This judge had exactly the right reaction to the shameful way nonviolent prisoners are treated in US jails
A woman was denied pants or tampons after being arrested for not completing a diversion course that was part of her sentencing from a shoplifting charge. But see how the judge reacts when she finds out that the prisonerâs humiliating treatment is apparently routine.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
If you want to push it back even further Margaret Cavendish, the duchess of Newcastle (1623-1673) wrote The Blazing World in 1666, about a young woman who discovers a Utopian world that can only be accessed via the North Pole - oft credited as one of the first scifi novels
Women have always been at the forefront of literature, the first novel (what we would consider a novel in modern terms)Â was written by a woman (Lady Muraskaiâs the Tale of Genji in the early 1000s) take your snide âIsaac Asimovâ reblogs and stick it
even in terms of male scifi authors, asimov was predated by Jules Verne, HG Wells, George Orwell, you could have even cited Poe or Jonathan Swift has a case but Asimov?
PbbBFFTTBBBTBTTBBTBTTT so desperate to discredit the idea of Mary Shelly as the mother of modern science fiction you didnât even do a frickin google search For Shame
Kinda funny, considering this Isaac Asimov quote on the subject:
Mary Shelley was the first to make use of a new finding of science which she advanced further to a logical extreme, and it is that which makes Frankenstein the first true science fiction story.
You know what else was invented by women? Masked vigilantes, the precursor to the modern superhero. Baroness Emma Orczy wrote The Scarlet Pimpernel in 1905. The character would later inspire better known masked vigilantes such as Zorro and Batman.
the first extended prose piece - ie a novel, was not, as many male scholars will shout, Don Quixote (1605) but The Tale of Genji (1008) written by a woman
Shoutout to people who grew up with emotionally unsupportive parents and have to hear other people talk about how supportive their families are while youâre basically guiding yourself through life. Youâre strong and brave.
Dear self-congratulatory internet. I have some issues with this.
1. This Is Bill pictures have got to stop. It has got to stop. Itâs like pie charts that are all one colour, or Not Simply Going Into Mordor. STOP. DOING. THIS.
2. Using jpeg compression an image that is 90% text. Look at the fucking state of that text. It looks like itâs been pissed on. Please stop doing this.
3. Yes, shutting down these meetings was a good thing. (I mean, they mostly took place anyway, but much smaller and more furtively, and feeling like these meets are not accepted by the community at large is important)
Yes, Glasgow did a spectacular job of coming together and making this hostility known.
Yes, Glasgow should feel good about that.
But what Glasgow did not do was stop a rape conference. Roosh V is a rapist. Some of his follower probably are - as are some of the people you know and love, I expect. But the shared values these men wanted to talk about and reinforce were not âyay rape!â but something much more insidious and fundamental. They were MRAs, PUAs. A whole spectrum of misogynists, in a word.
Thinking that you have kept rapists out of Glasgow is both dumb and dangerous. This group was not some roving cult, but a codified, organised facet of a massive cultural problem that is everywhere, something bigger and quieter and much, much harder to identify and tackle than Rapists.
If a cholera epidemic is ravaging the city, then killing a stray dog, calling it âcholeraâ and parading it around while you slap yourselves on the back is dangerous, simply because you are telling people that youâve stopped cholera. I donât care if it makes you feel good, because itâs stopping people washing their hands, undertaking difficult & expensive civic sanitation works, and investigating the true source.
People will still get sick and die, and probably a bit more so because youâve told them itâs all better now.
There is a fundamental sickness in our society that leads to many men feeling that women are slightly less than people, that they are unfairly withholding a manâs rightful sexual gratification, that when the chips are down and a man is horny, they are somehow undeserving of simple respect and complete autonomy. Itâs such an insidious attitude that you and everyone you know has internalised it to some extent, and women are subjected to the most heinous overt or subtle shit every day because of it.
It is going to take a HELL of a lot of time, energy, pain, structural reform, education and generations of unlearning before this problem is solved, and until it is women are still going to be raped, mistreated, overlooked and made unsafe just for being women. Most of the people who were going to attend the meeting probably donât see themselves - didnât realise they even are - rapists or rape apologists. They think thatâs a total misrepresentation of their views. But tearing down their bitter delusions is a lot harder work than calling them rapists and threatening them with physical violence, isnât it. Not that youâve changed their attitudes one bit, mind you.
Hell, I guarantee there will be men sharing in the vigilante blood-lust who are rapists (or something approaching it) who honestly donât know it. Theyâre out poking metaphorical bushes looking for guys in ski masks today, but theyâll be going out on the town tonight and fucking a girl whoâs too drunk to stand, let alone say No.
