September’s Hater of the Month is some joker named Porky Domesticus, a purported MRA who takes issue with game:
Wow, i could waste my time arguing with you guys but that would be as fruitful as arguing with a feminist.
Translation: “Your opinions offend me, but I’m too stupid to come up with a rebuttal.”
You are all fools and a hindrance to men’s rights.
How is learning to get with women – a desire of the majority of men – “a hindrance to men’s rights”? Riddle me this, non-foolish one.
Please just go out and hire a hooker – in the long run it costs no more than dating and you don’t have to play all these idiotic mind games.
Anyone who pulls this line of argument is a bona fide dumbass. A mere slapping of genitalia and resultant orgasm is insufficient for a man’s happiness. A man needs, at the bare minimum, a woman to WANT to be fucked by him in order to be sated. For a girl, there is nothing more pussy-drying then the prospect of being banged by a man they aren’t attracted to. Going to hookers is a step up from smacking it to porn, but it isn’t a substitute for a loving, long-term relationship or even a one-night stand. Anyone who argues otherwise is disqualifying themselves from further discussion on this topic.
Grow up little men, grow up.
An MRA resorting to Code Green Shaming Language? There goes any credibility you might have had, bub.
Runner-up for Hater of the Month is the super-sarcastic Kathy Farrelly, who left this boner on the same post:
Absolute rubbish!
I am a woman. I have read what Jack has said.. and I am in stitches… Truly!The clitoris serves only one function.. to provide sexual pleasure ..It has no other purpose!!!
Now… Jack in his wisdom opines that a woman is not fully satisfied unless she experiences a vaginal orgasm.
Of course, he would know, wouldn’t he?
Sounds like this broad hasn’t had a good deep dicking since the Reagan administration. But then again, who would want any part of that musty, old claptrap?
{ 122 comments… read them below or add one }
Excellent call on the shaming language. Its one thing to disagree, but for a men’s rights blogger to go to the shaming card and sound exactly like a feminist is pretty lame.
“Grow up” is the grand daddy of all shaming language in fact.
I have my doubts that the MRA Omega is a man.
Men who claim that hiring a hooker is the pinnacle of male experience (never mind the risk of getting arrested and having that on your record) has not had a woman sleep with him of her own free will for….years. Possibly forever.
I maintain that 80% of men and 99.9% of women will never, ever, ever comprehend what Game is. They are not high enough in Maslow’s hierarchy to get it.
This applies to FeminOrcs, BetaCons like Todd White and Posec, and MRA Omegas like ‘Porky’.
What is MRA and MGTOW, anyway, if there is no Game component? A movement to be celibate and accept that permanent condition? Is that all it is?
OK, Porky is a man (as per his website).
Which makes his stance all the more puzzling. He is no socialcon who excuses feminism and throws men under the bus to avoid drawing the ire of feminists.
So why on earth would he be opposed to Game? Of course, 80% of men can’t grasp Game, but that does not make them automatically opposed to it to the degree of claiming ‘hookers are a better alternative’.
*chants enthusiastically*
Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate! Hate!
I personally don’t see the point in trying to convince haters or those with personal or political ideologies / dogrmas I find obnoxious, of the efficacy of game. Less effective competition out there.
It’s different with such MRA issues as abolishing alimony, lowering child support=alimony in divorce cases, and not giving unwed mothers (who have both Roe and adoption alternatives and many of who had oops pregnancies) mandated child support=alimony above welfare levels and then only if they’d otherwise quality for welfare, when the guy they’re extracted it from didn’t want the baby but she did.
I’m not against Men’s Rights, but a lot of these blogs are written by guys who have no game and can’t get laid, and serve as just an outlet for being a lifelong sexual loser. It’s like women who get around in their circles to complain about about how men aren’t sensitive or caring enough.
These guys dedicate their time to complaining about feminists or marriage, yet they have zero experience with either! I suspect they are anti-social, bitter virgins who simply don’t have anything else to do with their bountiful free time, too fearful of putting their fragile ego on the line to be a man and actually get laid. They have draining corporate gigs and the only thing they have to look forward to are weekly visits to Chipotle Mexican Grill.
In fact you will not go wrong in life by not listening to a man who can’t get laid. He can be very intelligent but his thoughts are not based on the “real world” where there are guys banging and traveling and starting businesses and having a good time with life. Thinking without doing is nothing but masturbation, something that I suspect these MR bloggers do a lot of.
What is MRA and MGTOW, anyway, if there is no Game component?
It’s dealing with all the other issues that have nothing to do with getting laid.
I’m also curious how you see this squaring with your astute point that feminists will ramp up the false rape industry to combat game. A lot of men who would otherwise have the ability and desire to use game won’t because they don’t want to go to jail. This isn’t some sort of throwaway issue.
Fundamentally, what’s going on is that women have nothing to offer anymore except sex. If a man decides that going after the equvalent of dogshit isn’t worth his time (or too dangerous because feminists are ramping up the false rape industry even more) then yes that leads to celibacy. Hence why we will see sex bots, VR sex, etc. in the near future.
These guys dedicate their time to complaining about feminists or marriage, yet they have zero experience with either!
So what? I try to keep my experiences with feminists to a minimum because of what I know about them. I stay unmarried since I have seen the devastation marriage (and divorce) have caused on men.
I don’t need to shoot up heroin to know its dangerous and a stupid idea. I don’t need to get married or have more dealings with feminists to know its dangerous and stupid either.
Pro-Male,
the relationship with heroin is a pretty simple one; it’s effects are easy to discern. relationships with women are much more difficult.
i second roosh’s point that you’ll do well to *not* listen to a virgin male *for anything*. don’t even listen to him concerning which team to bet on on the upcoming game. there’s something about experience with women that seems to wisen men up to the ways of the world *in general* and not just with things pertaining to women. a man who knows women is wise to everything else. a man who doesn’t know women is naive and out of touch.
good insight on roosh’s part there.
I will also agree with Roosh (who’s book I am currently reading).
While I support the MR cause, these men don’t realize that they will make their own cause far more effective with proper knowledge of female psychology via Game. The ability to be unaffected by female shaming language alone would strengthen the MR cause. Whether they use Game to have sex with a lot of women or not, the knowledge is essential, so that each decision is an informed one.
I will say it as often as possible : 80% of men and 99.9% of women have no ability to grasp what Game is. It is just beyond them.
@Roosh
“I’m not against Men’s Rights, but a lot of these blogs are written by guys who have no game and can’t get laid,”
If I didn’t know who you were, I would have presumed that your post above was written by a young empty-headed feminist trying to denigrate MRAs by suggesting that they must be unmanly in some way.
I was quite surprised not to find you also proclaiming that they’ve all got small penises.
My own view is that men come across as rather pathetic when they seem to devote so much of their energy into ‘getting laid’.
Don’t get me wrong. I am glad that men like you exist; and that you are prepared to share your experiences with other men who might not have your talents, but I don’t think that you should mock men who have failed when it comes to getting laid and/or who have no interest in doing so.
Most MRAs that I know have got themselves laid all right. And they know about women just as much as you do.
And it is often this very knowledge about women that they possess that compels them to try to explain to other men how they are being hoodwinked by the feminists and, indeed, by many women.
Chuck,
If I didn’t know who you are I would assume you’re some sort of feminist troll.
You’re being absurd. Nailing a woman doesn’t grant some mystical knowledge about the universe. Clearly this is false and easily proven so. I see lots of men who are married, have girlfriends, etc. You know what they all have in common. They are all miserable and if married, trapped. Getting laid does not reveal this knowledge to you. All you need is simple observation.
I can name any number of virgin males who have accomplished more, know more about everything, and are more successful than most men who have gotten laid at least once in their lives. Of course, you probably have gotten good knowledge from a virgin male, but you don’t know that since they didn’t tell you they were a virgin.
If you want to worship at the altar of women, go ahead. Many other men will realize what a fools’ game that is and live their lives on their terms.
Oh my God, not ANOTHER pissing contest post, is it? I mean, first it was the SocialCons, now the MRAers. With “friends” like these Players don’t need “enemies” in the form of Feminists and the like.
What Roosh said. I too am not against the theory of MRA, but it begins to break down in practices for the reasons that many others, among them Roissy and Novaseeker, have noted and at considerable length to boot. Seems to me the last place the vast majority of Men look to is within, and that’s the true secret of Game when you really break it down. Those who tend to have the tightest Game also tend to be very self-aware guys, and as we all know, most guys running around aren’t very introspective.
Anyway, look, here’s the deal: like TFH said, Game ain’t for errbody, and you know what, that’s OK!-just speed on and don’t hate on those of us who partake of the Wisdom of the Ages when it comes to Women, alright? Do your MRA thing (or SocialCon thing, whatever floats your boat) and do it with my blessing. Hopefully, some good will come of it.
Anyway, back to a vanglorious weekend, Brown Sugah’s almost done getting her manicure. I’ll holla at y’all later.
The Obsidian
While I support the MR cause, these men don’t realize that they will make their own cause far more effective with proper knowledge of female psychology via Game. The ability to be unaffected by female shaming language alone would strengthen the MR cause. Whether they use Game to have sex with a lot of women or not, the knowledge is essential, so that each decision is an informed one.
I have no disagreement with this, although game is not necessary to be unaffected by female shaming language. Game is one way of getting there, but there are others.
As you correctly point out, it’s knowledge of game that’s essential, not its use. Roosh’s and Chuck’s idea that getting laid confers mystical knowledge on men is total crap.
There are really two aspects of understanding game: 1) gender realism; 2) pickup arts, which draw upon 1), but also inform it.
In addition there’s the issue of using game to become a player, or particularly a player who orients most of his life goals around scoring the maximum possible number of hot women, rather than using it to get and maintain a really good LTR, while doing useful things in the world.
I can understand why a great many social conservatives have a problem with the hedonistic player lifestyle, particularly when it’s not just a young guy phase but a long term lifestyle, and particularly when it supplants all other goals. That certainly seems to be largely the case for some players.
I also think it’s really pointless for those who’ve become convinced of not only the efficacy but also the basic gender realism truths of game insights, to try to convince “haters” of game that the player lifestyle is laudable.
Rather believers in game who are into applying it to LTR’s, such as Dave in Hawaii and PA, or that and understanding the evolving social situation such as Novaseeker and Ferdinand B., can better speak to those types, even though many of the keenest game insights are likely to come from the high volume, many girls players like Roissy and Roosh.
