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

originally posted by: cosmickat
a reply to: CharlestonChew

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

And telling someone that it's OK to commit a crime, is itself not a crime--unless, of course, you can point to the damaged persons or property caused directly by uttering such sentiments.

If a person decides to commit a crime, regardless of how they arrived at their decision, that individual person is the one responsible.

a reply to: cosmickat

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 is being hounded out by threats of violence, all because he wrote something. There is a reason the UN advocates freedom of speech in its human rights code, which it implemented after world war 2, and that's because the same attitude was used to enforce tyranny.

Threads like this are just so obviously click bait.

Much like the one about the judge who gave the child porn guy a low sentence.

"Here's a post about an idiot with an idiotic view! Let's all get together and agree how ludicrous his view is!"

Get's lots of stars and flags that's for sure but what does it really accomplish?

It's like putting a thread up with a picture of poop and therein the OP states "Here is a pile of poop, I'd like confirmation from the rest of you that it is indeed poop and perhaps give me your guesses on how bad said poop smells! Or better yet tell me what you'd do to said poop if you found it on your porch!"

Sorry not sorry not hard to garner agreement that something like this is terrible but it just seems unbecoming on a website like this to me.

But yeah carry on.

a reply to: TheTory


If anything, everyone's collective reaction to Roosh proves that there is no "rape culture."

a reply to: corvuscorrax

respect your opinion, but why be baited then if that is what this is?

and it is not.

not everyone is in agreement here. which kinda is what it was about.

advocate rape / free speech ....discuss

originally posted by: CharlestonChew
a reply to: TheTory


If anything, everyone's collective reaction to Roosh proves that there is no "rape culture."

it exists, check out his forum

a reply to: CharlestonChew

Well yes, I imagine he would prefer UK or European law.

But there again, a rich tycoon from Saudi Arabia was recently cleared of rape here, successfully using the old "I fell over with my bits hanging out, that must have been how the unconsenting and repeated penetration, WHICH WOKE THE VICTIM FROM HER DRINK INDUCED SLUMBER, actually occurred!" defence.

The law is a moron, but it is not a moron because it convicts too many rapists. It is an ass and a moron because it fails to do so, far too often, and especially when money is involved.

a reply to: cosmickat

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 ?

This message:

Without daddy government to protect her, a girl would absolutely not enter a private room with a man she doesn’t know or trust unless she is absolutely sure she is ready to sleep with him. Consent is now achieved when she passes underneath the room’s door frame, because she knows that that man can legally do anything he wants to her when it comes to sex. Bad encounters are sure to occur, but these can be learning experiences for the poorly trained woman so she can better identify in the future the type of good man who will treat her like the delicate flower that she believes she is. After only one such sour experience, she will actually want to get fully acquainted with a man for longer than two hours—perhaps even demanding to meet his parents—instead of letting a beer chug prevent her from making the correct decisions to protect her body.

The benefits of eradicating rape laws would extend to honest men who unfortunately now live in fear over imprisonment in the case the girl they had sex with had a blood alcohol level of 0.04 instead of 0.05 or some other arbitrary, untested, and made-up value that may imply consent was not fully achieved. There is no more having to guess the interpretation of a woman’s mixed signals or to artificially amp up her base emotions with clownish banter. Because women will never enter a man’s apartment without accepting that sex will happen, he can escort her to his bedroom and romantically consummate a relationship after it was certain he proved himself to be a good and decent man the woman fully trusted. My proposal eliminates anxiety and unfair persecution for men while empowering women to make adult decisions about their bodies.

How to Stop Rape

He isn't advocating rape. He is advocating to end rape laws. His reasoning does make some sense.

The rationale being that everyone would know that rape laws have been abolished. A person would know that "if I go to X, this person can, sexually, do as they will with me."

So, if they consent to sex, they go to X, if they don't, they don't go to X. It is an idea to do away with the ambiguity inherent in the consent issue, to make it explicit through actions.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

He isn't advocating rape. He is advocating to end rape laws. His reasoning does make some sense.

not to me

Feminist Perspectives on Rape

rape is not like a mathematical formula, " if x then y "
that is why there are so many differences throughout the statutes, not to mention marital rape, date rape etc

a reply to: TrueBrit

Well yes, I imagine he would prefer UK or European law.

But there again, a rich tycoon from Saudi Arabia was recently cleared of rape here, successfully using the old "I fell over with my bits hanging out, that must have been how the unconsenting and repeated penetration, WHICH WOKE THE VICTIM FROM HER DRINK INDUCED SLUMBER, actually occurred!" defence.

The law is a moron, but it is not a moron because it convicts too many rapists. It is an ass and a moron because it fails to do so, far too often, and especially when money is involved.

That is an entirely separate issue. There is power, and then there is you and I.

