Man who tricked stupid women into taking their clothes off and performing porn star acts for him jailed by vengeful matriarchy for TWO YEARS

In a rational more masculine world these women should have been humiliated for being so stupid so that any women stupid enough to have been tricked by a man in this way would think hesitate to waste the court's time. suggests that he should appeal against the conviction on the ground that the judge misdirected the jury.

If I get you to take off your clothes and persuade you to entertain me by doing things a porn star would, by the sheer force of my personality and powers of my persuasion, you should not be able to have me imprisoned for two years just because you were stupid enough to accede to my requests but later felt a bit foolish after your friends told you what a ninny you had been for believing that you would get closer to your deceased loved ones the more outrageous the sex acts you performed for my gratification.

Questions the appellant's barrister might wish he had asked the women if he had not:

1.  Are you claiming you were hypnotised by the appellant?  [It doesn't matter if the answer is Yes or No.  If she answers No, then she clearly consented.  Even if she answers Yes, we all know that no one can be hypnotised without being prepared to be hypnotised.  If anyone challenges this, call an expert witness or Derren Brown.]

2. What was going through your mind when you were doing what the appellant asked you to do?

3.  What made you turn against the appellant?

4.  Did the appellant blackmail or threaten you?

5.  Did you want to believe the appellant when he said by committing those sex acts he asked of you you would become closer to your deceased loved ones?

6.  Did you enjoy the sex acts he asked you to perform?  I must remind you that you are under oath.

7.  Would it be correct to say that you were agreeably surprised by how much you enjoyed doing the things the appellant asked you to do?  I must remind you that you are under oath.

8.  Did you at any time fantasise about the appellant?  I must remind you that you are under oath.

8.  Would you have had sex with the appellant if he had asked you?  I must remind you that you are under oath.

How do you feel about a law that privileges and rewards stupid and immoral women over a charismatic man with extraordinary powers of persuasion?


Popular posts from this blog

Divorced women who literally turn their sons into women

The 30 second rapist

Religion and Recreational Sex: sharia-compliant threesomes and mini-orgies?