Pink-haired comedian Alice Brine recently made a Facebook post that is supposed to an analogy for "rape victim blaming". It is sitting at 183k likes, getting reposted like crazy and has been featured in Buzzfeed, Huff Post, Cosmopolitan, Daily Mail and everywhere else.

It's the sort of thing SJW mainstream media loves, but it is utter bullshit.

Let's look at the post:

I'm gunna start going home with random very drunk guys and stealing all of their shit. Everything they own.

Just like how drunk girls take guys home to fuck them, drunk men take girls home to have them steal all their shit, right? This analogy is off to a great start.

It won't be my fault though... they were drunk. They should have known better.

When there are rape accusations, even when it later turns out that the whole thing was fabricated, the man still has his face plastered everywhere, gets his reputation and social life ruined, gets death threats, beaten up by strangers, and loses his job before the courts finally absolve him off guilt; and the acquital gets no press so many of the social consequences keep on going.

Blame falls heavily on those accused of rape, so analogy failing again.

I'll get away with it 90% of the time but then when one brave man takes me to court over it, I'll argue that I wasn't sure if he meant it when he said 'no don't steal my Audi.' I just wasn't sure if he meant it. I said 'Can I please steal your Gucci watch?' He said 'no' but I just wasn't sure if he meant it.

In the history of the world, I doubt that there has ever been anyone who said "no, don't steal my stuff" and then changed their minds later. However, girls do say "we're not having sex" and then change their minds later. Maybe it is a test, maybe it is just failing to resist temptation. This happens all the time with people; they say they're not eating more cake or not getting drunk tonight. People change their minds all the time, just like how she's been grinding up against the guy on the dance floor all night and then she takes him home and then decides she doesn't want to fuck him after all, which is the whole premise of an "I took him home and he raped me" case.

He was drunk. He brought this on himself.

When a man isn't convicted of rape, it is not because "she asked to be raped so that makes it ok", it is because the police or courts find that she might just have had perfectly normal, consensual sex with him.

You should have seen how he was dressed at the club, expensive shirts and shoes. What kind of message is he sending with that!? I thought he wanted me to come and steal all of his shit. He was asking for it.

Yes, because just like girls wear sexy clothes to get male attention, men wear expensive stuff because they want to get robbed, right?

When he said 'no' to me taking everything he owned I just didn't know if he meant it. 'No' isn't objective enough, it could mean anything.

No is perfectly objective. There has never been a rape case where the man got acquitted even though it was proven that the girl was saying no.

The problem that the police and courts face is that women sometimes make false rape accusations - maybe she regretted having sex, maybe he didn't want anything to do with her the next day and she wants revenge for that, maybe she felt the need to salvage her slut reputation, maybe she just wants some attention. For some girls there is good reason to pretend she was raped, and it carries very little risk.

On the other hand most men find the idea of actually raping anyone revolting and certainly not something they get off on, and the risks are enormous. It's a pathological and deeply irrational crime.

In the sort of cases Brine made an analogy about, what we do know is that she took him home which is a very clear indication that she planned on having sex. Maybe she changed her mind before they had sex and he turned out to be a rapist scumbag. Maybe she didn't change her mind until after they had sex, and she made a false rape accusation. That's up for the police and courts to decide.

It is not up to comedians, SJWs or the media to destroy a man's life without due process. What Brine wrote is arguing for circumvention of the basis of the judicial system where innocence is presumed. It is asking for people to get tried by popular opinion, and it is shit like that that lets "reverse burden of proof" rear its ugly head.

Yet her post goes viral, gets shared and praised everywhere from Facebook to the Daily Mail. Imagine if it was any other crime where someone was arguing that even though the known facts point towards no crime the accused should be assumed guilty, what sort of reaction would that warrant?