This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀

I’m only willing to hear you cry
Because I am an innocent man

Billy Joel

Well, that was a creepy and patronizing lyric from Billy Joel’s An Innocent Man – the flagship Not All Men! song – where Mr. Joel chastises a woman for not spreading her legs for him because some man in her past abused her and she is still traumatized. This is the ubiquitous shaming that all women brainwashed from birth into mandatory heterosexuality go through throughout their lives. How DARE you not trust a male not to rape you, beat you, shame you, degrade you, use you, or kill you! How dare you shut down the fuck machine after being raped! You must have a victim mentality, or you are just fucking crazy or something. He is saying: “How DARE you include ME in a group of people (males) who has, for every second of every day for MILLENNIA, oppressed women and girls on the basis of sex. I am a Good Man^TM – an Innocent Man.” Notice, though, that the Innocent Man here doesn’t feel sympathy or empathy for the woman. Rather, he is telling the abused female that she should feel grateful that he is tolerating her lady-bullshit because he is not, in his opinion, a rapist or abuser. Magnanimity or what?!? But the subtext is that, of course, he wants his needs served by this whiny bitch because he has likely dropped a reasonable amount of time, attention and cash on her. Maybe he’ll be so good as to let her cry for 5 more minutes before he really loses his shit.

Sorry, buddy. Not a single one of you is innocent of oppressing females, even self-righteous gay dudes. Even an oppressed male has at least one female under his boot. Woman and girl abuse is built into the patriarchal system of every country and culture in the history of the world.

So, today, I is for Innocence. This post is part of the on-going Alphabet Series.

A few months ago, I put some feelers out on saidit.net amongst the small blackpilled crowd there to inspire some feedback on the topic (you can check out my saidit post and the various comments here). There are some very intelligent women there, as well as some real woman-haters, and as expected, I got some feedback from the former, while the latter ignored me completely, as they always do 😉 So, a shout out to ahhale, lilith, CosmicFarmPrisoner, and tallowcandle for their intelligence and contributions. I’ll make some references to points they’ve made throughout this post, but leave the general attributions and thanks here.

There were so many great I-words to choose from. I selected Innocence a while ago, and I can’t remember what in particular inspired that choice, but I considered a few others. I is also for irrational, which is one of the many, many characteristics that describes males well, but that is always projeted onto females as a sign of their ‘deficiency’. I is also for illogical (ditto on the projection); irresponsible (um, ditto), ignorant (ditto, and I covered this topic a bit in two 2015 posts: Naiveté, Stupidity, and Ignorance, and in Well Read and Willfully Ignorant); impotence (male ‘problems’, oh no!!!); and inclusion (touched on in my Alphabet post on Diversity). And since this writing two years ago, I’ve added I is for Identity, Individualism and Infantilization – check them out on my YouTube channel or my website.

Anyhow, I’ll do the following here today. I’ll define innocence (according to men), and talk about it in terms of the legal system (designed by men), and moral system (designed by men), and I’ll dig into why this is such an important central, but mostly ignored, theme in male domination. And by the end, we’ll be abe to conclude whether this is even a useful concept for women.

Male-Defined Innocence

If you look up the word ‘innocent’, you get the following:

1. the state, quality, or fact of not being guilty of a crime or offence;
2. the state of not having responsibility for or direct involvement in an event, yet suffering its consequences;
3. naiveté; purity, or the lack of guile or corruption; and
4. used euphemistically to refer to a person’s virginity

So, we’ve got the realms of legality, morality, and sex. And they are not mutually exclusive, nor are they applied equally to males and females, which is only because males control language and the realms where it is used. The legal system, including in places where lawyers are over-abundant and yet continue to earn more than most people, is still a joke, relying not so much on evidence, as on rhetoric and perception and the skill with which they can be manipulated. Moral systems, STILL mostly based on the whole caveman level “man good, woman evil” way of thinking and STILL protected by circa Dark Age religious and supersitious, anti-woman conventions, ensure that the concept of ‘innocence’ in the non-legal sense, is an intrinsic part of every culture. And the whole virginity and sex thing, which applies SOLELY to females, and is propped up by moral (religious/superstitious) traditions, even in places where religion in the conventional sense doesn’t have a presence.

So let’s dig in.