What Roissy does so well is marry PUA arts with larger gender and consequent social insights. Hence the Roissysphere.
I have no disagreement with this, although game is not necessary to be unaffected by female shaming language. Game is one way of getting there, but there are others.
Game is by far the most effective way of being so.
As well, game (natural or learned) is almost the only way of trumping that female shaming language in girl’s eyes, or those of most other men not already strongly sympathetic to the rightness of your cause.
So apparently shaming language of the “if I didn’t know better I’d think you were a feminist” type is standard for MRA-ers.
Pro-Male, you are twisting my words. I never said that “Nailing a woman doesn’t grant some mystical knowledge about the universe.”
Re-read my post – slowly if that suits you better.
The problem it seems with MRA types is that you guys are content spending your nights either alone or with other guys. That is not natural. I prefer to spend my nights in the company of friends as well as female romantic interests. Being the case, I prefer to know as much about my potential romantic interests as possible. How can I know anything about any subject if I *don’t study the subject or have interaction with it?*
How could I know about the way the economy works without studying the mechanisms at play? I can’t intuitively understand such a thing without knowing some underlying principles. You can use second-hand knowledge all you’d like to help form your opinions about women, but you won’t know shit unless you get first-hand experience.
So, I’ll repeat: a virgin male doesn’t know shit about women. Having such an underdevelopment in an area that is so important to a lot of men implies that virgins can’t relate *on many other levels* to men in the know.
I’ll agree with you that fucking one girl won’t impart some mystical knowledge in a man. It’s actually likely to screw his head up more, jumbling up the things he thought he knew. But being with many more women, hanging out with women, having long-term relationships with them is the only way to know them.
My argument that virgin males shouldn’t be listened to in most facets of life stems from the fact that they are failures. That stench infiltrates many other facets of life. If a virgin male offered me advice on anything, I wouldn’t listen. I’d actually do the opposite of what he suggested. He is so far out of the loop, he’s not worth listening to.
It is virtually impossible to substitute real knowledge of Game from use of it. Those that believe so are extremely invested in the notion that there is no such thing as LTR Game. Or Office Game (where you build purely platonic relationships with female co-workers who are sufficiently attracted to you that they speak favorably of your work, ensuring promotions and better job security in recessions).
Socialcons (BetaCons) insist that there is no use of Game outside of hedonism. Every time they are shown evidence of LTR Game and how it is valuable, they ignore that inconvenient proof, to continue railing against PUA life. That is why BetaCons are intellectually bankrupt (and complicit with feminists in swindling the average man).
Most MRAs are not even talking about interpersonal relationships with women. They are talking about the law, politics, education, prejudice and so on.
Of course, LTR game exists. However, this doesn’t mean you have to use LTR game, PUA game or any type of game. Even in the case of office game there is the option of working in a place with little to no women. Even understanding office game, there is the benefit of less frustration working in a place that is minimally female.
Of course, the socons are wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are more options than being a socon, being a feminist, PUA game, and LTR game.
Thanks for the publicity, my misogynist antagonists.
I believe my comment was provoked by a post with the title …
“How to “use your penis to show her who is the bossâ€
I guess if you guys want to spout all this hate against women thats your constitutional right, but don’t associate yourselves with the Mens Movement – we have enough problems already.
So apparently shaming language of the “if I didn’t know better I’d think you were a feminist†type is standard for MRA-ers.
If you talk like a feminist (or other type of female supremacist) then yes, we’re going to think you’re a feminist. Considering that you’re arguing that women are the arbiter of whether men are “failures” or not, you are arguing for a form of female supremacism.
The problem it seems with MRA types is that you guys are content spending your nights either alone or with other guys. That is not natural.
I do a gazillion unnatural things every day. One more unnatural thing doesn’t make a difference. The whole “appeal to nature” thing you’re doing here is a documented logical fallacy. Besides, if you’re so worried about doing unnatural things, there’s nothing more unnatural than posting on a blog. In other words, get off the internet.
How can I know anything about any subject if I *don’t study the subject or have interaction with it?*
As you point out either option works such as study with no interaction. And really given that women are slightly over 50% of the population there is no such thing as no interaction.
You can use second-hand knowledge all you’d like to help form your opinions about women, but you won’t know shit unless you get first-hand experience.
I don’t know shit about heroin either, but I want to keep it that way.
But being with many more women, hanging out with women, having long-term relationships with them is the only way to know them.
Replace long term relationships with marriage and you sound like a socon. This is just more meaningless shaming language.
The only way to know heroin is first hand experience, but second hand experience is enough to keep me away.
The fact is there are many millions of men trapped in misery because of women. I know you will say these men are “successful” because they “know” women but it isn’t doing them any good whatsoever. I choose freedom instead.
How many women does it really take to “know” women? You’re not just arguing that virgin men are failures, but at least 50% to 80% of the population of men since there are lots of men who haven’t been with “enough” women to not be “failures” by your definition.
My argument that virgin males shouldn’t be listened to in most facets of life stems from the fact that they are failures.
Not only is this is circular reasoning, but you probably have listened to virgin men, but had no idea since they didn’t tell you they were virgins and these virgin men were otherwise successful.
If a virgin male offered me advice on anything, I wouldn’t listen. I’d actually do the opposite of what he suggested.
So if a virgin male told you not to jump off a bridge, you would jump off a bridge? Real smart there.
obsidian, MRAs aren’t hating on you. The fact is that we have every reason to be suspicious when a bunch of players start sounding like feminists saying how MRAs are losers because they can’t get laid (TM). There is a reason why this is documented as code purple shaming language. There is nothing new about it.
Porker,
I will quote Ferds and retort :
“Translation: “Your opinions offend me, but I’m too stupid to come up with a rebuttal.—
You are the only MRA person I have ever seen, who is hostile to the notion of becoming good at interacting with women (which includes not getting manipulated by women and divorced by one’s wife, thereby avoiding alimony, etc.). An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.
Most MRA people will side with us, and distance themselves from you. And you know it.
Thanks for the publicity, my misogynist antagonists.
WE are not misogynists at all. But you clearly are. Anyone who advocates hookers as the cornerstone of his life is both a loser and a misogynists, as both the Game community and women will agree.
Doesn’t claiming to be an MRA person require one to have SOME experience with women? Since you lack this experience, of what value are you to the MRA movement?
but don’t associate yourselves with the Mens Movement – we have enough problems already.
At least you have admitted that you are the cause of the MRA’s problems. They carry a heavy baggage from Omega misogynists hooker-clients like you.
Most MRAs are not even talking about interpersonal relationships with women.
Because they have given up on the possibility of such altogether. This is due to their Omega status, owing to lack of Game.
They are talking about the law, politics, education, prejudice and so on.
The Game community talks about all of the same, from a much more informed position. I would put Obsidian, Doug1, Welmer, Ferdinand, etc. ahead of any non-Game MRA person’s knowledge of these topics.
we have every reason to be suspicious when a bunch of players start sounding like feminists
I seem to recall that Porkus said that Game was ‘misogynistic’. This from someone seeking to glorify hooker-dependence. A purer form of projection is hard to find.
And any discussion of sexuality or women should place direct experience with women as an important pre-requisite. Porky clearly has none.
I think the Game community and MRA community have a large overlap. What I don’t get are the anti-Game MRAs, since knolwledge gained through Game is an extremely valuable component of any real attempt to achieve MRA goals. Until 3 days ago, I did not think there were any.
I seem to recall that Porkus said that Game was ‘misogynistic’. This from someone seeking to glorify hooker-dependence. A purer form of projection is hard to find.
Fair enough. The fact that Porkus headed so quickly to code green shaming language means that he isn’t a real MRA. An actual MRA who disagreed with game wouldn’t say that.
I’m not so sure Porkus has no experience with women. To me it sounds like he had one relationship where the woman was dominant, sort of like David Alexander. David Alexander actually had a relationship with a woman that seduced him and look at what happened to DA. Clearly, a virgin male knows more what they are talking about than these guys.
And any discussion of sexuality or women should place direct experience with women as an important pre-requisite.
I disagree with this since a virgin man can learn game, but decide not to use it in his own life for various good reasons, such as feminists ramping up the false rape industry to game.
Plus, the players aren’t claiming that virgin men just lack knowledge of women. They’re claiming that virgin men have no knowledge of ANYTHING and are complete failures in every aspect of life. That’s clearly absurd and false. I know of too many counterexamples so they are clearly wrong about it.
What I don’t get are the anti-Game MRAs, since knolwledge gained through Game is an extremely valuable component of any real attempt to achieve MRA goals.
How many anti-game MRAs are there really? Especially considering that Porkus isn’t a real MRA. There’s a difference between being anti-game and knowing the value of game, but deciding not to make going after wet holes the sum total of your life. That is what I suspect who you call “anti-game MRAs” are really reacting to, not game in an of itself.
The fact is there is a real problem in the game community in that there is a subset of men practicing game who are effectively female supremacist by making getting laid the highest goal of their lives. This means that they can be manipulated by women. In a way they have completely lost sight of what game is. After all sometimes you just have to dump her sorry ass.
One thing I have tried to say is that while game is great and important for pushing mens’ issues, is that women are a lot of times aren’t worth it. Game is great, but I don’t see why any man should use it to get the equivalent of dogshit.
Harry says; “Most MRAs are not even talking about interpersonal relationships with women”.
Fifth Horseman replies; “Because they have given up on the possibility of such altogether.”
Er, No. Quite a few of us are actually married.
We just happen to be interested in law, politics, education etc etc
And many of us already understand women quite enough, thank you – probably having had at least three decades more experience of them than you have.
Not only sleeping with them, but watching them grow as daughters, nieces etc
In other words, you clearly do not know what you are talking about,
The fact that Porkus headed so quickly to code green shaming language means that he isn’t a real MRA. An actual MRA who disagreed with game wouldn’t say that.
I would fully agree, but the fact that he runs a whole MRA website seems like a wasted life.
but decide not to use it in his own life for various good reasons, such as feminists ramping up the false rape industry to game.
I am the one who first put forth the theory that the false-rape industry was a way to counter Game. However, a man can still do a lot with women he meets through other friends, etc. with Game.
