The Biological Context of Sexuality and Mating

Post image for The Biological Context of Sexuality and Mating

by zed on October 31, 2009

This essay was written about 12-15 years ago, when Evolutionary Psychology was just beginning to emerge as a credible discipline, and before Game really appeared on anyone’s radar.  Back in the mid-1990s, the culture was still lurching along in fits and starts trying to work out new roles and new expectations for the sexes which fit the changed social conditions from 3-4 decades before.  The Hookup Culture had not yet really arrived, divorce was ripping through marriage like a virulent pandemic, the marriage rate was falling, and men and women in general were having a hell of a time figuring out what was going on with each other.  Hundreds of “self-help” books came out claiming to address the problem, but mostly all they did was dispense bad advice from people who didn’t have a clue what they were talking about, confuse people and the issues even further, and enrich people like John Gray who were dispensing “marital and relationship advice” despite his own multiple failed marriages.

It’s not  completely fair to put people’s gullibility entirely down to there being a sucker born every minute.  People’s relationships were failing, their families were falling apart, and they did not understand why and were looking for answers.  It is a huge shame that they did not get better ones.

The foundation of the problem is that sexuality and mating cannot be understood starting from a social perspective, and almost everything up to that time dealt almost entirely with the social values governing mating.  However, these social values were not a consistent and comprehensive set based on generations of tradition, but were instead a useless mish-mash of old values, new values, and mostly wishful thinking.

Here is a brief overview of the biological context of sex and mating.   Some of the source material and perspectives may be a bit dated, but in general it falls mostly in line with the Evolutionary Psychology perspectives which form the foundation of Game.

We’ll get the exposition out of the way in a hurry.

1) Nothing exists in the animal world without a purpose. All behavior is purposeful.

2) This purpose is to survive. Life LIVES. Survival of the species is an imperative that drives all living things.

3) The biological purpose of sex is survival of the species. Reproduce (be fruitful and multiply) to assure that there is another generation of little whatevers to continue the species.

4) The mechanisms which control this are buried deep in the brain, in the section that is called the “old” or reptile brain. Lizards understand all they need to know about sex in order to make a new generation of lizards. This is the same part of the brain that governs hunger. …Survival stuff.

5) Humans are among the distinct minority among animal species in several respects including:
a) They can be sexually active whether or not there is a possibility of conception. Most animals will not copulate unless the female is in her fertile phase.
b) When we assumed the upright bipedal posture, from the four-legged stance used by most of our animal brethren, the entrance to the vagina was pulled up and forward. The only other animals which have sex face to face are the Bonobo chimpanzees. All others use the rear entry position. That is why it is called “doggy-style.” Face to face sex is more “social.” This is where most of our relationship problems come from.

6) There is a secondary purpose to coitus among mammals. It seems to be very bonding. Animals with a very low fertility, such as lions, tend to have a high frequency of coitus which serves the social purpose of strengthening the emotional ties within the social unit.

7) Behavioral or personality traits can be inherited in the same way as physical ones. The emerging field of evolutionary psychology shows how certain behavioral traits enhance the survival potential of the individual and the process of natural selection makes it more likely that the genetics which contribute to that behavioral trait will be transmitted to future generations. Sexual behavior is more prone to this effect than any other because it directly affects the fertility rate. Selection has favored the most aggressive males because they are the ones who have dispersed the most genetic material, just as it has favored the least sexually active females because had they been out seeking new males to mate with they might not have invested sufficient time to make sure that the offspring survived.

8 ) Sexual interest is only useful to nature when sexual activity coincides with fertility in the female. Thus a very complex “notification” system has developed to notify the males that the female is fertile. In most animals this also means receptive, but human females have learned to fake the signs of receptivity in order to capture the attentions of males, and to capture the males themselves into a committed relationship.

9) Gee, what if someone gave a horny and no one showed up? The cues of the notification system begin a complex set of reactions in the reptile brain of the male which excites him to seek gratification of his sexual hunger. There ain’t no thinking involved. It’s pure Stimulus -> Response of the type studied by Pavlov.

10) Next begins the “mating dance”. This serves several purposes. First, it raises the overall level of arousal, which in turn stimulates the production of sperm and increases the chances that copulation will result in fertilization. Second, the female, having signaled her receptivity through a variety of cues: scent, sound, visual, and behavioral, lets her potential mates pursue her until the biggest, strongest, smartest (i.e. most survival potential) prevails. A bunch of new little whatevers get started and the whole cycle begins again.

