Why You Should Support the Redefinition of Rape
by Ann Thrope
The United States Government is finally putting our tax dollars to good use, by redefining rape. Republicans want a rougher, more grizzly definition that includes force, while those on the left want rape to remain the trump-card for regretful women that it is. We here at the Ladies Monthly, after much discussion, have decided to come down in favor of the Republican redefinition of rape. Our reasons are totally non-partisan, and we had to weigh the benefits of the redefinition with what we were giving up from what we already had. Ultimately, it came down to a few very crucial points, and this article is going to lay them down for you so that you know why, as a woman, you should also support the redefinition of rape.
1. Rape is Going to Get Better
Since rape will now be defined as sex by force, if someone wants to rape someone they are really going to have to put the effort into it. Unconscious sex in a hotel bathroom will just be unconscious sex in a hotel bathroom. The new Republican slogan is “If it ain’t rough, it ain’t rape.” What this will do for rape will make it much more competitive and standard-driven. The Republicans have implemented a kind of rapist Darwinism here, that, if left unchecked, could very well produce some very high-quality rapists. This is great news for women.
This lucky lady was officially raped at a tennis court. The man courting her used an automatic serving machine as opposed to his backhand.
2. There’s a New Kind of Sex!
With the redefinition of rape comes a brand new kind of sex which is as yet unnamed and done both non-violently and without consent. Kids are calling this new kind sex “Promming,” “Dry Sex,” and “The New Argument.” For ladies with a sex life that is running out of new things to try, this is fantastic news. Finding a man to prom you has never been so easy.
3. More Children for Everyone to Love
With the Republican redefinition seeking to stop abortions from gentle rapes, there will be a bounty of children being born to mothers who in the past would have been able to leave their new arguments behind them. Now, with plenty of children being born as a result, everyone will have more children to love. The community can welcome and support these children and help them to live productive and fulfilling lives in a world where they can be loved for who they are.
You know, I try to take offence and get horrified on behalf of my gender because of the fact that Republicans want to go back to the older and more strict definition of ‘rape’.
But then I remember that men have no protections against being raped at all. And in fact in many jurisdictions, can’t be raped.
And that offends me more.
You can’t rape the willing.
You know what I do when I hear that a woman has been raped? I shrug.
You know what I hear when a man has been raped? His screams.
Let it be known that Ann Thrope has no care for the plight of millions of men raped each year.
Talk about misandry.
Yeah, men who are raped by women… I cry myself to sleep every night thinking about their suffering.
this is an appalling proposal. taken along with the “life begins at conception” notion being thrust into congressional news, it represents a HUGE attempt at sexual enslavement on the part of the right wing against women. who ARE these people to decide when a woman has a right to control her own body? if it did happen to men, it wouldn’t happen to men. but it’s women. it’s mothers and sisters and daughters.
misogyny at its finest.
Appaling? Not quite. It is quite the modest proposal if you ask me. Women are sexually enslaved by nature, otherwise we wouldn’t have a womb that carries a baby like a parasite until term. If we were meant to abort our children, we would lay eggs.
You are crazy. This redefinition of rape also states that if a 40 year old man drugs a 13 year old girl and has sex with her then it cannot be considered rape because this also eliminates statutory rape unless it’s incest. Shame on you.
Um, I think most people are missing the point — “the modest proposal” reference to Jonathon Swift’s famous work about dealing with unwanted Irish babies by eating them? Admittedly, I don’t think the author did a great job with the piece, but I think it’s clear she doesn’t intend it to be taken seriously, at least.
I would take your opinion more seriously if you hadn’t left such a poorly made comment. But at least there is someone else out there who is an advocate of the practices of Mr. Swift. If only eating Irish babies had continued with the same pace until today, we would be rid of those poor red-headed drunks.
this article is a Joke, in fact the whole site is a joke to provoke flame war and increase traffic and make money out of the sponsors. Sadly some people will believe what they read here and follow those pseudo advice and there “Harmless Joke” will do harm.
This isn’t a joke, you are, for posting this comment on so many articles. Shame on you, for thinking this is some kind of money making scheme. Actually, the money has already been made. Our subscriptions have gone through the roof, and we’re printing stacks of magazines that are shipping out worldwide. We’re rich! Filthy, filthy rich!