They’re claiming that virgin men have no knowledge of ANYTHING and are complete failures in every aspect of life.
A virgin can be a great scientist, sure. But I don’t think anyone, male or female, will say that a virgin past the age of 25 is qualified to discuss women or sexuality. Since 90% of men above 25 are not virgins, this is not a very stringent bar to cross.
How many anti-game MRAs are there really?
I didn’t know that there were any, until Porkulus came forth. If others in the MRA movement denounce Porkulus as not representative of them, that would probably make the most sense.
There’s a difference between being anti-game and knowing the value of game, but deciding not to
That is certainly not the position Porkulus has taken.
there is a subset of men practicing game who are effectively female supremacist by making getting laid the highest goal of their lives.
I know of no such person in the Game community. Name an example among the constellation of commenters we know.
Didn’t you also say the following : Of course, LTR game exists.
Game is great, but I don’t see why any man should use it to get the equivalent of dogshit.
Where did you get that idea? The whole purpose of Game is to get the most desirable women.
A lot of men who would otherwise have the ability and desire to use game won’t because they don’t want to go to jail.
So LTR-worthy women will benefit from LTR Game. I don’t think a man should give up using Game on relationships with women met via common friends, etc.
Hence why we will see sex bots, VR sex, etc. in the near future.
I agree, and I wish more people grasped these massive changes by 2020. Hell, Microsoft’s Project Natal will be out in 2011. Imagine 9 more years of Moore’s Law on that.
Male physical strength used to be economically vital but now is not. There are extremely few high-paying jobs where a strong man has an advantage over a weak man. Similarly, female beauty will be devalued and commoditzed by the sex technologies of 2020, and 8s will be treated like 5s. 35 year old women will be uninteresting even to 55 year old men.
That will be something. The safety of women will also rise due to these sex technologies. So women will be safer but more lonely.
Fifth Horsemen says: “Doesn’t claiming to be an MRA person require one to have SOME experience with women?”
Can gay men be MRAs? Yes, of course they can.
And so we see once again that you clearly do not know what you are talking about. You are making various claims and pronouncements about MRAs that can be shown to be false with just one sentence.
Not even a paragraph required!
When people are concerned about men’s rights and promote them, then they are MRAs.
They could even be women. And, indeed, many women are MRAs.
I don’t think you know what MRAs are.
So are you endorsing Porky’s views as mainstream in the MRA, or are you distancing yourself from his views?
Pick one.
And so we see once again that you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
Projection.
You conveniently ignored the first sentence in my comment : “You are the only MRA person I have ever seen, who is hostile to the notion of becoming good at interacting with women”, as well as “Most MRA people will side with us, and distance themselves from you. And you know it. “
So what do you have to say for yourself?
Now, I asked you a simple question, that you, as a man, should be brave enough to answer.
Does Porky represent the mainstream views within MRA circles, or is he not representative?
A simple question.
I don’t think you know what MRAs are.
I know what they are. I am one.
I’m really not concerned with this whole “false rape response” to Game stuff. Game enables a Man to win a Woman’s sexual attraction and effectively seduce her; if done correctly, she will WANT that to happen, and come morning will have no regrets.
Recently the blogger FeministX wrote about this very same issue, and while I find quite a few of the things she writes about questionable if not objectionable, on this one issue she hit the nail on the head: those most worried about getting the Mike Tyson Treatment are those who act like Mike Tyson did toward Desiree Washington-no Woman wants to be treated like a Two-Dolla Ho, even if they ARE a Two-Dolla Ho. That was Tyson’s big mistake, and as we know, it cost him dearly. All he had to do was let her spend the night, take her out the next day and wine and dine her a bit, then kiss her off-I myself have done similar many times, and haven’t been dragged into court yet.
Femx’s point was simply that the reason why a Woman may come at you with a false rape thing was because she felt like she was used, and I gotta tell ya, based on the comments some of us post about Women, I can’t really say I blame em. Game teaches respect for Women if anything, read your Mystery Method-so I don’t know where this Tucker Max-like thing came from or caught on, but it ain’t the way I roll or play. My Momma raised me better than that.
Somewhere the idea that treating a Woman well has been lost. We have to keep in mind that even in our time now of vast medical improvements and heavily-tilted legal protections, Women still risk a helluva lot more to have sex than we guys do. It ain’t killing any of us to take the lady out for breakfast the next morning or whatever.
Game teaches that Women want sex just as much as Men do, possibly moreso, its just they have to be more concerned with how they go about than we do. No Woman wants to be potentially raped, pumped and dumped, or just plain disrespected-and those who do, I say, you need to take a good long look at before you go putting your dick up in em. Usually, something aint right about em, and is in itself a serious can of worms. When you have Game, you’re not desperate to hit the first thing in a skirt that moves; you’re a lot more discriminating and look for other qualities than merely physical to interest you. We need to get back to emphasizing that.
But yea anyway, FemX really hits the nail on the head about this issue, and would highly recommend you checkout her blog if you haven’t already.
The Obsidian
Oh Dear, i never knew the Fifth Horseman was idiocy!
“You are the only MRA person I have ever seen, who is hostile to the notion of becoming good at interacting with women ”
Straw man – at no point did i make that foolish claim.
“An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.”
Yes it is, which is why i would like you all to leave the MRM alone before we are linked forever in the public’s mind.
“Most MRA people will side with us, and distance themselves from you. And you know it.”
No i dont and neither do you – but logic is clearly not you forte.
“WE are not misogynists at all. But you clearly are. Anyone who advocates hookers as the cornerstone of his life is both a loser and a misogynists, as both the Game community and women will agree.”
I never advocated them as the cornerstone of anything, and even those who do arent misogynists, they just know it helps to avoid the risks of marriage. I truly wish i had the psych to keep sex that mechanical, but alas i do not.
“Doesn’t claiming to be an MRA person require one to have SOME experience with women? Since you lack this experience, of what value are you to the MRA movement?”
Alas, i have more experience with the wiminz than i would like, but even if that were not so it would matter not, for it is a false claim that one needs “experience” with women to be an MRA. Gays and women are in our ranks.
“At least you have admitted that you are the cause of the MRA’s problems. They carry a heavy baggage from Omega misogynists hooker-clients like you.”
Oh deary deary me…
You want a clue as to just how thin skinned you Beta Boys are? You thought my first comment constituted hatred – please, you guys probably burst into tears whenever a woman criticizes your tie (those of you who can afford ties)
Enough fun – no more Piggy for you!
Oh Dear, i never knew the Fifth Horseman was idiocy!
Yawn… you have already been exposed as ‘stupid’ by Ferdinand in the main post. So your disapproval is a strong stamp of the recipient’s excellence.
Straw man – at no point did i make that foolish claim.
Yes you did. If you think Game is ‘misogynist’, that is your position, you insecure nebbish.
which is why i would like you all to leave the MRM alone before we are linked forever in the public’s mind.
Too late. Most Game people are also MRA people. Plus, your idiocy would be like Winston Churchill telling FDR in 1942 “leave before we are linked forever in Germany’s mind”.
I truly wish i had the psych to keep sex that mechanical, but alas i do not.
Rather, you wish you had the psyche to actually generate love from a woman, but you do not. You have never felt love, and it shows.
You do not know what Game is. You an envious, bitter, Omega loser who no one even noticed until Ferdinand exposed your barely concealed self-loathing.
If your IQ was as high as 70, you would know that Social Cons, who never oppose feminism, is who you should be opposing. Rather, you oppose Game, which you clearly are not high enough in Maslow’s Hierarchy to comprehend. Thankfully, no other MRA person has chosen to defend you, and all of them have quietly distanced themselves from you.
The MRA movement carries a huge liability with hooker-clients such as yourself in its ranks.
“‘Normally I’d post an excerpt, but Jack has specifically stated that women who read the essay may lose their ability to experience la petite mort”
And Jack would know wouldn’t he Ferdinand?
Too funny, mate.
I am miffed though, that I only made runner up!
Obsidian, I think you’re being naive. Women do not enjoy sex in the same way men do. No matter how thrilling experience, somewhere in the back of their minds, they are hoping for some sort of commitment. That commitment might take the form of a pleasant dinner afterwards (as you point out), or it might be bf/gf exclusivity, or it might be eventual marriage.
But very few women (save for those freaks you warn about in your post) enjoy sex JUST for the sex.
It’s true that if you are a super-alpha, then women will content themselves with the experience, understanding that they never had a shot at anything more.
Most of us are not super-alphas. If you’re telling me that all your women are just fine with you not being exclusive, or fucking other women, or having other relationships in between the times you fuck them, then I can only conclude that you are fucking women way below you in sexual market value (SMV), for whom you are THEIR super-alpha, even though you might not be one yourself.
Most other guys are trying to fuck the hottest women they can get.
I’m not throwing stones here, I’m just saying this notion of false-rape charges being women’s way of upping the arms race now that Game is ascendant, is a very serious concern.
I can only conclude that you are fucking women way below you in sexual market value (SMV), for whom you are THEIR super-alpha
Obsidian is operating in the black community which has a skewed sex ratio. Any intelligent guy with some game (Obsidian seems to have both intelligence and game) can be a super alpha in those circumstances, even if not in general society. He can probably get more or less exactly the girl he wants and still be able to set his own conditions.
Fale-rape accusations are a serious concern – a nuclear option women are using, really.
It has society-destroying potential.
To my knowledge, no luminary in the Game community has faced such an accusation, but when that happens, the fallout will be complicated and deep. It might also be just the step that ‘takes it too far’ and start a chain reaction that leads to reform.
It is skewed but not as extremely as you’re suggesting I don’t think from what I’ve seen and gleaned. Status still matters in getting really really hot black girls and esp. in keeping them. Earlier on when posting at Roissy’s before O got into his more recent (last six months or so) full throated peacocking, fronting mode, he said numerous things about BAPs (Black American princesses) that implied many of them wouldn’t have a working class guy like him. Or anyway wouldn’t keep with them. Which he said lead many of them to being unhappy and alone much of their lives – very unhappy as they got older.
Working for some balance here, and against cartoons.
The whole effort to make intoxication sex rape at the girls option after the fact is an abomination and must be thoroughly and vehemently rejected by men.
