Sunday, October 16, 2016

Candidates and the Synonym for Rape

October 16, 2016

By Anna Morris, Co-Editor, Freedom Fighters of America
  They got rid of Herman Cain with just one female accusing him of sexual misconduct, blathered someone on an alleged news station which is now just part of the "reality" show that is Election 2016. She went on to exclaim over the numbers of women now accusing Donald Trump of the same. There was something I didn't quite catch about polls showing that a candidate can really be harmed by this tactic. 

     In this time when government is supposed to stay out of the bedroom and when our country is moving from a republic to a social media and MSM driven mob rule democracy, it is surprising that accusations of sexual misconduct can destroy candidates. Of course for that to happen, progressive fomented mass psychology, if not outright law, had to elevate sexual exploration between males and females to the status of "sexual assault." To the average mind the synonym for those two words is "rape".

     A long time ago before the New Normal said ANYone experiencing ANYthing unpleasant is a welcome member of the Victim hood Club, men and women played a number of sexual games on the way to getting to know each other. Considering the coverage of Mr. Trump's alleged peccadilloes, ALL of these old activities are now crimes, which goes a long way to explain why some colleges have instituted or suggested contractual dating. Perhaps it goes something like this: We mutually agree to kiss: a) light peck, b) on the lips, c) open mouth, no tongue, d) tongue allowed. During the kiss we mutually agree: a) hug only, b) touching above waist allowed, c) toughing any body parts allowed. During each stage of the evening the couple are expected to stop and sign the dating contract. Failure at any step means the overloaded courts can sort it out and hopefully no bone found erring has to register for life as a sex offender. 

     I am not terribly old and since I lie about my age--I still look great, so why not--I will say my demographic went from Ozzie and Harriet to the sexual revolution fairly quick. 

     In Ozzie's time people were supposed to be chaste ladies and gentlemen. Of course men and women did not always live up to the ideals but society had a veneer that made it seem everyone did. Thus Jack and Jackie Kennedy raised beautiful children in the White House, modelling the perfect family. Meanwhile, we now know, President Kennedy was having sexual frolics downstairs in the White House pool with female assistants nicknamed Fiddle and Faddle. Appearance was everything and that kept the country socially stable.

     With "The Pill" giving women a measure of freedom from unwanted pregnancy, the sexual revolution from the mid-sixties on, proclaimed more or less, if it feels good, do it. Though it was proclaimed as a time of WOMEN'S sexual freedom, guys who are natural horn dogs, used the women's new found freedom as an excuse to shed old time norms of restraint. (Soon thereafter the welfare state strengthened and single motherhood, now politically correctly called single parenthood, was raised to a level of sainthood. Single mother/parents also made a wonderful voting block for the Democrat Party which faithfully promises more and better welfare through Big Government.)

     "Bad girls do and good girls don't," was still taught to young women of my generation. Our moms taught us that "guys" on dates would try to get away with ANYTHING to go as far as they could and it was up to us girls to hold the line. If a guy got too fresh we were to slap his face. My mom who was older than other mothers of my generation, chuckled about girls at the turn of the last century who used actual hat pins as defensive weapons to chill the ardor of aggressive dates. 

     A male friend and I watched the TV downfall of Herman Cain and we both wondered aloud at the same time, how come his female accuser wasn't ashamed to go on air and claim she was helpless when he supposedly worked his hand up her leg, under her skirt? We see somewhat the same coming from the accusers of Mr. Trump. We hear accusations about his sexual aggression but do we believe the women were helpless to put him in his place once and for all? 

     This may actually make sense in the crazy New Normal. Social media and "reality" show "news" outlets are quick to say Mr. Trump allegedly committed "sexual assault" on a number of women. Why, we may wonder, did not any of these women knee him in the groin or at least slap his face when he supposedly attacked? Actually in a number of states that would be assault. As it goes in domestic disturbances, chances are both parties could get a night in jail if complaints and counter complaints were made.

     It seems like V. Lenin or some other big time Communist said something about making so many laws nobody could follow them and then the law would lose all respect. Perhaps the Supreme Court needs a case to decide if a woman slapping the face of a guy, who groped up her skirt, is self defense. Or if groping is sexual assault? (Once on a very crowded street in Honolulu two hands cupped and slid over my very skinny buttocks. I thought it was a pick-pocket feeling for a wallet and was very thankful my sister-in-law had insisted I use a fanny pack for valuables. By today's terms, it was an obvious sexual assault so it follows, I must be a victim. And/or: Where was Donald Trump in April, 1992?)

     The problem with our people-driven social upheavals of the last fifty years is that Cultural Marxists moved in and took over, instituting Big Government "solutions" via laws, to control what individuals use to handle on their own. The ever increasing laws are there to focus our thoughts on the ever expanding and restrictive CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. 

     Best yet, this mob driven Big Government has no statutes of limitation. Big Government health care used to just ask if the patient smoked. Then they changed it to did the patient EVER smoke? If yes, that stain can follow the patient to the grave and it will be awful helpful when full rationing is introduced. (If the patient says he never smoked, practitioners expect an instant extemporaneous speech about how he avoided the pitfalls of evil tobacco!)

     Applied to politics, any man who can be accused of EVER touching a woman or encouraging her to have sex with him, has committed "sexual assault" and who wants a rapist in the White House? According to some, Mr. Trump's eighth grade level boasting on the live mic. equals a confession of serial sexual assaults. 

     Personally, if a guy groped his hand up my skirt, I would firmly grab that hand and give it back to him. I would probably dig in my nails while I removed his hand. I would not whine and whimper and ask him to please stop. I would TELL him his behaviour is unacceptable and STOP NOW! Feminism was supposed to be about putting women in charge of their sexuality. I simply cannot imagine letting a guy grope any part of me, then hiring someone like Gloria Allred a decade or so later to explain to the world that I was a victim!

     I will let Mr. Trump's words speak for him. Why would a billionaire, who has married three gorgeous women, think, talk and perhaps act like an eighth grade boy who just discovered wet dreams? Why would President Kennedy need time outs from his beautiful, Catholic family with Fiddle and Faddle and many more? Why did President Clinton risk everything, then lie to the point of impeachment, over an intern and a cigar in the oval office? 

     Back in my day our moms warned us about guys like this and we were not taught to be victims. Most guys tried to go as far as they could. In the sixties it was called "copping a feel"; brush, touch or grope a girl, then tell buddies about it in the junior high locker room. Before experimental touching became "sexual assault" and victim hood was not yet invented, you can bet those boys never boasted about getting slapped, kneed, scratched or punched by young ladies who stood up for themselves. An amazing result of progressive-driven women's "liberation" is that, fifty years later, we are all victims in need of legal and Big Government salvation. Was the point of women's liberation just to make us weak and dependent?

     More amazing yet, Herman Cain and Donald Trump are labelled sexual assaulters while Bill Clinton is a senior statesman planning to become the First Dude in the White House.


No comments: