The Life Of Riley
- 3 years ago
- 10
- 0
The Life Of Riley free porn video
The Life of Riley
By Susan Riley
Former Area Manager
Part One: How my life changed
My name is Susan Riley. At least, it used to be. Now they just call me Riley,or cunt, or bitch, or slut, or bimbo, or other equally charming insults. Onceupon a time I was what they used to call a liberated woman. I earned good moneyas an area manager for a large company, in charge of a dozen stores. I wasmaking around fifty thousand a year, drove a top of the range BMW, and owneda large five-bedroom house in an exclusive area. Then, one day, my world changedfor ever.
It came almost out of the blue. You couldn't say that there was no warning,just that we didn't take the warning signs seriously. The foundation of theLeague for Male Supremacy ten years ago was widely regarded by everyone inpolitics, the media, and even society in general, as a complete joke. No onethought they would even get a single local councillor elected. Yet in ten shortyears they managed to become the government of the country. Their programmewas simple and straightforward. At least you couldn't accuse the bastards ofnot saying what they really meant. They told us all that women were second-classcitizens, indeed, should not even be considered as citizens at all. Their electionpromises included a promise to strip us of the vote and the right to standfor election, the right to serve on juries, the right to hold any positionof responsibility over a man, the right to own property or money, even theright to sue men for breach of contract or other financial irregularities.They promised to take away the children of single mothers by force for adoptionby married couples, to forbid women to attend universities or other institutionsof higher learning, and to stay at school later than the age of fourteen. Allthese promises came true when, just two short years ago, to the amazement ofalmost everybody - certainly of most women - the League of Male Supremacy actuallywon the election with a majority of fifty-one. Once in power, other changessoon followed, even worse than those already promised. There was a group withinthe League called the Fembashers who wanted much tougher action against women.They were so extreme in their views that even some of the League's MPs consideredthem completely out of touch with reality. Yet, within thirteen months of takingpower, the leader of the Fembashers had led a successful revolt within theparty and taken over the leadership. He was now in charge of the country.
If it wasn't all so horribly real, what the Fembashers did to us would seemlike either a sick joke or a surreal nightmare. Yet, believe me, it was realenough. Until Mark de Sade, the Fembashers leader, became leader of the countrythe position of women had been difficult but not intolerable. Under his rule,it became hell on earth for women.
To begin with, he rushed through new laws that took everything away from usovernight. At least the League had promised that existing arrangements aboutjobs and property would be honoured, just that no future ones that involvedwomen would be allowed. He pushed through a ten-minute bill that stripped usof all our status and assets from the moment the bill passed. In tenshort minutes I lost my house, my car, my credit cards, my bank account, andmy job as Area Manager.
Some of the women tried to protest, and four thousand of them turned out inforce to demonstrate against the new law. The police were publicly orderedby Sade to make an example of them. They steamed in, brandishing their nightsticks,without any provocation. The TV showed the horrific pictures of eight hundredpolice deliberately beating up unarmed women. Apparently acting on instructionsfrom Sade himself, they concentrated on beating the women's heads, faces, tits,arses, bellies and cunts. Blood poured out everywhere and when they'd finishedbeating them up they arrested all the women for "behaviour likely to causea breach of the peace!" What a fucking joke.
Another new law was promptly rushed in the very next day, allegedly as a responseto the "unprovoked violence of extreme feminists." Under this newregulation, a woman accused of a crime was not allowed to have the servicesof a defence lawyer. Unlike men, they would also be presumed guilty unlessproved innocent. They were not allowed to hear the "evidence" againstthem before the trial, nor were they allowed to cross-examine witnesses whilethey were on trial. They were also not even allowed to call any witnesses ontheir behalf. They were also forbidden to refuse to answer any question,however irrelevant, even on the grounds that it might incriminate them. Theprosecution lawyers (all men by now, of course) were allowed to harass, interruptand generally intimidate the female defendants pretty much as they liked. Eventhe mildest protest by a woman on trial would earn her an automatic fiveyears in prison with hard labour on top of whatever sentence she was givenfor her alleged crimes. If she refused to enter a plea, the court was instructedto automatically enter a plea of guilty. As you can imagine, no womanhas ever been acquitted since the new trial system was brought in.