The large majority of causal sex, particularly first time casual sex between a pair, involves some degree of drinking on both parties part. That’s our social custom among most groups in this country and has been for a very long time. If a girl’s judgment is loosened up when she drinks in ways she may regret later, then it’s her responsibility to not drink so much, or not drink at all, or not do so and then flirt re: having having sex with a new partner. If all other areas drinking does not absolve the drinking person of responsibility for their actions when they’ve been drinking. It should even less so in this one.
The whole date rape campaign of campus and radical feminists is at BEST a concerted campaign to make all but the most gentlemanly conduct on the part of men that involves sexual contact (even though not rejected), a VERY VERY SERIOUS CRIME. I.e. rape. That’s ridiculous.
At the same time a great many women, way over half and probably lots many more than that have rape fantasies. Now they don’t have fantasies about some unattractive schmuck raping them, it’s true. It’s also not true, despite what feminists say, that women never actually want to act out any of those fantasies. Plenty of women do. I know this first hand. plenty have wanted to with me.
In the case of date rape, the man is by definition almost, or certainly a guy can and should be forgiven for assuming so until there’s good evidence to the contrary that the girl did find at least tentatively attractive. She went on some kind of date, or engaged in flirting behavior, with him. No that doesn’t entitle him to then pull a knife and despite her screams rape her. Of course not. But these circumstances do mean that if a woman starts down the road towards indicating an interest in having sex with her date, the BURDEN SHIFTS TO HER TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT SHE DOESN’T WANT FULL ON SEX if she doesn’t..
It’s not even as clear as a mere no. Because against despite feminist lying, and lesbian feminist lying is what it usually is, women DO often mean yes when they say no, or really more maybe when they say no, maybe, if you can make me feel it enough that my hindbrain passion overcomes my forebrain restraint and go slower, cause that kind of overwhelming is like just one of the hottest sexual feelings a girl can have, and is in fact at the core of a lot of rape fantasies or “was that rape” fantasies. Which later are EVEN MORE COMMON. Ask e.g. Bhetti, romance novel glutton.
Of course there are ways of saying no that do mean no, and I for one can nearly always tell the difference. But can a jury when the woman lies about it afterwards, when her forebrain ego and superego, are coldly evaluating the loss to reputation of putting out so easily with someone less than the number one stud on campus (and sometimes even if to him, esp. if he didn’t call the next day or week).
Actually feminist date rape extremism and climate of hysteria is moving me back to thinking that a women should have to do a lot more than say no to make it rape. She should have to actually physcially struggle and show clear evidence that she has. If that means risking some degree of injury, tough. Rape is a VERY serious charge and brings serious jail time and total loss of male reputation in all decent circles. THe incidence of false date rape accusations is just too high.
IN THIS ATMOSPHERE OF DATE RAPE HYSTERIA that campus and radical feminists have created WOMEN DO LIE ABOUT RAPE, especially acquaitance rape ALL THE TIME NOW. Maybe they didn’t used to. But times have changed. They sure do now.
I agree that no doesn’t always mean no, but I still have no problem with no means no as a legal standard for rape. Lines must be drawn and that is a really reasonable place to draw one.
In law, it is often vastly better to have a clear standard than one that attempts to be perfectly fair.
No it’s not a reasonable place to draw the line when a man winds up in jail for years afterwards with his social and work world reputation totally destroyed for anything but low end or sketchy work. Especially since a woman can so easily lie about the “no” and sometimes/often has a reason to in these date rape hysteria and assumptions/blame shifted days, due to hyper feminism.
A reasonable place would be where it always was traditionally. 1) the woman is required to have said no underlined with making a real effort of physically fight her rapist off, signally to him much more clearly that it is truly unwanted; 2) there must be some sort of corroborating evidence that she actually was raped beyond her say so. That might be easy when she didn’t know him at all but is harder in alleged date rape AS IT SHOULD BE.
Toughen up Thursday. Stop white knighting.
Further the line should be drawn where it’s fair. Further the line in Anglosphere jurisprudence in criminal matters is supposed to be “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
It’s high time we began requiring more of women again, instead of always men, to the point where first time sex (and not even only first time sex) is fraught with rape accusation peril. That’s deeply wrong.
Toughen up Thursday. Stop white knighting.
Calling guys out on totally retarded shit != white knighting. Stop with the bullshit shaming language. What are we in here, a cult?
According to you (and I’ve noticed this in your other comments on the legal system) things should be set up so that there is no possible way the legal system could be unfair to a man. That’s not justice, that’s just the mirror image of feminism and it’s certainly not any way to set up a legal system.
In any event, the standard is clear and easy to comply with: the woman says no, you don’t have sex with her. It’s pretty fucking simple.
Especially since a woman can so easily lie about the “noâ€
Fuck, this is about evidential standards, a completely different issue. What kind of lawyer are you?
It’s even simpler and a lot clearer to require her to actually try to physically resist you in addition to saying no. Especially since no really means maybe just be even more convincing, as the foreplay to very hot sex.
Which requirement for actual resistance in addition to saying no was the standard for hundreds of years for there to be rape under Anglosaxon law.
Together with some evidence beyond he said she said.
It was the standard until 2nd and 3rd wave feminism first here and then elsewhere in the Anglosphere began changing it.
According to you (and I’ve noticed this in your other comments on the legal system) things should be set up so that there is no possible way the legal system could be unfair to a man.
Please substantiate that. I call bullshiite.
Unless you’re referring to my insisting that men in rape accusation cases should be considered innocent until proven guilty, as they often are now and the campus date rape hysterical feminists insist that they be. Guilty that is beyond a reasonable doubt.
As women should be so considered and proven guilty when THEY’RE accused of crimes.
One who knows that part of the rationale for traditional jury instructions requiring corroborating evidence in rape trials was based upon this consideration, particularly since rape accusations are such emotional issues.
Or do you not consider it wrong that men can be convicted of rape simply because they like the woman more than the man, and thus choose to believe her? That’s beyond a reasonable doubt?
a completely different issue
I see you still haven’t caught on. Think about it for a bit.
I see you don’t even address the incredible ease with which men can avoid conviction, by not having sex with a woman after she has said no. Going ahead with sex after that means, at the very least, you are being wilfully blind and probably reckless, which is more than enough mens rea.
The rationale for not requiring resistance is so as to not provoke violence by the attacker, which again seems perfectly reasonable to me. Communicating your non-consent seems a reasonable thing to ask of a victim, but anything more is a bit much. We don’t require active resistance for any other crime.
Corroboration etc. belongs to the law of evidence.
The fact is there are ways of saying no that clearly communicate “no”, and ways of saying it that communicate “yes, but I want to feel overwhelmed first”.
However under current feminst “reformed” date rape law, they can often get a jury instruction that says any statement of no means no, period, no matter what they believe was in the accused man’s mind, and even reasonably in his mind.
I think it isn’t too much to require that a woman make it absolutely clear she means no. By e.g. screaming it etc.
As for the injury thing, that’s hugely exaggerated, as are most feminist misandrist hysterical claims. Very few rapes involve injuring the woman beyond the trauma of the rape itself. Especially very few acquaintance rapes do, which are the type we’re arguing about. (In non acquaintance rapes there’s very little issue that no really means no, and I certainly wouldn’t say it does there either.) In acquaintance rape cases, the risk of injury is made up out of whole cloth by feminists almost entirely. Like you know, NOW’s claim that Super bowl Sunday is the most dangerous day of the year for American women — which the feminist media played for years before it was conclusively proven to have been entirely made up. There are many similar cases.
There was never a requirement that a woman persist with resistance after e.g. she gets threatened with a knife or after being hit or even slapped. Only that she begin with some resistance. That’s how it should be. Or at the VERY LEAST, an utterly unambiguous no.
I’ve had a lot of “no means yes” sex. And no, I’ve never had a girl tell me she felt like I’d raped her afterwards, even though not pressing charges. ( I have had a girls joke about inebriation sex being chargeable date rape if I pissed them off later. Ha ha.)
The practical upshot of the current common jury instructions that any “no” means automatic rape unless it’s changed to yes before the act begins (even without that later qualification often) is that no man should ever admit if charged with rape that she said no. Unless that is he feels guilty that he really did intend to rape her and did so, and therefore that he should be convicted. If it was a no that really meant yes or maybe in his mind he should simply never admit it in the current feminist legal climate, because he won’t get a fair jury instruction that will admit of the different kinds of nos, and that some of them do mean yes.
By “some” I don’t mean just a few of them. For sexually dominant kinds of guys a whole lot of nos mean yes. And are confirmed as meaning yes the next day as well. (Esp. if he isn’t a douche to her the next day which is something else I recommend. But e.g. those Hofstra U guys weren’t douche’s the next day to their false gangbang rape accuser. Instead she ran into her previously clueless boyfriend in a hallway or stairwell of the same dorm looking freshly f*cked, and so made up her story on the spot.)
So in essence what you’re advocating Thursday is that a lot of edgie consensual sex can be changed as rape if the girl later gets pissed. And further that it can be even if she doesn’t lie about it.
Because you want the jury to get an instruction that no always means no. Even when it often doesn’t. Even when in fact it’s very easy for a girl to make clear that she really means no.
You’re telling guys that they should routinely lie. It’s simply too dangerous to tell the truth: that she said no, you really shouldn’t. This isn’t right it/s too soon. *moan* “no, don’t* *moan, returns kisses*. “Please stop, or I won’t be able to resist” *moan, more deep kissing returned*. Then *moan* and sex, without further nos.
Under feminist jury instructions, if the jury follows them to the letter, that could often get a conviction.
Not with me as one person on that jury it couldn’t. But technically it often could.
So guys should lie.
Again, you ignore the absolutely incredible ease by which a man can avoid such convictions, by not having sex with a woman who says no. There is a clear line. Don’t cross it.
Again, you ignore the fact that there is clearly fault on the man’s part, a no could actually mean no, but he goes ahead anyway. Again, willful blindness and recklessness have long been recognized as enough mens rea.
Thursday,
What plan do you have for the possibility that the WOMAN can lie?
We saw this in the Duke Lacrosse case, in the Hofstra case, in the accusations against Kobe Bryant, Ben Roethlisberger, Tucker Carlson, etc.
What is your plan to shield against this?
The argument that we shouldn’t have no means no as the standard because it means people won’t be able to have edgy consensual no means yes sex anymore is beyond retarded.
What plan do you have for the possibility that the WOMAN can lie?