It is the nature of government, being a monopoly, to create class privilege amongst humans.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

The "benefits" of "eradicating rape law" are non-existent. Eradicating rape law would mean that there would be no law of any kind on the subject. That is what it means. It does not mean altering, changing, or improving the rape laws, it means removing them and destroying them entirely, all of them, everywhere. He is a moron.

Not only would eradicating the rape laws leave vulnerable people exposed to serious and repeated harm, but altering them to include his ridiculous "My lair, my rules" amendment would be giving carte Blanche to some seriously damaged individuals, to do some utterly reprehensible and psychologically scarring things to women.

Frankly, the slightest appeasement of this woman haters prattle is sign of nothing more than the collapse of manhood, the destruction of the concept of gentlemanly conduct, not by militant feminism, but by the hand of biological males, who do not understand what being a man means, what it looks like, or what it feels like to be one.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

The issue is not separate in the least.

If that can happen at any level, something has gone horribly wrong with the law, and it must be strengthened.

a reply to: cosmickat

Remarkably few assailants are punished: with estimated U.S. state conviction rates of two to nine percent of total rapes (Kim 2012, 264), “ninety-four to ninety-eight percent of total rapists and approximately eighty-four percent of reported rapists go free” (Kim 2012, 272).

First, we can't claim that "94 to 98% of total rapists go free," because this former statistic is completely made up. We can't estimate the "potential number of rapists" any more than we can accurately estimate the "potential number of murderers."

I can easily claim that 94 to 98% of murderers go free, because I pull a number out of a hat determining the number of murders that don't get reported. This is horribly sketchy data-gathering aimed at nothing more than making a problem appear larger than it is.

That leaves us with 84% of the reported "rapists" going free. Out of the total of actual reported rape cases, 84% are allegedly let go.

I don't see this as a negative thing. An accusation requires evidence without which we can assume that your accusation is false, i.e., no rape actually occured, so 84% of the non-rapists (innocent people), were let go for not actually committing a crime.

This tendency for feminists recently, to push that courts convict people of rape without evidence--to convict people only on accusation, is horribly dubious and manipulative.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: CharlestonChew

The issue is not separate in the least.

If that can happen at any level, something has gone horribly wrong with the law, and it must be strengthened.

That is the nature of government.

Strengthening the law simply gives more power back to the vacuum that allows the powerful to already abuse others with impunity.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

perhaps the report should have contained the wordalleged where it quoted the low conviction rates.

The issue I was attempting to highlight by citing that report is how there are many shades of grey and many layers involved in the crime of rape. It can never be as simple as ...well she came up to my apartment, she knew how the evening was going to end, it doesn't matter that I beat her around a little bit, she showed me consent as she kissed me earlier that night and she likes it rough.

If we put the onus on the victim to valiantly fight off sexual advances by using her own physical force against ( usually ) a stronger male opponent and onlythensay.....well ok we believe you, you fought hard so he must have raped you, then we may as well just go with Roosh V and say there is no such thing as rape.

What about young girls, systematically raped by their abusive fathers, who use their authority, of course in a private residence, is that still rape?
Or catholic priests, who are behind the doors of a vestry, again using their power of authority against children ?

Maybe on this topic, we shall just have to agree to disagree.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The "benefits" of "eradicating rape law" are non-existent. Eradicating rape law would mean that there would be no law of any kind on the subject. That is what it means. It does not mean altering, changing, or improving the rape laws, it means removing them and destroying them entirely, all of them, everywhere. He is a moron.

Unless the laws cause more harm than they attempt to solve, as is the case with many laws.

Not only would eradicating the rape laws leave vulnerable people exposed to serious and repeated harm,

The law does not protect "vulnerable people" from harm. Quite the contrary, a law is a statement proclaiming "AFTER you do X, Y will happen."

A law is intended to be remedial after the fact.

It's interesting how so many people fall prey to criminals even with all those laws in place protecting them.

but altering them to include his ridiculous "My lair, my rules" amendment would be giving carte Blanche to some seriously damaged individuals, to do some utterly reprehensible and psychologically scarring things to women.

I would simply not go to the lair of people that I did not trust.

Are you claiming that you would do "some utterly reprehensible and psychologically scarring things to women"? No? Because you can build relationships on trust, correct?

That shady guy that you meet at a bar...don't go to his lair.

Tada.

Frankly, the slightest appeasement of this woman haters prattle

If the laws do more harm than good, then your claim would be the opposite.

is sign of nothing more than the collapse of manhood, the destruction of the concept of gentlemanly conduct, not by militant feminism, but by the hand of biological males, who do not understand what being a man means, what it looks like, or what it feels like to be one.

What does being male or female have to do with it? I thought that there is no difference between the brains of men and women?

a reply to: cosmickat

The issue I was attempting to highlight by citing that report is how there are many shades of grey and many layers involved in the crime of rape. It can never be as simple as ...well she came up to my apartment, she knew how the evening was going to end, it doesn't matter that I beat her around a little bit, she showed me consent as she kissed me earlier that night and she likes it rough.

But think for a moment.

