I do believe all sex crime legislation should be abolished. Feminists have deliberately tried to conflate sex and violent crimes. They are not the same thing. So when we consider that the “sex crime” category is entirely a list of non-violent, mostly victimless crimes then it follows that they must be legal. The feminists will try to claim (rather dubiously) that sex crimes always have a violent component. But that’s like saying that some guy who was wearing a red shirt murdered someone so now you are going to criminalise red shirts and red shirts are always violent. It’s completely retarded.
Inevitably the feminists will say “oh but sex crimes are different, they really are always violent” but this is provably a lie. Let’s look at the specifics. Some 90% of rape allegations are completely false, so those are non-violent (even though the allegations are false, in the feminist mind there is no smoke without fire etc and so he is guilty anyway and still punished). Then there are the drunk rape cases which are also non-violent. Then there are the revenge porn cases, again, non-violent. Then there are the child porn cases, also non-violent. Then the age of consent cases, also non-violent. Then the “he touched my bum in a pub and it annoyed me” cases, again, non-violent. And so the list goes on. Literally the only sex crime that has ever had a violent component is the original definition of rape i.e. sex by force and without consent. The trouble is that definition doesn’t actually exist anywhere in a feminist legal system anymore (as they’ve expanded the definition of rape beyond anything conceivably violent). Furthermore, since rape rape is already covered by other laws (often with lesser more proportionate sentences) it’s not even necessary to have it as a law.
Before you ask, yes, I believe even rape rape is not as serious a crime as the feminists make out. It’s understandable that an incel might rape a woman and in my view he should be seen as a victim. To illustrate my point, consider the scenario where a woman stabs her partner to death because he wouldn’t let her frivolously spend all his money. In any feminist society the woman would be seen as a “vulnerable woman” who had been “emotionally abused” by her partner because he denied her access to money and this caused her to become “emotional”. It would be argued that she shouldn’t be going to prison at all as she did what any woman would have done in “such a difficult circumstance”. Now if this woman is allowed to get away with murder because of such a technicality then surely an incel should be allowed to get away with rape? The incel has very much been victimised as he’s been prevented from being allowed to have sex, which is a dreadful nightmare far worse than a woman not being allowed to spend frivolously. In addition, the amount of harm done to a woman who is raped is far less than the harm done to a man who is murdered. Indeed, in many cases there’s little objective harm that is done at all in the case of rape, merely an inconvenience for a few minutes or hours.
Of course, if feminists truly wanted to stop rape rape then surely abolishing all the sex laws would be something that they would support. More and more men become incel these days because they know that if they ask a girl out on a date then she may well #MeToo them and their lives will be over. Heck, even before #MeToo the series of bizarre consent questioning rituals expected of them by feminists before and during sex would make the whole thing seem complex, risky and undesirable. Not to mention the fact that, whilst women tell men they should always seek consent, in practice women want more impulsive behaviour. So as a consequence instead of getting laid modern men fester with rage and resentment, eventually raping a woman and then killing her or shooting up a school. Honestly, I think feminist sex laws are likely a key cause of both rape and school shootings, as well as the ever rising male suicide rate.
May the triggering commence, ladies!