As I have explained to Doug, that has to do with the law of evidence not what constitutes the crime itself.
Then why are due-process standards being lowered in rape accusations, with many men being ruined through no fault of their own.
You can’t honestly say the Duke Lacrosse thing wasn’t very nearly a horrendous injustice..
Doug1:
By analogy, would you extend the same definition to robbery? (I.e. if you get robbed, it would be considered a voluntary gift to the robber unless you tried physically resisting him.) If not, why not?
Do you have any citations for that? And what exactly (according to you) was the definition of “actual resistance” and the standard of evidence for it?
I just looked up Joseph Chitty’s classic handbook of Anglo-Saxon criminal law (you can find the 1826 edition on Google Books), and mentions that it is enough to show that the victim was “influenced by fear of her ravisher.” He mentions “[t]he state and appearance of the prosecution, marks of violence upon her person, and the torn and disordered state of her dress recently after the transaction” as just one category of admissible evidence, not as the required standard of evidence. This doesn’t seem to support your claims.
Thursday–
As I explained to you, the two cannot be neatly and cleanly separated in the case of rape.
Especially in a climate in which feminist are really working hard to change the definition of rape to a female sense that “he did me wrong”.even when that occurs after the fact. At Oberlin college it was even proposed that a woman should have to put he request in writing for a man to not be guilty of rape if she later reported that he seduced her and that she didn’t “really” want to.
No YOU haven’t caught on.
Your arrogance is breathtaking.
Did you go to a top five law school and make law review there?
It requires a very contrived or anyway unusual set of hypothetical facts for a robbery to in fact seem to the robber to be a consensual act. So of course there shouldn’t be a usual presumption of resistance as being necessary to demonstrate lack of consent.
As I previously indicated, stranger rape is different from acquitance rape in that it allows for no or virtually no possibility that the act was consensual.
As I also previously indicated, even in acquitance rape cases, if the woman makes her no unambigous, so that no reasonable man could believe she really meant yes, then that’s enough. A shouted no after a quiet one doesn’t work is enough.
However contra today’s campus and radical feminists, a moaned no should not mean she meant no as a matter of law in the jury instructions.
Doug1:
Nobody here is disputing that these feminists are deranged, but as a fan of traditional Anglo-Saxon law, you should know that until not so long ago, an act of non-coercive seduction could incur a civil liability under common law, and even criminal liability in many jurisdictions.
Also, nobody here is disputing that the standard of evidence for rape should be as high as in other criminal matters. Of course that a he-said-she-said situation should imply a reasonable doubt and a not guilty verdict. But you’re not arguing against ideologically imposed lax standard of evidence and procedural obstacles to defense that lead to convictions of innocent people; you’re arguing that there should be no criminal liability even if the fact that non-consent was explicitly voiced is not disputed. That’s where you get into a silly mirror image of the feminist position.
It’s a simple matter of common sense that women shouldn’t get themselves in situations where they might be raped without any way to prove it — just like anyone is well advised to stay out of dark alleys in sketchy neighborhoods to avoid getting mugged — and the feminist attempts to eliminate the presumption of innocence for men to grant women the freedom to do so are sheer lunacy. But it’s also a matter of common sense that if there is sufficient proof of non-consent, there is also criminal liability, as in any other area of criminal law. If you want to be a player, then make sure you’re good enough that chicks openly throw themselves at you; don’t hammer on marginal cases.
It’s the furthest thing from retarded for people who do have edgie sex.
The essence is: “was it consensual (at the time) or not”?
That and having reasonable standards of elements of the crime and evidence that uphold the principle that the criminally charged are 1) innocent until proven guilty and 2) cannot be rightfully convicted under American criminal law unless the evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that they are in fact guilty of the crime. (And not just guilty of being an asshole afterwards, or of getting more sex than those on the jury.)
Doug1 is right.
And the way this ‘false-rape’ industry is expanding and corrupting the whole concept of due process, it truly does have society-destroying potential.
Few things could reduce quality of life in America, for men AND women, than if this cancer metastatizes.
Vlad–
You have found, or feminists have and you found what they’re point to, a very early effort by a progressive to move the law in the direction it’s gone since. Note that there’s no standard that simply saying no is enough. He’s trying to soften the resistance standard. By enlarging the exceptions to require it from being actually injured, to fearing injury.
At that time and for well over a hundred years since (I believe about 150 years since) the woman had to have some credible reason to fear her ravisher would actually harm her, and that had to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt. In practice that meant more than that he was bigger and could do so, but that she could show he had threatened to harm her by at the least detailed testimony that held up under cross examination.
That’s only recently changed in fact.
The most important things that have changed are however the feminist effort to change the atmosphere and set of presumptions to one where if the woman doesn’t explicitly say “yes, please have sex with me”, then it must be presumed to actually have been rape if she subsequently says it was.
In other words, feminists are making a full court press to making all seduction rape.
That is any time a woman does one thing in the emotional heat of the moment or after a couple of drinks that she decided voluntarily to have, that she later regrets, it’s rape or presumed rape and the burden is on the man to prove it wasn’t. Remember we are talking about ruinous rape charges that ruin any non sketchy man for life, in addition to the long jail time. Often very long.
Vladimir
Wrong.
If the woman made her non consent, which is to say her objection to proceeding with intercourse clear to any reasonable man, then that’s enough to convict. Either her objection or her clear and unambiguous inability to object, by being e.g. passed out or utterly incoherent.
I said way above that I wouldn’t necessarily require a woman to strongly physically resist, particularly after she has real reason to fear if she does resist. Yelling no after softly saying no didn’t produce the desired result should be enough even in acquaintance rape cases.
What I’m primarily objecting to, as I’ve said many times, is the feminist effort to get into jury instructions through provisions in the law where they can or otherwise where they haven’t yet, a mechanical requirement that any no automatically convey’s non consent.
The real fact of human sexuality is that it doesn’t. It OFTEN doesn’t.
Further I hardly think it’s too much to ask of a woman who wants to press rape charges that she at least yell no in a clear and unambigous way, rather than moaning no, while she lets him undress her with no resistance whatsoever, and even returns his deep kisses.
So in summary:
To the feminist mantra, and efforts to get into law and jury instructions, that “no means no”
I say: No. No often doesn’t mean no. No often means, no unless you seduce me even more, overwhelm me more.
No DOES mean no though when it’s conveyed unambiguously to a reasonable man in a similar situation. E.g. a yelled no means no. A spoken no combined with hard shoving or trying to shove the guy away from her means no.
A moaned no and unresisted kisses, caresses and other advances does not unambiguously mean no. No it does. Not guilty. (Not close to guilty. Hot sex.)
You’re off topic.
No it isn’t. It is about the topic of women using the false-rape accusation in destructive ways without consequences.
So answer the question. Why are you not bothered with the large uptick in FALSE accusations by women, that ruin the lives of innocent men? Why are judicial due-process standards being lowered?
Actually, on closer inspection, it seems like I misquoted Chitty above. His comment on “fear of her ravisher†refers to the issue of when the woman’s failure to report the crime speedily shouldn’t count as evidence against the accusation, not the definition of the crime itself. I was reading the section a bit carelessly. It is however true that Chitty mentions the evidence of physical struggle as not essential. I’m just browsing through a few other 19th century law books that deal with this issue, and it seems you’re right to some extent about the requirement of physical resistance, though it seems like this was a highly controversial question even back then. I’ll have to take a closer look at this later when I have more time.
Further I hardly think it’s too much to ask of a woman who wants to press rape charges that she at least yell no in a clear and unambigous way, rather than moaning no, while she lets him undress her with no resistance whatsoever, and even returns his deep kisses.
I hardly think it too much for a man to not have sex with a woman when she has said no.
As Vlad has noted, you should not be having sex with someone when consent is ambiguous. And when she says no, it’s ambiguous.
The Big Penis Boss!
Hey, I remember that discussion!
http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/09/neverending-game.html
Vladamir; Thursday; Tood–
I think we all agree that the basic requirement for the crime of rape should be that the sex be non consensual, and that the woman communicate that non consent in an unambigous way to the accused. That is a way that’s not ambiguous to a reasonable man in a similar situation.
Thurday, what you alone seem to be saying is that for you any kind of voiced “no”, even if it’s moaned quietly only once, is enough to make the sex act ipso facto rape. Correct me if you’re saying something different, but that seems to be it.
I think that’s a grave injustice. What your standard will in fact do is enable women to get rape convictions at their option in a large percentage of first time sex cases, if the man tells the truth. That’s because in a substantial percentage of first time sex cases a woman does start out saying “no” or similar, such as “we shouldn’t” or “please Doug, not yet” or “it’s too soon”, which statements she never explicitly withdraws. She does by her actions though, and by her never escalating the “nos” or “quasi-nos”.
I think we all also agree that actual physical resistance isn’t always necessary to unambiguously communicate non consent, especially when a woman reasonably fears she will be injured (and still not escape rape) if she does resist. Yelling no is enough for example, if quietly saying it doesn’t get him to stop.
I’ve got to say though, how serious is this rape thing to the woman in question if a woman isn’t willing to risk even minor injury such as a black eye to try to dissuade a man from rape in part because she really does seriously mean no and isn’t going to be changing her mind. We’re talking years of jail time and an utterly ruined work and social reputation for the man and she’s not even willing to riks a black eye to communicate unambiguously to him. I submit to you what’s really going on her with feminists is that many women are themselves ambiguous in their feelings about their “no” even in the stronger no cases, and that feminists want all these ambiguous cases resolved against the man, and against female submission to dominant men. I.e. they want to end run the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, by making it about the utterance of a “no” rather than communicating non consent beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether you consider it gentlemanly or Christian or not to have sex when a woman’s consent is ambiguous, it’s clearly not the crime of rape, nor has it ever been.
Consent is often ambiguous in first time seductions, at least until the very last moment.
So for you then Thursday a moaned “no” or “we shouldn’t,not yet” followed by further returned deep kisses from her, followed by no further nos as you proceed to finish undressing her, means that if you penetrate her and she still doesn’t say no again, it’s rape?
The felony of rape, that can often bring a 20 year jail term?
For you Thursday it’s too much to require that she at least yell “no, I really mean no” or similar? To much if she want to be able to get a rape conviction of him.