1) Innocence, Legally-Speaking

the state, quality, or fact of not being guilty of a crime or offence

Now, I’m not going to attempt to do justice to this area of innocence. While I am a qualified librarian at the post-graduate level, and I did take a course in law librarianship, I am decidedly not a lawyer. I don’t have much interest in, and certainly no faith in the formal legal system. I’m more of a ‘vigilante justice’ proponent, myself, when it comes to dealing with male crimes, especially because males are seldom held accountable for the shit they do to women and girls. Male guilt, even when we know the scrote is 100% guilty, is seldom punished because of how legal systems are designed. Canada, like some countries, presumes innocence until guilt is proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. And this holds even if we know damn well a male is guilty because he is caught raping in the act or he was stupid and arrogant enough to record himself raping someone on video and then posted it online. Often, there are technicalities or rhetorical manipulations that interfere with achieving justice. Facts and truth don’t really matter. And here we get at the difference between ‘legal innocence’ and ‘actual innocence’. If a male is found to be legally innocent (aka ‘not guilty’) of a crime, it just means the prosecution wasn’t able to convince verdict-deciders of guilt. He may not have ‘actual innocence’ (aka he did the crime), but for one reason or another, the justice system failed yet another female victim, just as it was meant to. In crimes against women, male innocence usually comes down to ‘he said, she said’ as well as our social contract not to ‘ruin a man or boy’s life’ after he has ruined the life of a woman or girl.

Another murky area centres on mental competence. To be deemed competent, such that a person can stand trial, an accused has to have an understanding of how the law works and the difference between right and wrong. And we determine competence all the time both inside and outside of court rooms. And it is problematic because even if you can show that a perpetrator isn’t fully able to understand what is going on, he can still be dangerous and a massive future threat to women and girls. We see this with, say, the mentally retarded and mentally ill, drunk or drugged-up males, and with boys under the age of majority in the location of the crime. The hoi polloi will generally gift males in these categories with automatic ‘innocence’ designations, and you’ll get the usual bullshit about the need for educating or supporting or rehabilitating the deficient in question, which of course, never has and never will work.

In the court room, it is really hit or miss. Legal experts tell us that it is very difficult for someone to successfully be excused from regular court procedings on the basis of mental health interference. I don’t know. This might be true. Men try it all the time. We just had a case in Canada, where Armenian-Iranian, autistic, publicly self-admitted incel, Alek Minassian, tried to sidestep criminal responsibility for driving his van into a crowd of women in Toronto and killing 10 people. He tried out the whole “autism made me do it!!! Waaaaah!!! I’m innocent!!!” gambit. But in a strange stroke of luck, the courts decided the autism didn’t cause the mass murder (um, no kidding…). He has been sentenced for 10 counts of first-degree murder and 16 counts of attempted murder. One victim has since died. Apparently, we know he understands right and wrong because of his online rants about killing women. Men tell us all the time that hate thoughts and hate speech don’t lead to hate crimes. Yeah right. Anyhow, the female judge was, in my opinion, lenient. Minassian was given a life sentence with a chance at parole after 25 years. He was given 20 years for the attempted murders, although they are to be served concurently, which is pointless. So this means that this human garbage will likely be out in public at the age of 50, vigourous enough to kill more women. I love liberal, woman-hating Canada.

Another little story, as I’m feeling all digressy today – an amusing bit of racism (legal? who knows?) I experienced in Taiwan years ago. I was at the end of a job interview, and the interviewer offered me a position and let me know that they would be withholding several months of my pay. I looked at her and asked “Why?” (my favourite question). She explained that foreigners couldn’t be trusted, so they felt justified in holding their legally-earned compensation hostage until they decided they felt ‘safe’. I replied with “Guilty until proven innocent?” She smiled at the smart, white monkey, and said, “Yes.” I stood up, said, “Thank you,” and left her office without another word. She literally called me more than 20 times a day for a few weeks, which, I discovered is a strangely common ‘thing’ with the Taiwanese, who are an unexpectedly aggressive and nasty culture of people. I never answered her call once and eventually, she went away. If you ever decide to work in Taiwan, be warned. They are racist as fuck, and can smell innocence of the third type from a mile away.

2) The Sticky Spot – Are Women Responsible for the Suffering of Females as a Class?