11) Generally males “signal” by pursuing. Sure they want to attract the female’s attention as a potential mate, but they don’t want to waste their biological resources pursuing a non-receptive mate.

12) We humans should take a clue.

13) As sex has moved away from its biological purpose and assumed more of a social significance, those receptivity cues have been co-opted. They are now practiced intentionally to gain attention and favors from men and no longer have anything to do with receptivity. This is where so much of the crap in gender relations comes from. Women signal receptivity when it doesn’t exist, men respond at an instinctual level from the lizard brain without even knowing that they are responding or why, and everybody wonders “what the hell happened?”

14) Regardless of all this, there still ain’t nothin’ happening unless the female is receptive (except maybe a rape charge when the male reacts in the way nature intended to the cues which are being sent dishonestly).

15) All this adds up to the fact that the female controls the sexual interaction. Research done in singles bars and other meat markets has shown that “high” signaling females get approached 4 times as often as “low” signaling females even when they are significantly less “beautiful” than the low signaling females.

The often mouthed male bash cliché, “Men think with their penises, not with their heads” is closer to the truth than men wish it was. In reality they are “thinking” with their brainstem, spinal cord, and limbic system (hormones, neural transmitters, and enzymes). They unfortunately have no conscious control over these responses, just as they have no conscious control over hunger, the fight/flight response, or muscular reflexes.

There are a large number of stimuli which function as “releasers” and pump into the male bloodstream all the neurochemicals which create sexual arousal. Female chimpanzees’ genital areas will swell and become bright pink when in estrus (heat). Jane Goodall, the renowned anthropologist who made a life work of studying chimps, described this phenomenon as being like “… a bright pink flower which could be seen by males all over the valley, who immediately set off in search of the female…” The human female rump has a similar effect on human males. Some of the lower animals who have little more than a brain stem, such as certain fishes, can befooled into a mating frenzy by a block of wood painted the same color as a female full of unfertilized eggs.

Despite the many and huge variations between cultures in almost every aspect imaginable, there is a remarkable agreement on what constitutes female beauty, which has become a polite euphemism for sexual attractiveness. In a study of 1159 cultures, the physical characteristics deemed beautiful were more consistent than any other characteristic. And in all cultures these characteristics corresponded to the physical attributes of a woman in her peak child bearing years, 15 – 25. These are the women that men will respond to from a purely biological perspective.

This is not to say that men do not, will not, or cannot find an older woman attractive, they certainly do, but the attraction is based on other characteristics than pure sexual attraction, a point which very few women understand. Most women become addicted to the sexual power that adolescent women have over adolescent men and, like the dinosaurs, do not realize that environmental conditions are changing and adapt to them before it’s too late. The power of a woman to provoke a purely instinctive sexual response in men diminishes rapidly after the late 20s, both because women are no longer as effective a vehicle for transporting a man’s genes to the future, and because males of that age have generally already done their reproductive duty and turned their attention to other matters, such as supporting and providing for the progeny they have already sired. Women who are arrested adolescents expect men to continue to respond in the same way that 15 – 25 year old males respond to 15 – 25 year old females. The frequency and intensity of this type of reaction progressively diminishes as a man matures and, when it is present, guess what? It tends to be toward a woman between the age of consent and the late 20s.

In addition, men are fully aware that women typically use sex as a means to jump-start a romantic fantasy which will be entirely to her benefit and at his expense. In addition, women have learned that men are perfectly capable of controlling their sexual impulses when they realize that the woman is looking for something totally different than they are and that to proceed is going to get somebody hurt. If a man is not ready to dive headfirst into trying to build a long-term relationship with a particular woman, he is not likely to dive into bed with her either. Women’s strategy to deal with this for the past several years has been to lie about their expectations and indicate that they are only interested in immediate sexual gratification and that the man need feel no obligation to pay for it with a committed relationship. “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” It generally only takes one occurrence of finding out that he has been lied to, and has just incurred an emotional debt he could spend the rest of his life paying off, for a man to learn that he cannot believe a woman who says this.