You know. Like Roosh V does. The rapist.
This isnât a competition. Nobody cares if you hate rapists more than the next town. This isnât even about rape, itâs about a lot more than that. You donât stop rape by hunting for rapists. If you think you can solve systemic cultural problems by crowing about how youâll physically hurt anybody who steps out of line, you are never ever going to solve the problem.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Trigger Warning: child sex. I mean, obviously, but...
So Doug Richard, dragon of the Dragonâs Den, advisor to the UK govt, was cleared of child sex charges, in spite of having sex with a child. It's horrible and nasty and highly suspicious, but... legal, in this case, and I'm sorry to say that the jury took only four hours to acquit him because they had one simple judgement call to make, and thereafter the law was clear. It's so obviously wrong, and yet there was nothing else they could do. I'll explain to the best of my untrained knowledge, because getting the awfulness out in words will help get it out of my head.
First, the technicalities
Sex with a minor (under 13) is statutory rape, a strict liability offence. This means that, unlike most criminal law, mens rea (âguilt of mind,â a knowledge of and responsibility for ones actions) is not a fundamental component of the crime. This is essentially the law's way of saying, "Protection of minors is more important than your liberty to act in good faith. It doesn't matter if you didn't know she was under-age - it's your responsibility to know. If you did the deed, we don't care how guilty you feel. Our collective responsibility to keep us off that slippery slope trumps your personal liberty not to take care." This is a good thing.
However, the girl in question was 13 at the time. That just puts the case into legal territory in which the act - sex with a minor - is still illegal, but is not statutory rape. There is a mens rea component necessary to bring conviction.
In the case of sex with a child over the age of 12, the court can only convict if can show thatÂ
1) he had sex with a minor (which he did, and admits to),
AND EITHER Â
  2) she did not consent (making it rape, irrespective of her age),
OR
  3) he did not have good reason to believe she was 16 or over.
In the matter of 2), this is such a badly messed up part of UK case law and our criminal justice system that I wouldn't even know where to start, and have no intention of diving into it. Suffice to say that both the definition and the burden of proof for consent is BADLY skewed in favour of the accused, and it's the worst but by no means the only deeply ingrained problem in this whole field. Let's not even get into how the system handles taking and assessing evidence given by minors, especially when involving sex or abuse, and how the girl's testimony was largely discounted due to inconsistency, as if any of us could keep a sentence going straight at age 13. If I start on that, I'll get too angry to finish...Â
What is relevant in this particular case, as the law currently stands, is that she gave clear, continuing consent, and as far as the law is concerned, that's that. "What can reasonably, morally be considered informed consent in a 13-year-old?" is a good and pertinent question, that unfortunately has no legal weight, if it can be shown that he reasonably believed her to be of age. Unlike a 12-yr-old, the fact that a 13-yr-old canât legally give informed consent only signifies in his crime if he thought she was indeed a minor. Because mens rea.
Which brings us to the matter of 3). Did he have no good reason to disbelieve her majority? Put another way, would a reasonable man in his position have been quite sure that she was, as she said, 17 years old?
This is the sticking point for me. So she said she was 17. Let's charitably assume she was reasonably mature for her age and insisted she was a late-bloomer. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that she said everything she could to convince this rich, wealthy, powerful, eager man that she was what he needed her to be - someone who was just old enough to legally consent, but undeveloped enough to appear much younger... I wonder just how much effort he took to be sure of that? He met her on a sugar-daddy hookup site, and wouldnât you know, she was exactly what he was looking for..!Â
He's an intelligent and successful man. He was a government advisor, a dragon on Dragon's Den, a man who has made his considerable livelihood by seeing through people, beyond the facade, seeing what's really there, staking his reputation and business on it, and being right most of the time. A man who has seen and skewered more too-good-to-be-true offers than almost anyone alive, and who will want to see deeds, paperwork and projections before he'll make a decision on a fraction of his wealth.
Such a man was consistently hoodwinked, by a 13 year old girl to whom he was no doubt already promising the Earth, into believing what he so clearly wanted to be true? Did the doubt never enter his shrewd head? Because I think any reasonable man, even without his experience, would need to be pretty strongly convinced that a girl who looks 13 or even 15 was, in fact, 17 before even considering anything sexual. Just how strongly convinced do you think he was?