Still within the realm of the law, but also ethics, and which is also sometimes murky as hell is determining the role of a victim in crimes against herself, her children, or other females. And I reference the second part of the definition of innocence:

the state of not having responsibility for or being directly involved in an event, yet suffering its consequences

I think a lot of people confuse the concepts of responsibility and deservedness when considering female innocence, so I’ll start off by saying that females don’t cause male violence, nor do they ever, ever deserve male violence, even if they themselves are the worst kind of human. I’d prefer female crimes against women and girls to be dealt with within a council solely consisting of objective women, but that is just a fantasy I have.

But can we answer the question of whether females support and contribute to the system of male violence? Absolutely. Think of it this way: if women fought back against males as a group, patriarchy wouldn’t exist as the formidible system that it is. As it is, women tend to accept and enable what males do, and even actively harm other women and girls in order to gain approval from men. So there is definitely a major responsibility that most women refuse to take for perpetuating a bad situation. Participating in heterosexuality, femininity, breeding, enabling sons and hobbling daughters are the top ways to ensure that violence against all women and girls continues. All of this behaviour is political, meaning that actions have meaning and implications for others. Your behaviour doesn’t exist in a vacuum. And most important is not you, individually, but the fact that your male-supporting behaviour harms little girls who have no choice about their birth into patriarchy, and lesbians and women who don’t particpate in heterosexuality, but who do so much of the hetero cleaning and patching up. The only way to stop men is to deny their supply of pussy and emotional, intellectual and physical gynergy. If you are supporting male systems, you are not truly innocent of crimes against females as a class. But like I said, you also don’t deserve male violence. Is this clear? Please take responsibility for the harms you aid and abet, even if you are not the one holding the gun, so to speak.

3) Innocence, Morally- and Experientially-Speaking

naivité, purity, or the lack of guile or corruption

I’m going to try not to venture into the sex stuff in this section, even though, for females only, moral innocence is entwined with sex. Males define females as sex and sex parts and sex servicers, primarily, so it makes sense that female ‘innocence’ cannot be separated from sex.

Thanks mostly to the religions of the world, innocence is a central theme of childhood (again, I’m going to try not to touch on pedophiles here in this section – well maybe a little). There is this strange, magical or ethereal quality attached to the ‘innocence of a child’, perhaps because it is human to have regrets, and regret tends to result from wearing rose-coloured glasses and the normal failures of memory to recall things accurately. Part of this mystical childhood innocence, of course, stems from adult male fascination with possession and destruction, and pedophelia is all about control and power and revelling in causing suffering. What could be sexier to a male than possessing and destroying a magical being? Anyhow, philosophers, psychologists and others attempt to describe this quality called ‘innocence’ as various things from the objective, untainted perspective children have, to a filtering mechanism allowing the individual to engage or disengage with topics of uncertainty. I find it all a bit bizarre, myself, but then again, I don’t wax poetic about my childhood or childhood in general. It wasn’t magical, and I was happy to leave it behind.

In some camps, there is an implication of sullying when innocence is lost. The idea of pure vs corrupted – and this tends to be associated with entertaining vice of any sort, not just sex – is strongly associated with subjective morality and heavy-handed value judgements. At what point is innocence lost according to most people? It usually depends on the sex of the person, the particular activity engaged in, and sometimes whether the activity was engaged in willingly or unwillingly.

To me, what is called ‘innocence’ is just a lack of life experience. I’m not even going to include education in this because it doesn’t guarantee the gaining of experience or knowledge. And I generally don’t attach any value judgement to innocence. I sometimes run into normal-intelligence adult people who seem to me to lack a basic understanding of things that most adults seem to/should know about. So sometimes, I start to wonder whether people really are just inexperienced, perhaps a little clueless because of personality or specific aspects of cognitive ability, or just willingly ignorant. Personally, I like people who are willing to try something/anything once (unless it involves infringing upon others’ rights) and to learn from that boundary-pushing. I don’t think you can talk about things you haven’t experienced with any kind of credibility, so perhaps I do have some value judgement in that I think ‘innocent’ people aren’t really that interesting or useful or able to contribute to learning/teaching/problem-solving. But I don’t find most moralizing all that helpful – I think I get by better than most using my very simple principle of trying not to trample on others’ rights – something akin to the religious ‘golden rule’ that, ironically, most religious people completely fail to achieve in the most basic of ways.

