In the world of fantasy writer and all-around hateful shithead Vox Day, women who are raped when they’re too drunk to consent should just suck it up, because reporting their rapes would be akin to someone calling police when they can’t remember where they’ve parked their car.
In a blog post today, Vox approvingly quotes a retiring British judge under fire for telling a newspaper that “the rape conviction statistics will not improve until women stop getting so drunk.” (This is the same judge who recently gave a teacher convicted of possessing a massive library of child porn a suspended sentence, saying that she couldn’t “criticise you for being a teacher who’s attracted to children.”)
Vox offers his take:
Perhaps women would be slower to put themselves in positions where they can be raped with impunity if they understood that they will not be taken at their word simply because they cry rape. It’s ridiculous. Can you imagine any other purported crime being investigated, much less prosecuted, on similarly vague grounds?
He follows this with an imaginary conversation between a young woman and the police in which she reports that her car is stolen because she can’t remember where she parked it.
It’s not really quite as hilarious as Vox imagines it to be.
PRO TIP: One way you can tell that forgetting where you parked your car is not actually much like rape is that no one actually calls police when they forget where they parked their car, while people do indeed report rapes, despite knowing that they will be grilled and second-guessed and called a “slut” and possibly mocked on the internet by assholes like Vox Day.
In the comments, one fellow suggests that feminists should have their right to vote taken away from them:
Feminists love to conflate the difference between saying that a drunk woman’s testimony is insufficient to establish a conviction of rape in a he/she said situation and the mythical attitude “she’s drunk so she’s asking for it even if she’s passed out on the floor.” They don’t understand that this is primary evidence for the fact that feminists should never be allowed to vote, because they’re (deliberately) too stupid to grasp the fundamental principles of civil society, or that alcohol affects men’s inhibitions as well as women’s.
Vox and his readers do indeed live in a fantasy land.
UPDATE: It’s a Vox Day twofer today! On his other blog today, Vox quotes a Daily Mail story claiming that the horrifying sexual abuse of 1400 children in Rotherham, England went unchecked in part because (as a report on the disaster notes) some social workers felt “nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist.”
Ignoring the fact that this is the self-serving claim of people who knowingly allowed this abuse to persist, and ignoring all of the other factors that contributed to this horrendous failure, Vox concludes that
the material costs of anti-racism are CONSIDERABLY worse than the material costs of racism …
Anti-racists not only actively celebrate predatory relationships, they regularly demonstrate that they have no problem whatsoever with child abuse, whether it occurs within the same race or is interracial. Moreover, what they falsely decry as “racism” is quite often nothing more than the exercise of the Constitutional right of free association. …
If you think that you possess the higher moral ground because you are anti-racist, think again. You are observably enabling widespread crime, particularly rape and child abuse, and are quite literally doing material harm to your own nation.
Astounding. Appalling. And just plain ridiculous.