The word “rape” gets thrown around everywhere nowadays. A woman can be “raped without force” by her boyfriend, according to the Weinstein Standard. A 19-year-old having sex with a 16-year-old is “rape.” If a girl gets drunk and decides the next day (or years later) that she “did not consent,” then it’s rape.

It should be remembered that this word used to have a very specific definition.

Daily Mail:

A 14-year-old girl was dragged into bushes and raped while jogging through a busy park in broad daylight.

The teenage girl was exercising when she was grabbed by a man wearing blue tracksuit bottoms and a long, black jacket, police said.

She began her run near the basketball courts in Goodmayes Park in Ilford, east London, on Monday at around 2.40pm when a man aged around 17 to 20 years old attacked her.

Yesterday, police launched an appeal for anyone who may have information to come forward.

Detective Constable Gemma Morris from the Met Police’s East Area Command Unit, said: ‘Goodmayes Park would have been busy at the time of the afternoon and I am appealing to anyone that was in the park and saw the male described to please come forward and provide us with information.

‘No matter how small or insignificant you think your information might be, it could really help our investigation.’

That’s what “rape” used to mean – grabbing a woman and dragging her into the bushes. Using brute force against her will to subdue her and have your way with her sexually.

Grabbing a woman and dragging her into the bushes is a different act than this stuff with “consent,” and yet the same word is used. This removes weight from the word. The intent is to add weight to the fake thing, but the situation is that the weight gets redistributed, and then it eventually just falls apart.

Whenever I see a headline saying “rape,” I assume it is a hoax. Just so, whenever I see something about “child pornography,” I assume someone got caught with the hot potato of a teenage girl’s bathroom selfies.

This is similar to what happened with “marriage.” We used to define marriage as a legal contract. Then lawyers invented “no-fault divorce,” which meant that it was a contract that could be broken by either party for any reason or no reason (i.e., it was no longer an actual contract). So, then they had to come up with the idea of a “prenuptial agreement” to say “okay, this one is an actual legal contract.” Of course, now the prenups are being thrown out by judges, with the logic being: “no really, there is no legal contract that can confine female sexuality.”

So then, why not have “anal marriage”? Who cares? The word doesn’t mean anything.

When you mess with words like this, you mess with the ability to communicate and understand meaning.

Speech has become violence.

Violence has become speech.

The assault on language is an assault on our ability to understand what is happening around us.

The good news, I suppose, is that it works both ways.

The word “racist” apparently is intended to denote some kind of a murderous psychopath who hates people for the color of their skin and wants to kill them. I don’t believe this thing ever existed in the first place, but people understood the word to mean that. Now, that word is being applied to half the country, and effectively just means “heterosexual white person” (given the “Karen” phenomenon, women are no longer excluded from protection here, at least if they’re not absolute freaks).