I have said before that I don’t care about perfect fairness. Clear, easy to follow standards are more important than trying to get the balance exactly right.
There is no gross injustice when there is a clear, eminently followable standard and someone violates it. The action that will lead to the penalty is known. If someone is stupid enough to committ the action, I care nothing whether he finds the legal consequences unpleasant.
Vladamir
Date rape accusations don’t necessarily involve marginal male attractiveness. They more often involve girls taht don’t want to get a slut reputation. I.e. real sluts who are out and proud rarely make such false accusations I think. Note that a guy doesn’t by any means always know that the girl is trying to protect a good girl rep.
Thurday–
Yes there is. You’re going along with the feminsit effort to end run the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for proving non consent (or the incapacity to communicate non consent).
By your mechanical “any utterance of no, even a moaned no, is ipso facto rape” would make a substantial portion of first time sex rape at the subsequent option of the woman, if the man pissed her off.
In fact, women might be well advised to always moan no, especially with any particularly alpha guy who might not stick around after. That way she’d have ready blackmail material at hand, at her option.
Thursday–
Wrong. IT’s much more important to be fair.
The essence of rape is that it’s non consensual intercourse. Not that it’s sex after a moaned no, followed by more passionate kissing.
To make that later rape would be a travesty of justice. It shocks any reasonable conscience.
It especially does when you know much about seduction.
Again you ignore how insanely easy it is for a man to comply with the standard.
Thursday–
Where did he say that?
It certainly doesn’t sound at all consistent with the tenor of Vlad’s argument here that a man should be able to be convicted of rape when where or not she consented to the sex was ambiguous.
It’s so easy for women to make their non consent non ambiguous Thursday.
Just yell “No. No means no. I mean it. No.”
that’s unambiguous as hell.
How hard is that?
Order and predictability are more important than perfect fairness.
Again you completely ignore how at odds your standard is with when a woman actually means that the sex is non consensual and continues to be so when it actually goes to intercourse.
For a substantial number of women, initial resistance including starting by saying no, is a kind of foreplay that make the sex hotter.
Feminists don’t really want to end that kind of sex. Instead what they’re fine with is giving women the weapon against men of claiming rape after the fact if the hot man in question pisses them off. Certainly be being a jerk after sex or the next day. But maybe even by not pursing a relationship.
Many feminists even say this explicitly. Feminstx on her blog says for example that she’s fine with women being able to charage rape and make it stick if a guy isn’t nice to his “conquest” the next morning. She counsels taking her out for breakfast as a general rule. (Not a bad rule of thumb actually.) Then says she doesn’t have much sympathy for men who don’t do that and thus get charged and convicted of rape as a consequence. That’s an obscene transfer of blackmail power to women Thursday. That you’re in effect condoning.
You completely ignore how easy it is for a woman to make her non consent to sex unambiguous by yell no, and I mean no, if a soft or moaned no doesn’t do the trick.
It’s so easy for women to make their non consent non ambiguous Thursday.
And it’s so easy for you to not have sex with them then.
Again and again you keep avoiding how trivially easy it is for you or any man to avoid getting caught by this standard.
My proposed standards for what constitutes communicating that the sex is non consensual has just as much order and predictability and vastly more fairness.
Perfect fairness in all real world applications isn’t possible and I don’t think it is. An effort at fairness is essential to any system of actual justice.
Further the American legal system has always required proof beyond a reasonable doubt for felony criminal convictions. No end run around that requirement by establishing a “bright line rule” that doesn’t reflect actual sexual practice and whether or not non consent was communicated is in keeping with that tradition.
Despite feminist hysteria about alleged but in fact actually heavily manufactured and misrepresented date rape.
It’s also trivially easy to not get caught having oral sex=sodomy.
Trivially easy to someone who doesn’t really like that kind of sex and doesn’t feel strong sexual urges.
Yet maintaining the illegality of that common consensual sexual practice was thrown out as an unconstitutional violation of privacy by the Supreme Court.
The word “no” is a communication of the woman’s intent. It’s not some magical utterance that has power on it’s own. A no followed by a yes for example is no longer a no. A no followed by a moaned no and then no further nos, despite a slow build up to sex is no way, no how, still a communication of the woman’s intent that having sex is still non consensual.
Therefore that kind of no even if uncontested or documented by a tape recorder does not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt of her non consent to the sex act.
Again you ignore how insanely easy it is for a man to comply with the standard
…and end up with women way below his station.
Women don’t want to seem like they’re easy…unless they’re desperate.
Thursday: Let’s keep it simple.
According to the understanding of what you’re saying: This is being remarkably shortsighted, for an absolutely legally enforceable utterance by a female of ‘no’ means ‘no’. That action is a step up in enabling and creating a division and separation between the genders, of creating legal rules that subvert their roles. His job is to push, her job is to reject. That is how it has always been. Women are very good at rejecting, as most of you know. She doesn’t leave a man confused.
No, it is not easy for man to comply with the legal non-intuitive legal standard. What normal, non disillusioned male reads the small print in the law about what constitutes rape? What is easier is that by being a gentleman and an empathic human being, you understand what the human being in front of you is actually saying and feeling, beyond the words.
If you did not actually rape her, you as a non disillusioned American male will think ‘the law is by my side’. Then, someone plays a videotape or audiotape in which she says ‘no’ and the context matters ZERO — in fact, you might even say she did yourself and not realise without the coaching of your lawyer that the context mattered ZERO — and you think ‘I’ve lost my life because I didn’t recognise that this woman who I slept with would have no moral quibbles about ruining me because of reasons unrelated directly to ME but to her own private regrets or anger at something UNRELATED.’
Under a stupid law like this, I would’ve been easily able to get my ex under a rape conviction and I can tell you I was unreasonably angry at him enough to DO IT for MY OWN FAILURE. I would have and he did not really do anything to deserve it. It was mostly, invariably MY OWN FAILURE. Because the ‘no’ was not properly enforced or communicated. And I can tell you he would’ve not known about some law that dictated to individuals actions against their own common sense.
In most sexual exchanges (the world is not filled with fictional alphas who automatically attract women begging them for their favours), a man pushes and it is the woman’s job to reject. How many men would this place under a woman: her power of blackmail and life ruination?
How much would this further deepen the divide between genders and distrust between them?
Eh, pedantry, ex = not rape as in no penetration. But there were ‘no’s but in the end they weren’t clear ‘no’s.
Trivially easy to someone who doesn’t really like that kind of sex and doesn’t feel strong sexual urges
So, at last we come down to it. You can’t just have regular sex. You just have to have “she said no” first sex. You’d be so deprived without it. What a joke.
Doug, you’re flipping and flopping about this. First, fairness is so much more important. Then, well, it’s not possible. So, you’re standard has to be clearer.
Basically, you’ve got a result that you want and you’re willing to use any argument to get there. You’re a joke.
No. You’re being retarded.
What I said was that an effort to be fair was essential to any system of actual justice, but that perfect fairness in every case of actual application was impossible. It should be the goal but it can’t be perfectly reached.
Your stubborn refusal to recognize the huge, non trivial unfairness of making any kind of no, even a moaned no followed by no further nos for quite awhile before sex, ispso act de jure communication of non consent is what’s a joke. It’s an utter joke.
Bhetti was right on. Unsurprisingly.
Further you fail to understand how many women start by saying no or similar such as “we shouldn’t” in a first time seduction. It might even be the majority of relative (not to mention very) good girls who do.
There isn’t a single other non feminist on this thread that I’ve seen agree with you on the central point of our argument. That is that any and all kinds of nos, no matter what the context and what happens last before the sex, always means communicated non consent and thus rape. Even when it’s a moaned no followed by more deep kissing and silence except for moans some time before penetration.
Thursday this is not remotely a trivial issue. Moaned nos meaning eventual yeses are going to occur in a lot of sex. By your agreeing with radical feminist that that makes the sex act ipso facto rape, is to give women in a substantial percentage of the cases of first time sex, the option of rape or rape blackmail if the guy doesn’t sufficiently please them after the fact, or they simply regret the act for reasons independent of him.
That’s not trivially unfair in a tiny number of cases. That’s deeply unfiar in a large number of cases. Yes it’s true that most women won’t then charge rape. But they’ll be able to and be able to threaten to. More transfer of power to women by agreeing to feminists outrageous legal changes, in this case, in accordance with radical feminist notions of what constitutes rape and who has what incredibly one sided burden.
I cannot fathom why Thursday would take the position he has taken (if his position can even be summarized at all).
When a woman wisely sees the unfairness of such a situation and a man is excusing it/dancing around it, that is something.
Again, it is incomprehensible that any straight man would not be appalled by the ease at which a woman can toss a man in jail for 10 years, based on a lie, with judicial due process standards being lowered.
Why on Earth would any man want to dismiss this problem, despite all the high-profile cases of false rape that have happened in just the last 3 years?
because the beta man in question, like feminists, viscerally hates anything that could remotely be called pump and dump, and sees expanded definitions of rape as a way of punishing bad boy alphas when they act badly. Even when it’s not rape but dumping too quickly or without enough kindness.
Of course feminists have no problem whatsoever with female pump and dump, and will brook no remedy for it whatsoever.
It doesn’t concern feminists nor many socons that there is huge collateral damage from the expanded rape definitions, that suck in guiys who didn’t behave badly, just because the girl in question decided she didn’t want to be a lose playgirl afterall, the next morning. Or anyway had that feeling at the moment her mother convinced her to file false rape charges (see the Kobe Bryant case).
Note I don’t believe in harsh pump and dump either. Never did. Not close actually.
Neither really do most PUA’s it seems to me, or anyway not the harsh kind of dump for girls that haven’t been nasty themselves. Roissy doesn’t. It’s a bragaddocio claim mainly, to compete for some regained male primacy, against the feminist onslaught, or primacy for some kinds of guys anyway. When you get to cases most PUAs want to keep fun girls on. Not commit exclusively to them no, but not dump them while they’re still being fun either. Not be cruel just because they can either. That’s not a good or effective kind of “asshole game”.
Most PUAs actually try to let girls down easily, or anyway the ones who write about it do when they get down to talking turkey and not just hive fiving their competitors and buddies.
Why on Earth would any man want to dismiss this problem, despite all the high-profile cases of false rape that have happened in just the last 3 years?
The White Knight Returns
I think it goes beyond the ‘white knight’ syndrome.