I guarantee, this will have been the hinging point of the case. Would a "reasonable man" (a legal term in deciding mens rea, in case you're sick of me using it) have believed a child's claim of being 17? I wouldn't have believed it of any 13-yr-old girl when I was 13. I'm pretty certain I've never served a 13-yr-old alcohol during my bartending days, and if I'd had any doubt I'd have obtained proof. Because it's the law. And you can be damned sure I'd want some seriously convincing proof before having sex with someone I met through a sugar-daddy website who looked anything less than a mature adult. But then, I'm not the one looking for opportunities to have BDSM sex with girls on the borderline of legal majority. (I'm in no position to kink-shame, but I'll explain later why I think the power-exchange thing is relevant.)
So the acquittal. It's important to remember that the jury is not in fact responsible for judging the accused. They are presented with facts, are told which are pertinent and which to ignore, and are then asked to make a decision about the truth of certain facts, which will lead to a simple legal outcome. It's likely they were instructed by the judge to the following tune: "Doug Richard is not on trial for having sex with an underage girl - a fact which he does not dispute. He is accused of the crime of Sexual Activity With A Child, a crime of which he is guilty if and only if it would have been reasonable for him to believe the victimâs claim that she was over the age of 16 at the time. It is for you to decide, having heard the evidence, if that was a reasonable assumption."Â
And the jury took just four hours to decide that, yes, it's reasonable that he believed her. I think they're dead wrong, on the evidence of the man's presumable experience, insight and overt intent, but they were presented with a simple decision, and that was their choice.
You can be sure the defense made a big deal out of the fact that the site on which they met has some kind of big "Yes, I am over 18" tick-box on the sign-up form. And isnât it astonishing that she was not invited to testify because  her interviews were âinconsistent with other evidence.â I wonder how consistent her story was to Doug when they were in contact? Her word is clear and strong enough to get him acquitted, but not good enough to be heard in court...
And that's that. Not guilty. He had sex with a 13 year old, but did not commit a crime. Not âwasnât convicted,â you understand, but did not commit a crime. Had she been 12, it would have been one of the worst crimes we can imagine, no matter his diligence or ignorance.Â
What stinks about this case isn't this case at all. The trial went largely as it should, legally - and THAT'S what stinks. Our law is a hot mess around sex, consent, knowledge and intent, but it really doesn't have to be. Why is it that we can acknowledge and enshrine in law that a child of 12 is so exempt from ideas of "informed consent" that there is no circumstance that will acquit you, but as soon as they turn 13, you only need to believe with all your heart in order for it to be legal? We have whole books of case-law precedent that clarify the fuzzy edges around so many tiny details, even going so far as to define the grey area of sex between people who closely straddle the age of consent, the age of legal majority, and so on. There is effectively a sliding scale - of burden of proof, of intent, of knowledge, of consent and ability to consent, and ultimately of criminality - that allows the courts to say, "this is wrong - but this is worse" and mete justice accordingly.Â
Yet the difference here between another notch in the Yewtree and a man with a clean record, as far as I can see, is whether she was born a few days later or earlier, and whether he wanted it badly enough to disbelieve the obvious.
Should this not have been a case to set precedent?
"At 12yrs 11 months, her consent and your knowledge of her age would be irrelevant to this case of what what would be rape. At 15yrs and 11 months, the court recognises you might be forgiven for believing this eager girl to be 16, though you are still guilty of some degree of negligence and will receive a light sentence and a record for sex crime. But at 13yrs, you should at least do your fucking homework and carry out some due diligence if you want the court to believe you actually gave a damn."Â
This was not a man who gave a damn. Not until he was caught.Â
Sadly, owing to the victim's advanced years of 13, this case ultimately came down to a matter of, "Did you think you were doing anything wrong?" Or more accurately, "How certain should the law expect you to be?" On that matter, I think the jury made a bad decision. Either way, a rich, powerful, grown man had sex with a child and was acquitted of criminal charges.
I'll close with the following observation:
It's well known that a man who hangs around school gates in a loud car offering cigarettes to girls is looking for someone naive & curious enough to be fooled, and inexperienced & vulnerable enough to be easily dominated by somebody with no scruples. They do not care if what they hope to do is damaging, immoral or illegal - it's a risk-reward proposition.Â
The older man who seeks out willing young girls on a website that caters to this, specifically to engage his "50 Shades of Grey fantasies," only distinguishes himself from that company by taking care to not be among them - by actually giving a damn, when he sees how young she looks, about whether he's in fact sexually dominating a minor or just role-playing a fantasy with a very convincing partner. When his fantasy presents itself, and he doesn't even stop to check the basics, how is he distinguishing himself from the predators?Â
What separates the latter from the former is that he has a lot more money, a lot less time to hang around the school gates, and he's a lot more cautious about plausible deniability.Â
Because either this shrewd business mogul, with an abiding fantasy of sexually dominating young girls, was completely fooled by a 13 year old... or he knew or suspected exactly what he was doing. It was a risk-reward proposition, and wouldnât you know it, he backed a winner.
this whole discussion about a Mulan life-action baffles me. Like⌠I love the fun with Mushu and all but? Why do we need a Disney remake of the movie when there is
Here is a link to watch it free online with English subtitles.
