Rape: Yep. It CAN be justified. And it CAN be a woman's fault.

The feminist narrative villifies an entire range of male sexual behaviours as being suggestive or even threatening of rape.

Yet it condemns rape rhetoric! And this is the peculiarity of it: that if in his defense a man says that he was enticed by her behaviour, as though Intuitively, he is condemned and worse: his WORDS are villified as well!

Now of course rape can be justified. It is so all the time. People who criticise Marxism by suggesting that it leads to rape justify it by implication. But the defendant justifies his actions so that they will NO LONGER *be* rape! Here are a few peculiar claims:

1. Rape can never be justified.
Think of how this is constructed, if I may employ the imperative. The act is all ready established as rape. This dis-qualifies the possibility of justification, so the central evil: it can never become any thing OTHER than the sign assigned to it! The defendant chokes on his own act, this nugget of Fascism that cannot be de-constructed, and words cannot relieve him.

But suppose that the woman WAS coming onto him! Here we see the crux of the hypocrisy: that feminists condemn sexual behaviour as rape in men, but NOT in women!

What if 'coming onto him', SHE was about to rape HIM?
And yet to be a gentleman he acquiesced, or better yet, to be a hero, he took the blow before some one else would have to!

The consideration may seem bleak. But was it frivolous to begin?

2. Rape is never a woman's fault.
How do you know.
Were it so, would she be the rapist?
Or do our opponents mean to say that a man could never be raped?(!?)

Dm.A.A.