XPost: alt.atheism, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns

Ashton Kutcher and His Wife Release Hostage Type Apology Video for
Supporting Childhood Friend Danny Masterson

https://dailystormer.in/ashton-kutcher-and-his-wife-release-hostage-type-apology-video-for-supporting-childhood-friend-danny-masterson/

Andrew Anglin | September 10, 2023

Danny Masterson was sentenced to life in prison over an alleged "rape" that occurred 20 years ago last week. Two women alleged that they were drunk at
his house and he had sex with them, even though they didn't really want to.

Many of his friends wrote letters asking for leniency, including Ashton
Kutcher and Mila Kunis. Kutcher and Kunis are now married, and they all appeared together on the sitcom "That 70s Show" in the 1990s and early
2000s.

Other members of the cast and other friends of Masterson also wrote letters supporting him (including the dad from the show who was also the bad guy in Robocop 2). However, Kutcher and Kunis were viciously targeted.
Unsurprisingly, they released a groveling apology video for defending their friend.

I've already written two articles on the Masterson situation, and don't
really have anything more to say on it right now. I will probably have more
to say in the future, as the situation develops. I suspect that I might not
be the only one who thinks sentencing a man to life in prison based purely
on the testimony of supposed victims regarding events that allegedly
happened 20 years ago is pushing the limits.

Obviously, our legal system used to require evidence to convict someone of a crime, but rape/consent law, driven by Jews, has changed the entire
structure of the legal system.

When the Nazis were put on trial at Nuremberg for "the Holocaust" and there
was no physical evidence of any crime presented, with the court relying entirely on totally outrageous claims from the Jews, legal scholars wrote
that it was a threat to the entire Western legal order. They were assured
that this sort of thing would never happen in a normal court. These new rape trial standards that judges have begun allowing now bring the standard of
the Nuremberg Trials to the American legal system.

Imagine if a woman said she saw you murder someone twenty years ago, and originally decided to report it to the police 5 years ago. There is no
evidence you murdered anyone, and there is no body, but the woman says you
did it. The prosecutor's office brings it to a judge and a judge allows it.
The woman then goes on the stage and cries, talking about how terrible this murder you committed was. The judge then tells the jury that because there
is no evidence, no body, no anything, you should just consider whether you believe the crying woman, and decide whether or not to convict based on how
her emotional performance made you feel.

The Masterson trial is exactly the same as that.

Obviously, there can't be evidence in a "date rape" case, as you would have
a dead body as evidence of a murder. But that's the point. This entire
"drunk sex can be rape" concept is nonsensical. People do a lot of things
when they are drunk that they regret. The solution to that is to either not
get drunk at all, or to not get drunk around people you don't want to have
sex with. Because, I would assert, that if a man and a woman are alone
together drinking alcohol, as they continue to drink, sex becomes virtually inevitable.

Men have regrets about this too.

As the old song goes: "I've never gone to bed with an ugly woman, but I've
sure woke up with a few."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbNpl9Bqdys

This is not something that it is possible for the state to regulate. "Rape"
has traditionally had to involve violence. It is classified as a form of assault. Therefore, at the very least, the woman needs to have bruises to
show (but that can be faked, or the result of "consensual" sex).

Basically, this is the thing: sex used to be regulated through Christian standards. Women didn't just go around having sex with random men. If a
woman did have sex with a random man, she was considered a whore. And this included ending up in situations where she's drunk and alone with a man at
his house, and "I didn't really want to do it but I was drunk." The
assumption was that only a whore would be in that situation, and therefore
she was asking for it.

With women's liberation, they had to create a new system to regulate sex, so they came up with this concept of "consent." But "consent" is not definable.
It is an ambiguous spook. They say "no means no," but anyone with any sexual experience at all knows that isn't true, and if you take that at face value, women will think you're totally pathetic. Human sexual behavior can't fit
into this framework.

If you had sex with a 14-year-old girl in 1920, either she was a whore or
you were going to be socially forced into marrying her. Now, they say a 14-year-old girl is "incapable of giving consent." So even if she wanted to
do it, there was no "consent." The term can mean anything.

They have to invent these little tricks to manage the fact that we are
living in a totally unnatural society, which has veered from the basic norms
of human behavior.

If women are running around getting drunk and going to random men's houses, they are going to end up having sex with men. Some of those events they may regret. Maybe they'll regret it 15 or more years later. This is not
something the state can manage. Sexual behavior is simply too personal for
the state to regulate.

Kidnapping is already a crime. Assault is already a crime. If a woman gets drunk at your house and you beat her up, she can go to the cops with her injuries and they will probably be able to prove you beat her up. You'll be charged for a crime.

But sex, when there is no injury, is just "oh but I didn't like it" - you
can't make laws around that.

These laws they are doing now are designed to shut down human reproductive behavior, to cripple men, to outlaw heterosexuality.

This is the video they are spreading to show that Ashton Kutcher is a really bad guy, by the way:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1700671944348049908

Seems to me like a normal teenager living in a society that celebrates promiscuity.

But hey - I grew up in the 1990s.

I don't understand any of this stuff.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)