The police were also instructed to treat all women being arrested asif they were resisting arrest unless it could be proved otherwise.This gave them carte blanche to use habitual and even extreme violenceagainst women. The result was a surge in applications from men to join thepolice force. Before long, any woman on the streets looked on the policeforce as a threat to themselves rather than a protection for them.
Within a week, again on the pretext of "extremist feminist activity," anew law was passed that allowed the police to keep female suspects in custodywithout giving any reason for their actions for up to eight months before eithercharging or releasing them. Naturally, no woman was ever releasedunder the new system. And, of course, since the police could holdfemales in custody for up to eight months, they did so. For the wholeeight months. As you can imagine, they were not allowed any access to theirown family and friends during this time, still less a lawyer.
As you can also imagine, with females held helpless and incommunicado foreight months by the police, abuse of the women in custody began to occur. Atfirst the government simply denied that it took place, then they tried to avoidthe issue, and then they began to make excuses. It was four months after thenew custody laws had been introduced before the government openly announcedthat prisoner abuse had taken place. However, far from apologising for it,they decided to legalise it retrospectively, claiming that the women concernedwere criminals anyway and that human rights laws did not apply to them. Fromthat moment all it was a complete free for all in the police stations. Anything wentwith a female suspect.
The next step was to change the system of punishments in existence. Up tothat time there was no death penalty, and physical punishment of any kind hadlong been outlawed, along with hard labour in prisons. Sade brought back capitaland corporal punishment, as well as hard labour, but of course these punishments only appliedto women.
A minimum sentence for any alleged offence by a female was laid down,of two years imprisonment with hard labour. The average sentencefor a woman soon became five to ten years with hard labour. Hard labour meantexactly what it said, too. It wasn't just sewing mailbags, washing laundryor floors, or gardening. Women in prison were set to really hard physicallabour. Females regularly collapsed of exhaustion or even died under the strainof breaking stones and rocks, lifting or pulling heavy loads, and other punishmentsof that nature.
Capital punishments were carried out in public. The following methods of executionwere brought back into use: hanging (using the slow drop method, naturally);the electric chair; the gas chamber; the guillotine; the firing squad; beheadingby axe; crucifixion; burial alive ; burning at the stake; stoning;and flaying alive. Corporal punishments were also carried out in public, rangingfrom caning, birching, whipping, and even mutilation. Public humiliation methodswere also used, and the dunces' cap, the scold's bridle, the ducking stool,the barrel, the cangue, the stocks and the pillory all made an unwelcome reappearance.Unwelcome to the poor helpless unfortunate women who endured them, anyway.
New criminal offences were also laid down, outlawing lesbianism, adultery(only for women, naturally), feminism and "aggravated feminism," whateverthat was. In a typical example of the hypocrisy that motivated the Fembashers,prostitution was legalised but it was forbidden for women to live off "immoralearnings." They could fuck and be fucked by men, and tout for custom inpublic without any penalty, as long as only their pimps benefited financially.
The marriage laws were the next things to be changed. It was now absolutelyforbidden for a woman to choose or even have any say in whether ornot she got married, still less who she married. Only the men hadthe right to decide her marital future. If she did get married, she had toswear to love, honour, and obey her husband in all things. She had to promiseto be faithful to him sexually unless he directed her to fuck other men forhis pleasure or financial gain. Naturally, she had no right to divorceor even separate from him under any circumstances. He, on the otherhand, could divorce her whenever he felt like it, and had no need to give anyreason for wanting a divorce. All he had to do under the new law was to turnto his wife and say the words " Fuck off, cunt, I'm divorcing you."
