An Advocate for Rape? or just exercising his right to Free Speech ? You decide

a reply to: cosmickat

This is his actual argument:

How to Stop Rape

I keep reading in the mainstream media that there is a rape culture in the United States. This issue concerns me since I have a sister who I don’t want to be raped, so I carefully examined the articles on Salon, Buzzfeed, and Huffington Post that were written by professional journalists who pursue truth and justice over mass hysteria and delirium.

What I’ve gathered from the words of these future Pulitzer Prize winners is that women are not getting raped by violent offenders while taking a jog in the park or walking through a dark street—they are getting raped by men they already know, especially at college. I learned that if a man and a woman both drink at a party and have sex, she was in all likelihood raped since she could not give full legal consent. This made me confused because a woman who drinks and has sex is not responsible for her actions, but if that same woman gets into a car and drives it into someone else, causing a loss of life, she would be prosecuted and sent to jail. I couldn’t find an explanation for this inconsistency.

a reply to: ketsuko

He is basically doing the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theatre and inciting to crime. His advice, if followed, would land many men in court for rape. It's incitement.

Yelling fire in a crowded theatre and what this man is doing are two separate issues.

In the instance that I yell fire in a crowded theatre, when in fact there is no fire and my sole intention is to cause mischief, there are a number of things to take into account.

1. The fleeing people doing damage to the theatre in their haste, and doing bodily damage to one another.
2. The loss of revenue to the theatre for any reimbursements made after the fact.

In both instances, actual crimes have taken place, i.e., humans have had their persons and property damaged.

Not being allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre to cause mischief is not an example of a curb on free speech. There is no curb on free speech. Not being allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre is a curb on our ability to damage the person or property of other humans, i.e., to commit actual crime.

Now, you compared this to the advocacy of crime. Advocacy of crime is free speech. A person has every right to make the claim that crime X should be legal. If person A claims that crime X should be legal, or that we should all commit crime X, and person B commits crime X, person A is not the criminal, as he has committed no crime, person B is the criminal (he is the one who committed crime X).

The only role of government is in the prosecution of crime after a crime has taken place. You could make the argument that person A shouldn't be allowed to advocate for people to commit crime X, because it will cause an increase in the instances of crime X taking place--but this reasoning assumes that it is the responsibility of the state to invent crime as opposed to discovering crime. It is a slippery-slope to tyranny.

For instance, we have statistical evidence that the majority of crimes are committed by males between the age of 15 to 25. If it is reasonable to arrest someone for advocating for people to commit crime X so that we can "prevent" people from committing crime X, then it is equally reasonable to arrest all males between the ages of 15 and 25 to reduce crime altogether.

This also raises many questions regarding the relationship between law and crime.

Is it a crime to break the law, i.e., are criminal acts defined by the law, and the law alone?
Is it possible for a law itself to be criminal, i.e., breaking a law is, in fact, not a crime?

As far as I know, this is the same sort of reason why you are not allowed to circulate child porn. It's not the images themselves (as disgusting as they are) but the process of creating them which is criminal exploitation. In order to have it, you must commit a crime to generate it.

Child porn--a crime has taken place (damage to a humans person or property).
Stating an opinion--no crime has taken place(no damage to a humans person or property).
shouting fire in a theatre when there is no fire and your intention is mischief--a crime has taken place (damages to persons or property).

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

He doesn't just advocate it, he has freely admitted to it in his books claiming he has slept with "drunk women" while "completely sober" and "felt no remorse after the fact"...

But he did it in another country and bragged that if he'd have done it in the US he'd be a convicted rapist on the register...

Having sex with a drunk person isn't rape.

I was drunk once and had sex with a sober chick, she didn't rape me.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

A woman, or man, ought to be able to get legally drunk or wasted, and not expect to be sexually molested as a result, no matter whose place they are at, whether that be in public or private.

A woman or man should be able to have a good time, without having to worry about sexual deviants, because sexual deviants should be locked up, and for the record, sexual deviants are those who would, among other things, try and have sex with someone who is passed out, incapable of making rational choices or anything of the like.

Deviants should not be allowed to mix with people who are not deviants. For the record, people getting wasted is normal. Deviants preying on wasted people is evil. It is EXACTLY that simple.

a reply to: cosmickat

Seems that the power of the people exercising their right to free speech has worked in the case of this nutjob, Roosh V.
After his planned events came under harsh criticism and with protests against his " Return of the Kings " events he has cancelled his tribal meetings around the world. the reason being that he could not guarantee the safety of the attendees.

In one instance you claim that free speech has beaten Roosh, and then back up your claim with "he could not guarantee the safety of his attendees."

So, which beat him? Debate, or threats of physical violence? Not to be pedantic, but we should be specific.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Deviants should not be allowed to mix with people who are not deviants. For the record, people getting wasted is normal. Deviants preying on wasted people is evil. It is EXACTLY that simple.

Having sex with a drunk person isn't rape.

These two statements are different. Can you explain why?

a reply to: CharlestonChew

One of them is accurate.

The other is yours.