I mean, no man in their right mind could look at the Duke Lacrosse episode and not be appalled. I am a person of color, but I am a MAN first and foremost.
I checked out a few more references in the 19th century law books helpfully provided by Google, and I must admit that the standard for determining non-consent was indeed much higher than I thought. Throughout the old literature, I see the assumption that women have the incentive to falsely claim rape in cases of consensual fornication or adultery to preserve their reputation and escape the consequences of their behavior, so that the claim of lack of consent should be scrutinized heavily. I agree that this assumption is valid in many cases, as evidenced by the recent Hofstra case, and it’s disastrously unjust that this argument has become taboo due to feminist influence. (That said, it should be recognized that this incentive was far stronger in the past when fornication and adultery had much more severe consequences, and the argument has lost some of its power because of that.)
This whole issue has got me thinking about other areas of criminal law where the boundary at which someone’s behavior constitutes threats and duress can also be very fuzzy. For example, I would guess that it’s legal to approach someone in the street and ask for money in a polite and deferential way; yet, it’s unclear to me at which point lack of politeness and other circumstances would signify enough implied threats to legally constitute an attempted mugging. I should probably study how criminal law handles such cases in less ideologically charged categories of crimes before discussing the issue of rape.
In any case, this is another area where the degeneracy of the modern sexual mores is brightly visible. Without strictly defined and time-honored social norms for interactions between the sexes that make the signaling implications of both men’s and women’s behavior clear in every situation, there are bound to be pathological situations like gray area rapes. The idea that vague and contradictory liberal principles can provide reliable guidance here is completely delusional.
By the way, can you provide a link to an example of these jury instructions that you decry? I’ve never seen the actual text of any such instructions, and I can’t find it googling around either, even though I saw many articles on men’s rights websites describing them in outrageous terms (but without direct quotations). The only examples of actual instructions that came up looked quite reasonable.
Sexual consent is a private agreement between two or more parties and this agreement may be either clearly expressed or implied.
The problem here is, as a third party, how do you determine the nature of this agreement when there is no independent corroborating evidence with regard to agreement.
Step outside the sexual context for a moment and consider this: Two parties make a verbal contract with no other witnesses present, one of the parties is injured by the non-compliance of the the other party with regard to the terms of the contract and seeks redress through the court for damages. Whom does the court believe without any corroborating evidence for the verbal contract? In the absence of some corroborating feature the case is thrown out as it is indeterminate.
Anglo- Saxon Jurisprudence, common sense and intuitive justice have all taken the view that when it comes to he says she says claims, without any corroborating evidence, the issue is indeterminable. This does not mean that an injury has not been done, rather the courts cannot in fairness make a just judgment.
Most rape cases are two party affairs without any other witnesses present, and therefore the courts cannot in justice make a just determination in the absence of any corroborating evidence to which supports one of the parties claims.
What the feminists (and you too Thursday) are insisting on, is the presumption of truthfulness with regard to the woman in issues regarding sexual assault.
Now we do know that approximately 25% of rape claims are false what you are insisting on is that the courts assumes that all female claims of rape are true when there is no other corroborating evidence.
Let’s see how this plays out. Nice man believes that when a woman says no it means no. He sees a nice girl asks her for sex. She says yes and they have sex. She then, for whatever reason, goes to the police and says that the man raped her. He followed your “simple” rules Thursday, and is going to get screwed by the court. Now if you don’t have a problem with this situation, you have a problem.
In the absence of corroborating evidence, private dis/agreements are not in justice, empirically verifiable by the judiciary. What you are proposing is that a claim claim of rape is its proof.
The problem here is, as you rightly point out, is just how easy it is to rape a girl and get away with it. I’m afraid that the only way out of this conundrum is for a woman to take due care and not put her self in a he said/she said situation, and if she does, she accepts the risk.
Tupac,
Very well put points, but I must respectfully disagree, and here I cite the Manual on Game, known simply as “The Game”:
It’s called Managing Expectations, something virtually 100% of Men outside of the Game community, and a goodly portion of those inside it, fail to do, mainly out of fear that they won’t get any nookie once he informs girlie that he’s only interested in sex. Now, I’d been doing that for at least a decade prior to coming accross The Game, and yup, as you’ve noted above, I got quite a few “No, Thank Yous”-but you’d be surprised by how many “Yes’!” I got, too. In fact, *I* was surprised by it.
In truth, quite a few Women out there aren’t in a space in their life to devote to a relationship, and would just like a more casual thing, again, its just a matter of social conditioning and the like that inhibits more Women being brutally blunt about it in the way we guys can be. But it’s there, lemme tell ya.
As for dumpster diving? Obsidian? Picture that.
Again, I say: when you got Game, you need not be desperate, if anything, you’re looking for reasons to say “next”, and actually, that will attract more Women to you than anything else, provided you got yourself together, of course. But that is highly dependent on strong Inner Game, which, sad to say, not many of us have or are willing to put in the work to cultivate, from all I’ve observed in the Roissysphere.
But that’s another post for another day.
The Obsidian
Doug1 & Thursday,
Thought I might respond directly to you gents; first up, Thursday’s comments:
“Obsidian is operating in the black community which has a skewed sex ratio. Any intelligent guy with some game (Obsidian seems to have both intelligence and game) can be a super alpha in those circumstances , even if not in general society. He can probably get more or less exactly the girl he wants and still be able to set his own conditions.”
O: Thursday is correct.
Doug’s comments:
” It is skewed but not as extremely as you’re suggesting I don’t think from what I’ve seen and gleaned. Status still matters in getting really really hot black girls and esp. in keeping them. Earlier on when posting at Roissy’s before O got into his more recent (last six months or so) full throated peacocking, fronting mode, he said numerous things about BAPs (Black American princesses) that implied many of them wouldn’t have a working class guy like him. Or anyway wouldn’t keep with them. Which he said lead many of them to being unhappy and alone much of their lives – very unhappy as they got older.”
O: What Doug is saying here is also true-in broad strokes. While it is true that I’ve been shotdown by BAPs in my distant past, we have to keep in mind that I was much younger and hence, a heck of a lot more inexperienced than I am today.
Moreover, w/a few exceptions, virtually all of the ladies in my life have come from two-parent, if not suburban homes and a BA or higher, from either a big state school or an Ivy. Brown Sugah is in the latter catergory, charted IQ of 140. What helped me immensely was the intervention of many Black Male Mentors, from all walks of life, who taught me not to accept the limitations of society-and that just because I had a Blue Collar job didn’t mean that I had a Blue Collar Mind. The reason, above all others, for my success, was because of my refusal to accept limitations and my challenging a lot of ladies’ assumptions. Among other things.
Btw, I should say that the same thing applies to White Women. Mystery doesn’t hold collegiate degrees.
I do indeed happen to know quite a few BAPs who are quite miserable. They brought it on themselves, for refusing to be flexible about what’s out there for them. *shrugs* For the Sistas who can see the Matrix, they wind up being the fortunate recipiant of my company. I haven’t had any complaints yet.
The Obsidian
Keep in mind that the feminist lawyers are not done with rape law yet.
The latest movement in feminist rape legal theory involves scrapping the current standard, where the state must demonstrate a lack of consent, in favor of a standard which would presume a lack of consent unless consent is affirmatively proven by the defense. In other words, it would (unconstitutionally, I might add) shift the burden of proof in rape cases from the state to the defendant, such that once a rape is alleged by a woman, it is presumed to be a rape unless the defendant can prove that the woman consented.
The feminists claim that this change is needed because the current system is slanted towards men in that is has the baseline assumption that sex is consensual unless proven otherwise. They say that it should be the reverse: sex is not consensual unless proven otherwise.
In reality, what they are trying to do (and what some younger feminists like Valenti have basically admitted) is shift the balance of “power” around sex, and sexual initiation and so on, away from men. The goal is to destroy the predominant male pursuer/seducer/initiator dynamic and replace it with a new, female-led sexual dynamic –> in other words, to make it the social norm that sex is something that is initiated by women, and solely on women’s terms. The idea is to create a chilling effect around male pursuit and seduction, by means of the rape law, so that sexuality itself is changed to be more gynocentric.
Watch for this in the years ahead. The slogan is more or less “let’s move beyond ‘no means no’ to a world of ‘yes means yes’”. It sounds harmless, but in reality it would give women the right to put men in prison at will, and eventually shift the entire sexual landscape to a female dominated one — something that most women probably do not want, but it wouldn’t be the first time that feminists pushed for changes that most women do not want.
What the feminists (and you too Thursday) are insisting on, is the presumption of truthfulness with regard to the woman in issues regarding sexual assault.
No, you’re paying too much attention to Doug’s squid ink. The prosecution would still have to prove that she actually said no beyond a reasonable doubt. Corroboration etc. is a matter for the law of evidence, not what constitutes the crime itself.
Stop listening to Doug’s obfuscation and read what I wrote.
Thursday–
Stop being in love with your own rhetoric on the subject.
Apart from feminist rhetoric the legal standard is centered around communicating that the sex is non consensual, so long as the woman is capable of communicating.
A clear and unambiguous no said sharply and harshly does communicate that. A moaned no does not. A moaned no communicates that she is definitely getting there, that inhibition is dissolving. If that’s followed by a period of saying nothing, no more nos, much less any shouted ones, she is clearly communicating that her resistance is over, and that she’s willing.
The reality is many women love to be seduced past initial resistance. It’s the stuff of innumerable romance novels. Hell it’s the stuff of innumerable hot and steamy movie scenes.
It’s very easy for a woman to communicate that she means no unambiguously if she does. She can shout now. She can say “no means no”. I serious. Stop.” Or how about “this is rape”. If you don’t stop right now it’s rape.
Every single non feminist commenter on this thread agrees that a moaned no followed by giving in to further sexual advances doesn’t mean it’s still not and does in fact mean consent – in the form of surrender.
Hot.
Few ideas would have more society=destroying potential.
But I doubt they could get that far with the law. That won’t stop them from trying.
Corroboration etc. is a matter for the law of evidence, not what constitutes the crime itself.
No one, not even Doug, is arguing that forced non-consensual sex is not rape. The problem isn’t the definition of rape, the problem is the legal process which aims to determine the truth of the matter.
Now until recently:
1) A man was presumed innocent till proven guilty.