Just as a warning, it is a little violent, some horses are killed during the battles, and there is a scene where Wentai cuts open his wrist. It is a very good movie, I just finished watching it and would recommend everyone watch it.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
straight boys are weak and pathetic, queer girls walk into the ladies changing room and see ten women naked, do they stare? do they say something inappropriate? do they make them uncomfortable? no because they have the common fucking sense to recognise when a situation is sexual and that people deserve the most basic level of respect to not be harassed, yet here we are banning shorts and low cut tops in school because straight boys are weak and pathetic
okay i made this post this morning and it has since had eighty two thousand notes, itâs been featured on reddit, facebook, twitter iâve been sent multiple death threats and messages that i donât even want to describeÂ
and i have to apologise
iâve seen the error of my ways
straight boys are not âweak and patheticâÂ
straight boys are weak, pathetic and fucking annoying
Iâm tired of people romanticizing overexertion. Exhausted is not the new chic, coffee (though a delicious necessity) is not a food group, and running on fumes is not admirable. Why do we hold pedestals for sleepless nights, breakdowns, and inner turmoil? Are those really things to aspire to? Self-care. Balance. The ability to know when your body, mind, and spirit need to take a step back. Those are things we should admire. We have to stop blurring the line between âcommitmentâ and self-endangerment because too many people are burning out before they have a chance to truly shine.
my opinion on the way we envision hard work and the way we should live lifeÂ
Iâve seen my share of âfake geek girlâ shaming, and just thought having a Fairy Gamer Momma to come to the rescue would be nice. I know they exist, Iâve met plenty who are amazing and could beat my ass at any version of Mario Kart. Give the Gamer Momma in your life a big hug! :D
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Hey men, calling yourself a feminist isnât a free pass to be awful to womenÂ
Earlier this week, BuzzFeedâs Grace Spelman became the latest woman to demonstrate the risks of being online while female by tweeting screenshots of the belligerent exchanges she had with Ben Schoen, the former host of MuggleCast. After Spelman came forward with all this, Schoen defended himself vehemently, claiming his track record proves he isnât sexist. Well, weâve got some harsh news for you, Schoen.
Classic example of ânice guyâ syndrome. Thinks if he amasses enough of the right kind of points, heâs entitled to a womanâs attention. Gets furious when he doesnât get what he thinks heâs earned.
Guys, feminism is not a badge, or a club, or a technique. Itâs an idea whose time is long overdue.
It doesnât belong on your social media bio. It doesnât belong on your CV.
It belongs in your head, checking and informing everything you do and say, changing you into a more compassionate person, and by extension changing the world.
Guys, if you find that feminism isnât âworkingâ for you, youâve misunderstood. Itâs not FOR you; itâs FOR dismantling systemic privilege & abuse, and it starts with dismantling the patriarchy in your own head.
Nobodyâs gonna make you do that, because privilege. Do it because itâs right - or donât, because you donât care - but either way: feminism owes you nothing.
If you do care, though, then more power to you. We got your back.
Hi there, Anon. I hope youâre having a good day. I just wanted to let you know that this message really, really hurt me. Someone I loved was murdered this weekendâthere is no punchline coming; someone in my family was murderedâand I came to my Inbox because helping people makes me feel better. I just wanted to help someone, to soothe some aspect of their pain and mine, but there was your Ask, awaiting me.
So Iâm going to try to help you, Anon, by telling you how much you hurt me: a lot. Iâm crying (as I have been a lot these last few days), Iâm in a valley of darkness, and you made it worse. Your casual cruelty has hurt another human being, someone who is every bit as real as you. You made a choice and it had a consequence, which is that youâve made my broken heart break a little more.
I can hear keys tapping already. I can hear you protesting that you didnât know I had been through trauma, or that you were just trolling me, or goodness knows what else.
So here is my response: Cruelty always has a consequence, and it is a game of Russian Roulette. Eventually, someone will always be hurt. The only way to win is to not play at all.
I truly pray, Anon, that you never know the pain my family is going through. I also hope that you read this post and that it makes you contemplate why it seemed necessary to send your Ask. Iâm not trying to shame you; I have no interest whatsoever in adding to the balance of shame or hate in the world. But you hurt me, and I want you to know itânot as a punishment, but, perhaps, as a gift.
- Mike
PyroTyger's record of awesome @pyrotyger - Tumblr Blog | Tumlook