When I was 15 I was at a party and got so drunk I passed out. I woke up to find I'd thrown up all over myself and had a huge chick on top of me hammering away. I felt violated and disgusted tbh and although my friends still find it hilarious now, I don't.

It is rape to have sex with someone that's not in any state to resist or make a rational decision on whether they engage in it or not.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: CharlestonChew

One of them is accurate.

The other is yours.

So are you claiming that having sex with a drunk person is rape? Or are you claiming that "deviants preying on wasted people is evil. It is EXACTLY that simple."

Because, if your claim is true, then having sex with a drunk person isn't rape qua rape.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

ok..am reading your posts as I type, so forgive me if I have to come back on any of your points I may miss.

First one screaming off of my screen is " having sex with a drunk person is not rape "
Rape law, of which I am certain most are aware, is based on consent

"Rape is a type of sexual assault initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, or where the person is under threat or manipulation, or with a person who is incapable of valid consent " from wiki law.

If a sleazy Roosh V type guy happens to be in a bar and is watching a woman become more and more intoxicated until she is past the point of giving consent or is physically incapable of refusing his sexual advances with any success, and he decides to capitalize on her state for his own sexual gratification. That is rape.

Therefore..sex with a drunk person can be rape.

still reading your other points

a reply to: CharlestonChew

no harm being pedantic...
in this particular case though I don't care about the details

to answer your question, a mixture of both ?

I was playing a bit, I fess up. I still would never defend his right to free speech if said speech incites others to commit violent crime..... which it does.

a reply to: cosmickat

If a sleazy Roosh V type guy happens to be in a bar and is watching a woman become more and more intoxicated until she is past the point of giving consent or is physically incapable of refusing his sexual advances with any success, and he decides to capitalize on her state for his own sexual gratification. That is rape.

Therefore..sex with a drunk person can be rape.

Ah, I see, so we get to the heart of the matter. Intent.

That sex with a drunk person is not automatically rape qua rape.

This is good, now we're actually building rational arguments as opposed to wielding our pitchforks made of emotions.

a reply to: cosmickat

I was playing a bit, I fess up. I still would never defend his right to free speech if said speech incites others to commit violent crime..... which it does.

So did those people already have the inclination to commit crime?

a reply to: CharlestonChew

What I’ve gathered from the words of these future Pulitzer Prize winners is that women are not getting raped by violent offenders while taking a jog in the park or walking through a dark street

ehm...yes they are

and to argue that rape can be made legal in a private residence sends out what message exactly to predatory rapists ?

a reply to: CharlestonChew

I am claiming that this mad bastard Roosh, advocates rape, that any gentleman or woman worth a damn would simply not go through with sexual activity with someone who was incapable of saying no, and that any variation away from that standard of conduct is utterly morally repugnant in every way.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

possibly, then good old Roosh tells them it's ok, I done it, you should do it too

originally posted by: CharlestonChew
a reply to: cosmickat

If a sleazy Roosh V type guy happens to be in a bar and is watching a woman become more and more intoxicated until she is past the point of giving consent or is physically incapable of refusing his sexual advances with any success, and he decides to capitalize on her state for his own sexual gratification. That is rape.

Therefore..sex with a drunk person can be rape.

Ah, I see, so we get to the heart of the matter. Intent.

That sex with a drunk person is not automatically rape qua rape.



This is good, now we're actually building rational arguments as opposed to wielding our pitchforks made of emotions.

It is difficult, I must admit to debate this topic without emotion as it concerns a crime, the effects of which can rip out the soul of the victim.
But I thought that I was rational

I just looked at the Roosh V essay in which he "advocates rape" and "incites others to advocate rape", and noticed this caveat at the top:

"Note: The following article was published as a satirical thought experiment. It’s conclusion is not to be taken literally. "

It looks that, despite this, it was taken literally.

So in the end, it appears that the unscrupulous, likely led by the raving and bloodthirsty, are advocating the suppression of rights due to satire.

a reply to: TheTory

been reading this too, but really, he has been all over twitter lately shouting satire ! satire !

I have looked at his forum, and it is full of these "satirists"

He is being hounded out of countless towns, and his response is ......only joking, didn't mean it !


not buying it


He also tried to get a hashtag flutter on twitter today using #femalesforRoosh or something satirical like that.
there were 17 tweets in 5 hours, mostly still non supportive. hardly a twitter storm

a reply to: TrueBrit

I am claiming that this mad bastard Roosh, advocates rape, that any gentleman or woman worth a damn would simply not go through with sexual activity with someone who was incapable of saying no, and that any variation away from that standard of conduct is utterly morally repugnant in every way.

And I would agree on principle, but this issue is deeper than just "rape is bad."

One person claimed that Roosh was bragging about having sex with drunk people in European countries and how sinister it is for him to do such a thing.

We've already established that having sex with a drunk person is not rape qua rape. It could very well be that US law is retarded, and simply sentences people (men, in particular) for rape, when no rape has actually taken place--and that Roosh was laughing about the dichotomy between laws in the US (hyper authoritarian in matters of sex) and laws in Europe (less authoritarian in matters of sex).