Custody of the children following a divorce was also naturally always givento the man. The law specifically prohibited women from ever having any custodialrights. As for the "financial settlement" following a divorce underthe new laws, the wife, and only the wife, was solely responsible for the paymentof alimony. She had to pay her husband money for the children that had beentaken away from her. Under the new laws, she was even denied any right ofaccess to her children. Only the husband decided when, where and even if shecould see her own children. Even if she was paying fantastic amounts of alimonyto him, she still had no right to see them, only a privilegeat his discretion.
Ex-husbands often used this power to extort higher amounts of alimony fromthe luckless wife. Others simply took the money and still refused,out of sheer spite, to let the woman have any access to her own children.
The next law to be brought in was the so-called Morality Act. It began bylaying down the principle that a husband could never be guilty ofraping his wife whatever the circumstances. The law then argued thatthe same thing must also be true of partners, ex-partners, boyfriends,and ex-boyfriends. Any attempt by a woman to file a charge of rape againsta man who came into any of those categories was now a criminal offence,known under the new laws as "sexual defamation of character." Thepenalty for such a "false" charge was laid down as a minimum sentenceof ten years imprisonment with hard labour, together with a public floggingand a day in the pillory. It was also laid down in the "Morality Act" thata woman had no right to refuse her husband or any of the men coveredby the rape exclusion clauses their "absolute and unqualified right touse her body for their sexual gratification, whenever, wherever, or howeverthey wished to do so."
The second section of the Morality Act laid down strict rules as to how womenshould behave under the new order. In the first place, they were absolutelyforbidden to wear trousers, jeans, or any other garment that covered up theirlegs. Only skirts or dresses could be worn, and neither garment was allowedto have a hemline lower than the knee. It was also forbidden for a woman'sarms to be covered below the elbow, or for her to cover up her head or neck.Wearing tights or stockings was also highly regulated. Only prostitutes wereallowed to wear fishnets, at least in public. In the same way, only they couldnow wear boots, which had to be thigh-high. Other women had to wear six-inchheels in public at all times. Any form of covering for the head was also forbiddento women.
This last provision brought out one last burst of resistance, from the Muslimgirls who tried in vain to insist on wearing their garments that covered thehead and even face completely. The police, enforcing the law, steamed intothe women with extreme violence. The girls were stripped naked in the street,beaten viciously and sentenced to a day in the pillory and ten years imprisonmentwith hard labour. After that even Muslim resistance went underground. Sincethen the occasional terrorist attack has been mounted by Muslims but, withthe penalty for such attacks always being death, only the most committed havedared to take on this repressive regime. The League has almost smashed oppositionin the country.
A further section of the "Morality Act" laid down that women wereforbidden under any circumstances to seek advice on or be allowed to use any formof contraception, except where it had been specifically requested on theirbehalf by their husbands or " other lawful lords." Onlymen could decide whether or not birth control was to be used; only they coulddecide, if it was used at all, what form it would take. Most men simply refusedto use any at all, relying on oral and anal sex as their preferredmethods of preventing unwanted pregnancies.
In the same way, women lost the right to decide on the question of abortion.Only the men could decide if or when she had one. She might want the baby,but her husband insisted on an abortion; or she might want an abortion, buther husband insisted that she go through the pregnancy. Only the decision ofthe man mattered. Women officially had no say whatsoever in the matter.