If you go to a bar and meet a guy, and you know that if you go back to his apartment with him that he can have sex with you if he wants to:

1. In what instance would you go back to his apartment with him?

Actual ethical & moral implications of law removals/changes aside, I kinda like this guy for just one reason.

He wrote a satire piece and proved the stereotypes about both feminists & fools correct -- they'll go after anything that moves, regardless of veracity. You gotta appreciate that.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

I know..I do get the argument put forward by Roosh V.... of course the number of reported rape crimes would fall after the decriminalization of rape in a private residence. Like I said in the OP, you don't have to be a brain surgeon to figure that one out.
BUT just because it was decriminalized it doesn't mean it would cease to happen..... all itwould mean is that any advances in law and in the feminist movement going back centuries would have been for nothing. Instead let's just go back to the days when a woman had sovereignty over her own body and what happens to it.
" in a private residence" would not only cover date rape ( which is still rape ) but as I said previously, marital rape and other forms of sexual abuse within families.

Where would you draw a line ?

originally posted by: CharlestonChew

Unless the laws cause more harm than they attempt to solve, as is the case with many laws.

Many laws, perhaps. Not these ones though.

The law does not protect "vulnerable people" from harm. Quite the contrary, a law is a statement proclaiming "AFTER you do X, Y will happen."

A law is intended to be remedial after the fact.

It's interesting how so many people fall prey to criminals even with all those laws in place protecting them.

And if those laws were not in place, we could not remove those morally retarded individuals who prey on the vulnerable, from our streets, cities, and civilians lives, for extended periods, when they do give into their deviant tendencies. As it is, if someone is sexually assaulted, and we can get the evidence required, and secure conviction, then hefty terms can be imposed. Without those laws, this would not be the case.

I would simply not go to the lair of people that I did not trust.

Are you claiming that you would do "some utterly reprehensible and psychologically scarring things to women"? No? Because you can build relationships on trust, correct?

That shady guy that you meet at a bar...don't go to his lair.

Tada.

But that would insist that you remained in a state of capacity for critical thinking. I should point out that at the moment, and quite rightly, the law does not insist that a person remain chemically neutral and unaugmented by chemical preparations like alcohol and mood modifiers of other sorts. Nor should it. It absolutely should punish those who take advantage of the addled, whether they happen to be born incapable of reason, or simply end up that way and the end of an evening.

Again, it is wrong to engage an inebriated person in intercourse, because they may be incapable of giving a reasonable answer to the suggestion of intercourse, and if there is any question what so ever, it IS necessary that people not take advantage of that state of affairs, to get whatever they are after at that persons expense. That happens. It shouldn't. The factor that is wrong is not the drunkenness, but the immoral assault which happened afterward. That is the way to observe it. You CAN look at it another way, but only if you want to be completely wrong, about absolutely everything from that point forward.

What does being male or female have to do with it? I thought that there is no difference between the brains of men and women?

I will tell you what the difference is.

I am a man. Let me put that another way. I am a Man. When I go out for the evening, I do not do so for the purpose of hitting on women for a cheap one night stand. Morally retarded bastards who would have done just as well with their right hands as their dance partner for the evening do that. Men with a capital M, are to a fault honourable, chivalrous, protective of those who are weaker than themselves, seek to comport themselves with dignity, and respect for all persons they meet. I go about with half an eye on my beer, half an eye on my friends, and the other eye on everything else. Looking out for trouble. Why? Because I am a Man, and if there is going to be trouble, I am going to get in the middle of it, sort it out, and make sure that the innocent are defended.

When the end of the evening comes, and I am away home, I make sure that any lady who is so drunk she cannot see straight, gets into a cab with someone she knows, and trusts. Many is the time I have stayed out until dawn, just to make sure that a lass who could not walk properly, got home to her place without being assaulted or passing out in the middle of the street. I am a Man, and I protect everyone less capable than myself, from everyone who might wish them harm, or to take advantage of their state or good nature. It is my duty as a Man to do so. If I am at a party, and a lass has passed out drunk, I make sure she is covered with a blanket. I also ensure that she can sleep unmolested, by never straying out of sight of said lady, and intervening with any person who attempts to move her somewhere private, or to make moves on her then and there.

Basically, it is possible to be a male without doing these things, but if the examples above are unfamiliar territory for a person, the chances are they are only male, but not an actual Man, and failing to meet the standard laid out above, damned well ought to be an arrestable offence, because it is basic, least I could do sort of stuff. This is not superheroism, this is not battling dragons and throwing ogres off battlements, this is basic Manhood, and failing at it is not acceptable BECAUSE it creates circumstances where immoral and illegal behaviour start to seem normal.

I am getting pretty sick of the state of understanding modern life has given the male population of the world, if we have gotten to the stage where this crap needs explaining. It shouldn't. It should be known, a value which does not change, a constant, and all who fall outside it should be outliers, exceptions to rules, rather than run of the mill for this day and age.