Once again, a young man with perfect credentials for opportunistic women stands accused of rape. Urbane, expensively educated, and probably a little too trusting of the world beyond the milieu of a civilised upbringing, Bartholomeo Joly de Lotbiniere slept with a girl at his university in 2014. It wasn’t until the following year, after he had made a celebrated TV appearance and was touted the most eligible bachelor on campus that his anonymous accuser finally decided that she had been raped by him.
“It took a while to, sort of, sink in, what he did,” she said. “Then, basically, he was on University Challenge and it was all over social media and certain tweets.”
Given the facts, the jury were unable to decide whether Joly de Lotbiniere was guilty or not, so the trail has stalled until this September. Until then, his freedom hangs in the balance as the media broadcast his distinctive name across a society which sincerely believes in ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘rape culture.’
This is not the first case of its kind and neither will it be the last. Last year, the leader of Durham University’s debating society (and member of the Champagne society), Louis Richardson, was acquitted of raping a fellow student who made her claim only after her real boyfriend discovered she had been cheating on him. She also admitted to months of consensual sex and slutty texting with Richardson after the incident on which she claimed to have been raped by him. But Richardson was still dragged thorough the courts in an ordeal described by his family as ‘fifteen months of hell.’ To men of honour, this type of public accusation is itself a conviction worse than jail time.
Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Radhika Sanghani – a mediocre hack who revels in female sexuality while vilifying men for doing the same – used Richardson’s case (and photograph) to describe the ‘problem’ of ‘ingrained sexism’ and ‘lad banter.’
The case does bring up the recurring issue of rape culture on British university campuses.
Of course, what her article really shows is that a general presumption of male guilt can now be published in a leading national newspaper and illustrated with the case of a man whose trial is still active and whose female accuser remains anonymous. The fact that The Daily Telegraph neither sacked nor apologised for the author of this diatribe moves me to wonder how far radhikal feminists might be going to curry favour with their bosses.
Even when the courts acquit an innocent man, his accuser will retain her legal cloak of anonymity; a device which clearly allows her to become a serial offender. So thank God for very rich men who, once found innocent, are able to do us the public service of outing their accusers.
Alexander Economou, the London-based son of a Greek shipping tycoon was accused of rape and, although the case was dismissed by police, he had to spend £200,000 to initiate a private claim to out his accuser. His move was widely condemned in the press and, tragically, the girl hung herself before her trial for the perversion of justice could begin. Economou then resorted to desperate measures to clear the doubt which hung over his reputation, broadcasting evidence that his accuser had previously been a sex worker.
Economou’s revelations were described by a court as ‘cruel’ and by the girl’s father as ‘extraneous.’ ‘Cruel’ maybe, but ‘extraneous’ certainly not, like the report that Richardson’s accuser described her house as a ‘slut hut,’ this information serves to illustrate exactly what a culture of female sexual liberation must encourage us to ignore: promiscuity in a woman makes her a hazard to any high value man.
If a woman has ever put a price on her body which is less than marriage, sex becomes a contract on her own variable terms; terms on which a man can always be accused of short-changing her. The slut is not broken by the men who she can control through sex, but by the man who she can’t. And, all too often, this means ‘the one who got away.’
Failure to Comply
The West has gaslighted itself into the assumption that the female sexual strategy is infallible. This means that, when a woman can’t use sex to secure the ideal outcome she envisioned, it must be the man’s fault. This is how a legal process was allowed to develop which hands women a carte blanche to condemn any man who frustrated her.
If a man enters a sexual relationship on his terms rather than those of the woman, it is called ‘rape,’ and it is rightly considered a crime. This means that, in order for sex to be legal, it must be conducted on terms to which the woman agrees. So far so good.
But what about when a man decides to exit a relationship on his own terms rather than hers? Has he then violated the terms that the woman thought she had set? Perhaps not, so long as she can continue to trade up but, in practice, it seems that this male right to autonomy is being eroded under the guise of ‘preventing rape culture.’ In order to give women as long as they like to hedge their bets between casual relationships, they are told they can take months, or years, before they decide what their terms really were, and who broke them.
The law standing behind women scorned was already bad enough, but feminine contingency plans to guarantee women’s à la carte mate selection strategy doesn’t stop there. Maximising male demand to shore up the comparative value of the sexual intimacy they can supply, feminists now shame men who show any sign of sexual agency, discernment, judgement, restraint, or lack of thirst to serve women as required.
Such is the social and political pressure to accommodate the unprecedented wave of fury from women scorned in the wake of their own sexual liberation that the legal system has buckled in the most terrifying way.
Mattress-girl style claims have now risen in frequency to a low background hum (Lewis Tappenden crops up as this month’s latest victim from Joly de Lotbinier’s same university). However, the emerging sub-species of accusation that is made substantially after the supposed event points to a much more dangerous problem than the simple lie of rape culture.
What we are beginning to see now is the legal attempt to assuage women’s failure to have previously consolidated relationships with men who later rose to become worthy of their inflated, pussy-endorsed, sense self-worth.
Having an accusation or two to your name is gradually becoming a standard rite of passage for any man of worth. As an advocate of chastity, I would normally call it ‘blackmail.’ But because I know at least two men of faith (and high net worth), who have fallen victim to this in spite of never having slept with anybody, I shall call it extortion by fraud in which the law is complicit. What these cases show is that we have reached beyond the stage of petty abuse and into the realm of complete destruction of the legal process. A women’s sexual whim now carries a de facto force of law even when applied retroactively and her testimony is exposed as a lie.
The problem isn’t simply that justice isn’t being done, it’s that the fundamental principles on which justice is founded have been waived in order that the highest source of legal authority – the constitution of our society itself – is the word of women. Such is the Orwellian perfection of this tyranny that people still sincerely believe that we live in a ‘Patriarchy.’
People will generally see what they look for and hear what they listen for. If The Daily Telegraph provides an indication of how twelve of my right-minded countrymen think, then men like Joly de Lotbiniere do not face trial by jury. They face trial by mob.
We can’t fix this immediately but, by drawing public attention to what is truly going on, we can at least stand as a beacon of reason and truth within a dark, Kafkaesque, nightmare.
Regardless of whether he is guilty or not, a severe and lawless punishment has already been served upon Bartholomeo Joly de Lotbiniere. Atticus Finch wept.
Read More: Say Hello To The New Definition Of Rape