2) A woman’s word, on its own, was not enough to convict a man. (A position which the feminists are trying to overturn.)
As a counsel of prudence your statement:
I see you don’t even address the incredible ease with which men can avoid conviction, by not having sex with a woman after she has said no.
offers no protection if the legal system is rigged against you. It is not “incredibly easy” to defend yourself against a rape charge when the court assumes de-facto that a woman’s version of events is “more truthful” than yours. The burden of proof then shifts onto the accused, and in situations where there is other supporting evidence, the man is dead in the water. Stopping, when a girl says no, offers no protection in this environment. This isn’t my opinion Thursday, it’s logic. Your “incredibly easy” advice is rendered useless by a prejudiced legal system.
Doug is not arguing about the nature of rape, he is arguing against how the courts determine that an act was an act of rape. I don’t think Doug has any problems with putting rapists in jail. I think his problem is “how do we determine it was rape?”. Regretted consensual sex is not rape. I agree with him.
And can we lift the level of argument here beyond of what goes on at Feminist websites. Firstly, in the real world, consent is determined by expression and action. No does not always mean no. In the real world consent is frequently not verbally explicitly expressed but inferred by action. Should we assume that unless a woman expressly consents to sex in word, the man is guilty of rape? Real world here people.
Secondly; there is quite a body of evidence showing that many women get turned on by degrees of masculine dominance in sex. Some women put up a token fight and want to be “taken or ravished”. The “ravishing” is what turns them on.
Thirdly; a lot of sex occurs with alcohol as a contributing factor. This obviously affects consensual issues.
The point here is that consent is a complex issue, and reductionist “rules’ are going to lead injustices. But with that in mind I’m going to propose a few.
1) Grown ups are responsible for their actions.
2) A person has a duty of care to themselves. Failure to show sufficient duty of care to oneself means that one is at least partially responsible for the consequences of that omission.
3) Alcohol and drug consumption are voluntary activities which diminish judgment. One is responsible for their actions taken when drunk.
4)Regret does not abrogate consent.
5)The language of sex is both physical and verbal, non-consent must be expressed in both ways to the degree which it is prudent.
6) Claims must be backed up with evidence.
Order and predictability are more important than perfect fairness.
What sort of statement is that? When did you shift to the Left? Social order is predicated on justice, a social order devoid of justice is tyranny.
I’m sorry, but you don’t seem to have a clue what is being said here. Corroboration, credibility of witnesses etc. are all matters for the law of evidence. Such matters are all separate from the elements that make up an offense.
It is not “incredibly easy†to defend yourself against a rape charge when the court assumes de-facto that a woman’s version of events is “more truthful†than yours.
I never said that a woman’s version of events should automatically be accepted. Again, though, this is a matter for witness credibility, corroboration etc.
Doug is not arguing about the nature of rape, he is arguing against how the courts determine that an act was an act of rape.
My arguments are about what the elements should constitute the offense of rape, even when all the facts are agreed on.
What sort of statement is that?
A Hobbesian one. The old man had a lot of wisdom.
When did you shift to the Left?
You’ve lost me. The left is the party of order?
Anyway, I never said fairness was unimportant, just that order is more important, which seems a pretty conservative thing to say.
Some women put up a token fight and want to be “taken or ravishedâ€. The “ravishing†is what turns them on.
Interesting that you biring up the words “token fight”. I was thinking about this last night and I have to say that Doug’s standards, such as the woman physically resisting, aren’t quite the definitive proof of lack of consent they are said to be either. A lot of women are turned on by being physically overpowered.
My standard Thursday is that a woman communicate her non consent to her date or acquaintance in a manner that would be unambiguous and clear to any reasonable man in that situation.
There are many ways of doing so. It isn’t hard to do when she herself is or becomes clear about it.
Yes it’s true that some women do like to fight back and have that resistance be overcome. However in the real world she will be sending out signals that she’s at least ambivalent about really wanting him to stop. If the guy in question isn’t reading her signals right, she can easily shift to yeling at him. E.g. “Stop. I really mean it. Stop. No more. This is to much too soon. No means no.” That’s plenty unambiguous and I’d convict the guy of rape if I was sure beyond a reasonable doubt that that’s how it really went down. But her word alone without corroborating facts wouldn’t be enough.
Remember we’re talking date rape. In the case of stranger rape accusations, e.g. ambush rape etc., if DNA evidence clearly show the accused did have sex with her, then the plausibility of her having consented when she never flirted with the guy or went on a date with him is very remote. At least it usually would be. I’d still want her to unambiguous show her non consent, but I’d be inclined to believe her story with less corroborating evidence. Or put differently, evidence that the sex act occurred in a place and under circumstances that make mutual consent flirting and early stages of sexual progress seem highly unlikely would be corroborating evidence. (I could still easily come up with a scenario in which she actually invited stranger sex, perhaps fulfilling a bf’s fantasy or her own, and then both deeply regretted it and told herself that the stranger who’d respond must be a menace who should be jailed, hence the rape accusation. The least probable part of that scenario is actually that she go through and file rape changes, but it’s become more probable as feminists expand their notion of what’s rape and get it more and more out there to college students and in the media. Esp. college though.
What’s really going on is that a lot of sex occurs under circumstances which are somewhat ambiguous. They’re ambiguous because the woman’s hindbrain has in fact been sufficiently attracted that she really wants sex, but her forebrain (superego) is telling her that she really shouldn’t. Not yet anyway.
That of course is the whole seduction dance right there.
If a woman clearly resolves that she doesn’t want sex with that man at that time, it’s very easy to communicate that to him – or to any reasonable man anyway. When she doesn’t she either wants it or is conflicted. (If the man unreasonably doesn’t get it, and that’s clear beyond a reasonable doubt, then he’s guilty of rape.)
Conflicted is not enough to convict a man of a deeply shameful felony and send him to jail for 10 or 20 years. Particularly when conflicted is how nearly all seduction occurs, particularly the hottest seductions. As per not just game but novels and movies and history, etc.
Where “even Doug” is coming from is simple.
Men should not be convicted of rape for 1) edgie sex; 2) quick seductions even if the girl was a little tipsy; 3) being an asshole right afterwards or the next day (which has never been my style at all); 4) the woman’s ambivalence about her consenting or even letting it happen; 5) the girl’s next day regrets, internally generated; 6) the girl’s next day or following days regrets, generated by discovery by her bf, girlfriends, social circle, parents, etc.; 7) the feminist push to make any conceivably objectionable male sexual behavior rape, at the option of the woman, in order to effect a further HUGE transfer of power over to women. In fact a terrorizing power.
Rape has traditionally meant forced sex in most cultures. No a woman shouldn’t have to risk her life for it to be forced. But I think she should have to put up some resistance unless doing so was foolhardy. That was the traditional Anglo Saxon common law standard for hundreds of years as I told Vladamir, and after he initially objected, his own researches have told he was indeed the case. Until the last few decades really, when feminists have wedged in or partly wedged in “non consensual” as the standard. However, non consensual has really meant “unambiguously objected to” sex. The way the law got there was to buy the largely bullshiite argument that resistance was dangerous. The essence was and remains that the woman has to very clearly and strenuously show that she REALLY doesn’t want to be sexed, or sexed all the way.
That’s it. It’s essential that men draw the line at that and NO FURTHER.
Thursday:
“I agree that no doesn’t always mean no, but I still have no problem with no means no as a legal standard for rape. Lines must be drawn and that is a really reasonable place to draw one.
In law, it is often vastly better to have a clear standard than one that attempts to be perfectly fair.”
The problem here (and women themselves acknowledge) is that what women say and what they do are in opposition.The core issue of rape is not the “form” of consent rather its semantics. A woman who clearly wants sex and is behaving in a sexually accepting way but is saying no (for whatever reason) is semantically consenting to sex, even though she is “formally” objecting. The question for the philosophical mind is which of the modes of expression is to be given greater weight? The general rule of thumb by which humanity tends to operate on, is that actions speak louder than words. A naked woman who thrusts her hand down my pants all the while protesting our intimacy would appear to the disinterested observer not to be telling the truth. Thursday’s insistence on the primacy of the formal over the semantic would be opposed to the view taken by humanity. Likewise a woman who consents to sex through an act of blackmail may be providing “formal” consent but normal people recognise that the “semantics” of the situation are wrong and that the woman has been violated.
The problem with Thursday’s “simple” solution is that it is not simple in practice. Human beings aren’t simple, especially women. Neither is life. Is a man, who through some non violent means coerces a woman into saying yes to sex, guilty of rape? The “rule of thumb” of the primacy of the formal over the semantic would indicate not. Yet normal human beings are offended by such a notion. The corrective in such a situation would be that yes means yes except when it means no. However if no means no and yes can mean no how do you, as a defendant, prove that a woman said yes? It becomes really complicated really fast.
You are right Thursday that the rules of evidence are irrelevant to the definition of rape, especially when a “formal” definition of rape is accepted. Evidence showing that the woman was a willing participant in the activities in question are irrelevant when all that matters is that a formal yes or no has been said.
All of us agree that raping a woman is wrong, but disturbingly you don’t seem to mind putting an innocent man in jail.
The left is the party of order?
Order was very important to Soviet Russia and is to North Korea, in both societies order ranks higher than “fairness”. Order and fairness are complementary, they are not in opposition.
All of us agree that raping a woman is wrong, but disturbingly you don’t seem to mind putting an innocent man in jail.
And that sentence says it all.
Slumlord:
1. You seem to labour under the impression that there is some platonic essence of rape. If having sex with someone when they say no is prohibited by law and a man has sex with a woman when she says no, he has committed the offense. He’s not innocent.
So, call it what you wish, I would still prohibit it and punish it the same as rape.
2. Did it ever occur to you that I focus so much on external criteria as what make up the offense precisely because it is so hard to figure out exactly what is going on in women’s squirrelly little brains?
3. I have enormous respect for you. The reductio ad stalinum is greatly beneath you.
I have enormous respect for you. The reductio ad stalinum is greatly beneath you.
And, believe it or not, I too for you. Still Thursday, you’re not up to your usual quality of thinking in this post. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Everything OK?
If I have caused offence, I unreservedly apologise.
Peace.
Slumlord:
No problem.
Rooshv has no idea how stupid he really is.
LOL Roosh,
{ 7 trackbacks }