4) Innocence, Sexually-Speaking

used euphemistically to refer to a person’s virginity

Okay, as the definition was taken from a typical male dictionary, we see reference to ‘person’ when we know damned well that the ‘people’ whose virginity matters is female people. In some places and times, a male might be criticized for still being sexually innocent – he should be out raping like there is no tomorrow, right? But he isn’t cast out of society or devalued in a serious way if he hasn’t raped by a certain age. For females, however, their cunts define their basic value as a person, and once that hole has been filled, their value plummets. Their ‘innocence’ is lost. (Shit, is ‘innocence’ just a hole? she jests…) I wonder, more seriously, in the case of female virginity, whether innocence is another way of saying ‘lack of suffering’. I truly believe that once exposed to the demands of males, females’ lives become infinitely worse in so many ways.

There may be justification in rooting the concept of female sexual innocence, not only in religion, but in pedophelia. Males have always been obsessed with conquering, controlling, and taking things away from females, including possessions, bodily autonomy, ideas and products they create, and in this discussion, their lack of exposure to suffering (or ‘innocence’). It is something to think more on. I also have noted that many pedophiles (and rapists of adult women, for that matter) have insisted on their own legal/moral innocence by implying that the female child or adult woman was the guilty and/or beguiling party. It wasn’t rape because the little girl or woman begged for it, or even worse, made them do it. Um no.

The idea of ‘soiling’ a female has been a concept, well… forever. It still is in most parts of the world. In more ‘liberated’ places, there may be constraints placed on level of soiling, depending on how many dicks have come a-knocking, or at what age virginity was lost, whether soiling was done by rape-rape or consensual rape (aka consensual sex), etc. But the common theme across time and place is that dick devalues women and girls. Now notice that the filth is caused by the presence of the penis – this is what has always confused me. If the penis is the cause of the contamination, then why isn’t the penis vilified? A female is ‘clean’ until the filth touches her, and then she is forever tainted biologically, socially, and sometimes, financially. Shouldn’t all males, simply by having a filthy penis (including newborn babies, logically) be vilified, devalued and cast out? I daringly posed this question to a group of high school girls I was teaching in Central Asia, and I got some vigourous head nods from a handful of them. It was encouraging.

But all of this makes sense to me. I am female separatist and therefore make my decisions based on logic and ethical reasoning as much as I possibly can. If you want to keep your body free from sexual disease, male violence, and other problems, you need to stay completely away from cock altogether. I mean, it is a no-brainer. Males spread disease and cause other problems for women’s and girls’ systems. So I do devalue the penis, based on facts and logic. But to maintain their power, males must rely on lies and illogic. Smoke and mirrors. And completely simplistic, dichotomous thinking. Virgin/whore. Pure/tainted. False dichotomies represent the world in which women live, and the very thin (imaginary) lines between male-constructed lady-categories maintain male power in the following ways:

a) They put women into unnatural and alien dichotomous categories (neither of which is actually a good place to be) based on factors usually completely beyond female control;

b) They use these categories to morally, and often legally, justify a whole range of horrific treatment against women, including rape and other sexual abuse, physical abuse, denial of economic opportunity, incarceration, torture, and death;

c) They pit women in different categories against each other to prevent any possibility of female solidarity (i.e., threat to male power).

Conclusion

Do women need the concept of ‘innocence’ as it pertains to their own bodies and safety? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding NO! There is no group of females that deserves to be raped or sexually assaulted or vilified because of value-based categories they are forced into by males. And it is a concept that has only served to police women’s behaviour, thoughts, precarious place in society, and their very ability to survive. Away from heterosexuality, innocence has no meaning for women. Even as a concept in the justice system, it would have little use if women could live separately from males. Away from males, women would be involved in so few serious crimes (mostly as victims, but also as perpetrators), that legal proceedings would likely just involve mediation rather than imprisonment. And innocence would have little meaning. And ‘virginity’ would be meaningless. Away from males, I actually think sexual activity would be so much less important or defining than it is when males control the show. So NO! to innocence.

But we all know where our use of ‘NO!‘ has gotten us throughout time.

♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