over the United States.

Each case would begin with a mother reporting that her child had said something that indicated he or she was the victim of sexual abuse at the preschool. Investigators and child therapists would move in and, next thing you knew, scores of employees and owners were suddenly being accused of the most heinous crimes.

Significantly, these accusations didn’t even stop with ordinary sexual molestation. Instead, they invariably included additional bizarre behaviors such bestiality, animal sacrifice, and even human sacrifice. Looked at objectively, without the accompanying media-fed hysteria, the charges sounded every bit as ridiculous as the claims madealmost three hundred years before in Salem, Massachusetts.  Needless to say, as in Salem, a lot of lives were irrevocably destroyed before the hysteria finally ended.

One of the things that finally brought the witch hunt to an end was the discovery that young children are simply dreadful witnesses. When the investigators and child therapists got hold of the children, they started off by asking the kids leading, or simply factually detailed, questions. The children would deny that any of the claimed practices occurred. By the next interview, the children had incorporated those questions into their memory banks and admitted that the practices had occurred. Even worse, as the interviews continued, the children began embroidering upon and making ever more lurid these implanted “memories.”

As a Wikipedia article on the Day-care sex-abuse hysteria accurately states:

Children are vulnerable to outside influences that lead to fabrication of testimony.[63] Their testimony can be influenced in a variety of ways. Maggie Bruck in her article published by the American Psychological Associationwrote that children incorporate aspects of the interviewer’s questions into their answers in an attempt to tell the interviewer what the child believes is being sought.[64]Studies also show that when adults ask children questions that do not make sense (such as “is milk bigger than water?” or “is red heavier than yellow?”), most children will offer an answer, believing that there is an answer to be given, rather than understand the absurdity of the question.[65]Furthermore, repeated questioning of children causes them to change their answers. This is because the children perceive the repeated questioning as a sign that they did not give the “correct” answer previously.[66] Children arealso especially susceptible to leading and suggestive questions.[67]

Some studies have shown that only a small percentage of children produce fictitious reports of sexual abuse on their own.[68][69][70][71] Some studies have shown that children understate occurrences of abuse.[72][73][74]

Interviewer bias also plays a role in shaping child testimony. When an interviewer has a preconceived notion as to the truth of the matter being investigated, the questioning is conducted in a manner to extract statements that support these beliefs.[66] As a result, evidence that could disprove the belief is never sought by the interviewer. Additionally, positive reinforcement by the interviewer can taint child testimony. Often such reinforcement is given to encourage a spirit of cooperation by the child, but the impartial tone can quickly disappear as the interviewer nods, smiles, or offers verbal encouragement to “helpful” statements.[66] Some studies show that when interviewers make reassuring statements to child witnesses, the children are more likely to fabricate stories of past events that never occurred.[64]

Peer pressure also influences children to fabricate stories. Studies show that when a child witness is told that his or her friends have already testified that certain events occurred, the child witness was more likely to create a matching story.[75] The status of the interviewer can also influence a child’s testimony — the more authority an interviewer has such as a police officer, the more likely a child is to comply with that person’s agenda.[76]

I was a young lawyer back in 1987, when the McMartin case was at its peak, and a lot of legal publications suddenly started running articles about the difficulties of getting honest, accurate testimony from very young children.  I was very struck by studies showing that children’s memories are extremely malleable and that this malleability, when combined with children’s admirable imaginations, can create terrible, damaging lies.

Back in the day, when it became apparent that all these preschool cases were travesties, and that scores of decent adults had been falsely accused of horrific crimes, sympathy flowed to the adults as the real victims of the witch hunt.  I, however, have often wondered about all those children.  Instead of their innocent little minds being gardens of bright images, darkened only by the usual childhood fears of things that go bump in the night, these children’s minds had been polluted with horribly obscene images of perverse sex, bestiality, and human sacrifice.  It was as if an endless loop of ISIS depredations had been planted in their brains.

Instead of having been “raped” by satanic teachers, these little children were just as surely “raped” by the therapists and investigators who created and encouraged those dreadful images in their heads.  Although the children didn’t begin as victims, they ended up that way.  Today, feminists are imposing the same type of rape on today’s young women, because the feminists have simultaneously encouraged young women to accept casual sex as the norm while defining rape down to include any sexual activity, including consensual sex, that leaves the woman feeling uncomfortable about the experience.

In a less hysterical (and more traditionally moral time), rape was understood to be a manifestly non-consensual sexual penetration or forced oral sex, one that was based in physical threats or extreme coercion.  That standard was pretty damn clear.

The problem for women back in the day was that, if they weren’t pure as driven snow, our culture said either (a) that they’d asked for it or (b) that there’s no such thing as rape when the women isn’t a virgin or when it’s the husband who brutalizes the woman.  Thankfully, we have put those days behind us.

Having abandoned that barbaric standard (although it’s one that still flowers in the Muslim world), we’ve gone to the opposite extreme.  We define “rape” so broadly that, even when the young women haven’t been raped, they’ve still been victimized because they’ve been told that they are victims.

In an earlier post, I referred to Emma Sulkowicz, aka Mattress Girl, the ColumbiaUniversity student who made quite a name for herself by carrying around the mattress on which, she said, she was raped, only to have a callous university refuse to help her.  I also referenced Lena Dunham, who wrote an autobiography in which she accused an unnamed, but clearly identifiable, campus Republican of having raped her.

In both cases, the truth was quite different.  Sulkowicz’s alleged rapist, Jean-Paul Nungesser has now filed suit against Columbia Universityand others complaining of the way they allowed Sulkowicz to slander him for years.  I predict that, even if the university manages to weasel out of paying him damages, the trial will establish conclusively that Sulkowicz was not raped, at least as the term is understood by normal people who haven’t been indoctrinated by campus feminists.

Nungesser has actual evidence on his side, rather than mere accusations or denials.  He was able to recover the texts that Sulkowicz sent him before the alleged “rape,” which show her actively trying to bed him and requesting the anal sex he was later said to have forced upon her, as well as texts from after the alleged “rape,” in which she continued to hound him and profess her affection for him.

Most reporters, presaging the Rolling Stone debacle vis-a-vis the alleged University of Virginia gang rape, never bothered to speak to Nungesser to hear his side of the story.  Thrilled by the striking visual of the pretty Sulkowicz staggering around under a mattress, media hacks bought her story hook, line, and sinker.  When an actual investigative journalist, Cathy Young, tried to interview Sulkowicz in a way that suggested doubt about the latter’s narrative, Sulkowicz, who had paraded her life in the media for months, turned around and accused Young of re-raping her:

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

There used to be a video, a secretly filmed sex act between an adult male (either al qaueda or taliban) and his child bride.
Trust me, although I didn’t see the whole thing, that child did NOT enjoy it at all.
But she knew to keep quiet.
He had a cane in one hand to beat her with if she had complained.
Perhaps Muslims have the right idea.
Perhaps any female who fixates on bad sex (as if it is rape) should be killed.
It saves her having to live a life re-living only bad memories.
(Of course I’m being sarcastic.)
If the WSJ article is correct about the indoctrination of our young women about ”bad consensual sex equaling rape” no wonder lesbianism is on the rise.
I guess that’s what you get when you let weirdos get all the tenured positions while straight men and women are considered ”old hat.”
I wonder if a college/university boycott could help reset this problem.

Feminist claims that bad consensual sex equals

These idiots should be careful what they wish for. Women can be just as terrible at sex as men.