The government used the protests and subsequent terrorist acts by Muslim womenas an excuse for further repression. They rushed out a new Civil Constitution,under which what remaining rights women still possessed were ruthlessly strippedaway from them. They were forbidden to drive cars, to receive education atschool later than the age of fourteen, to own a credit card, chequebook orcashcard. In addition, they were required to carry an identity card with themat all times, which had to include a full-size nude picture of themselves.Police officers were legally entitled to stop and search any woman at randomand check her physical characteristics against those of her body as shown onthe identity card. The legal status of women was also fully defined for thefirst time since the League came to power. In the first article of the newconstitution, the following "principles" were laid down:
" A woman is not and cannot be a citizen of the community. Only humanbeings can be full citizens, and since women are not human, they cannot becitizens. In the same way, since only human beings can own property, womencannot own property. Indeed, they are the property, and property cannot ownanything. Each female from the moment of her birth is legally the propertyof her father, or, failing him, a male family member, or, failing him, award of the state. Only on marriage, or on being sold into slavery to anotherman, can her state of ownership change. Even then, it is only a change ofowner, not a change of status. For the duration of her life, a woman is andwill remain the owned property of a man."
That really sealed our fate. Other sections of the constitution made it acriminal offence for any political party or any other organisation to seekto introduce changes in the law with regard to the status of females. The existingopposition parties - the Reform Party, the Socialist Alliance and Liberal Action- hastily dropped all their female candidates and banned women from membership.They took good care to change their propaganda so that, whatever else theymight promise at the next election, it would most certainly not leadto any improvement in women's lives.
Other measures followed soon after. The new Criminal Justice Act legalisedsexual harassment at work and in public places; licensed the date-rape drugRohypnol and made its use legal, extending the already generous rape exemptionclauses to those men who used it to drug girls and women in order to rape them;virtually legalised domestic violence by allowing the husband or other " lawfulmale guardian " almost complete freedom in how he chose to " chastise " or " discipline " his " errantwife " or " domestic slut ." This last term ofabuse was now the official designation for an unmarried woman who lived witha man.
A new Labour Relations Act gave employers a free hand to " chastise " and " discipline " their "disobedient,disrespectful, ungrateful or unruly female employees." The prohibitionsagainst displaying nude pictures or images of women in their place of workwere also repealed, and naturally they sprang up everywhere. New contractsof employment were drawn up for women workers, which stated explicitly that no femalecould ever be placed in any position of authority or responsibilityover any male employee. The highest position they could ever attainwas that of a supervisory position over other women. A woman's pay was officiallyfixed at a maximum of one-quarter of a man's wage. The minimum workingday for a woman was also fixed at twelve hours. No maximum was set.Overtime was of course compulsory, at the discretion of the employer. Therate of pay for overtime was also fixed at exactly half of the standard rate,on the grounds that after a twelve-hour shift, women could not possibly workas well during the overtime period as during the standard hours! Female employeeswere also now officially required to be " attentive to the needsand requirements of their superiors at work," which basically meant,at least in practice, that bosses, for the first time since the abolitionof slavery, were legally entitled to sexually abuse, fuck, prostitute andeven torture - sorry, " chastise " - their female employeesat will. Lunch breaks and tea and coffee breaks were also forbidden to womenworkers. They had to continue working non-stop throughout their entire shift.
Women were allowed to join trade unions, but they were forbidden to vote inunion elections or to hold any office of responsibility. They were also specificallyexempted from any improvements in wages or terms and conditions obtainedfor the male members of the union by the shop stewards or other negotiators.The main reason for allowing women to join unions was because the male leadershipof the unions saw an opportunity to enrich their own coffers at the expenseof the women workers. It cost the employers nothing to allow them to join,and the exclusion of females from any working benefits that the unions mightbe able to negotiate with the employer meant that it was a purely anti-feministmeasure, not an anti-employer's one.
On-the-spot fines were also laid down for the slightest transgression by womenworkers. A female employee turning up one minute late for work wouldbe fined an hour's wages, being further punished by receiving six strokes ofthe cane on her bare arse and made to carry out her duties for the remainderof the day completely naked. As you can imagine, women left for work ridiculouslyearly to avoid even the faintest possibility of turning up late and facingthese dire "penalties."
I will tell you about my working life in the next instalment of my diary.
Louise
- 23.08.2020
- 8
- 0
