its a common error. and they made it more than once. liberal dickwad/mainstream news outlet huffington post reports that a man has been arrested for having “sex” with his neighbors pink inflatable swimming pool raft. sex, you say? yep. later, the same publication reports that a new mexico police officer has been fired for having the “sex” with a woman on the hood of his patrol car. a security camera that just happened to be there shows that the officer is still in his uniform, but little else has been made public. we dont know the identity of the woman, or all of the circumstances of this encounter, although the facts we do have certainly do not rule out the possibility of sexual abuse and abuse of power by a police officer, otherwise known as rape. but apparently, as long as a man sticks his dick into something, anything, under any circumstances, huffington post is willing to call it “sex”. got that? good.
not to single out huff po by any means: indeed, msnbc has done the same fucking thing. repeatedly. so has cnn. when reporting on the jaycee dugard case, where a now-adult woman had been kidnapped as a child and held captive for 20 years and subjected to repeated rapes, msnbc reported that she had been subjected to “long drug-fueled sex-sessions.” sex? really? in another article, msnbc reports on “sex slavery” where female victims of human trafficking were subjected to “forced prostitution” and made to endure being vaginally penetrated by over 100 men per day under conditions literally amounting to slavery: it never says the “rape” word one time. not once. they do repeatedly use the word “sex”. as in sexual slaves, sexual slavery, and sex trafficking. but from whose perspective is any of this “sex”? this is a serious question.
like huff po, apparently what msnbc means when it says “sex” is “a man stuck his dick into”. there is no other reasonable interpretation of their use of this word.
and cnn does the same damn thing: even its lofty-sounding “freedom project to end modern-day slavery” says “sex trafficking” when it means men who deal in the commodity of rape. of men sticking their dicks into women under conditions amounting to slavery, which is obviously rape. really, it cannot get more obvious. this is the holy grail of obviousness, yet cnn sees “sex” here, and not rape. which is terrifying, because this probably means that cnn does not believe that rape exists. if not here, where? this is a serious question.
and cnn says “forced prostitution” when referring to rape, and repeated rape, of enslaved women and underage girls too.
“forced prostitution” of underage girls. can we think about this one for a minute? what is cnn saying here: that prostitution is okay, as long as its not “forced”? clearly, this is exactly what they are saying, being that they are the liberal dickwad/mainstream media and all. prostitution is fine as long as its “consensual” just like (presumably) PIV is completely harmless when its “consensual”. its pro-pornstitution PIV-positivism! but when speaking of the forced prostitution of underage girls there is an element missing isnt there? namely, that sticking your dick into an underage girl under any circumstances, is rape. okay? its not sex. and its not prostitution, which allegedly deals in sex. this is not sex, from the perspective of the victim. and the only way this could be “sex” to anyone, is if “sex” is used INTERCHANGEABLY with “stuck his dick into.” there is no other reasonable interpretation of this word, as used.
and being that this is the case, under the current sexual regime, women and girls are in the position of the pool-toy.
Radfem Hub 