The normal reaction by these women is to escalate their cues and begin to beat on the neural responses of men to try to get a rise (literally) out of them. In other words, they DO sometimes ask for it. Some women are unaware that they are doing this, seeking only the attention of males and having successfully deluded themselves into thinking that the attention is based on something other than a purely instinctive response to sexual cues of receptivity. They are terribly surprised when they get an unexpected response out of a man. On the other hand, many are fully aware and are pissed as hell when they DON’T get the desired response out of a man and can get really ugly about it. “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”

Either way the man is the loser. If he responds and the woman decides he is not what she is looking for in a mate and shuts him down, he is confused, hurt and more than a little bit angry. Camile Paglia makes some very interesting statements about this aspect of male/female interactions. She says first that ―”Rape is male power fighting female power.” Women, on the one hand, love the power they can exert over men to make them perform for love and affection; while on the other hand they fear, detest, and criminalize it getting beyond their control. She also said that what used to be called “unbridled passion” is now called “date rape.”

Men have come to bitterly resent being manipulated by using their sexual needs against them, a process that many women regard as pathetically easy. I know that many women will want to crucify me for this next statement. Many rapes are the result of a man experiencing just one too many times the anger and humiliation of being led on, used, manipulated, and exploited based on the promise of having his sexual needs met, only to have the woman change her mind or raise the price at the last minute. In two celebrated rape trials of a few years ago, those of Mike Tyson and William Kennedy Smith, both instances were rich and powerful men who invited beautiful young women to their quarters and provided them with expensive entertainment with the predictable expectation that they would be rewarded with sex. When they called the debt, the women cried “foul.”

On the other hand, if the man does NOT respond, women often respond in an escalating pattern that begins with trying to argue the man into bed and often ends with vicious verbal abuse and sometimes even physical violence. Often men will avoid the issue by giving the expected responses to avoid the emotional violence, or will end up avoiding that woman.

A particularly distressing aspect of this occurs due to the mistaken notion that love and sex is the same thing. Many men have had the experience of having a friendship with a woman destroyed when she would not take no for an answer and persisted in trying to coerce him into a sexual/romantic relationship he did not want, based on the mistaken belief that if he cared for her he would express that sexually.

The futility of trying to argue a man into bed is driven home to them if they succeed in wearing down the man’s resistance and he gives in. It is pretty much guaranteed that the experience will be miserably unsatisfying and humiliating to them both. Men may sometimes think with their dicks, but they sure as hell cannot dick with their think. If men could will their erections to come and go on command, both men and women would be a lot happier, but then they would cease to be men and become flesh and blood vibrators. Sadly it seems that is what women want men to be these days.

Men, for their part, do not think that much differently although they respond and act very differently. Men are often bewildered and upset by their own reactions and cannot understand why they are so at odds with the values they believe to hold. They buy into the romantic nonsense much as women do and are often angry at themselves for not reacting the way they “should” according to society’s script. Men are just as culturally indoctrinated as women and often just as unaware of the foundation mechanisms of their responses. They try to do what they “should” but, like the dinner guests served a dish they detest but gag down out of politeness and a desire to not offend the hostess, if their own needs are not being met the best they can do is to mechanically go through the motions.

Like driving, passion is a privilege, NOT a right. Men respond passionately to women who are willing to understand, honor, and help them meet their real needs. Men respond mechanically, if at all, to women who demand that the man meet her needs while denying his and attempting to shame him into changing them to fit her bullshit notions of what he “should” be.

Both men and women need to understand that the sexual force of a mature man comes not from having a penis, but rather from an “adventurous juncture of ego and courage” as  Norman Mailer puts it. To this I would add optimism. Deep within the heart of every man I know resides the persistent belief that sexual joy IS a great gift, that shared sexuality represents the union of the highest aspects of men and women, their finest moral products, the God and the Goddess, and the fervent hope than he will one day meet a woman who will regard it that way also. All the men I know are still waiting. Most of them are not very optimistic.

Women who have a sincere desire for a sexual relationship with a mature man had better start waking the fuck up and realizing that building his ego is going to get them somewhere, while continuing to indulge themselves in their infantile man bashing tantrums and doing everything they can to destroy it is going to get them a lot of lonely nights. Feminism is murdering men’s desire for women, and women are its willing, nay enthusiastic, accomplices. Contempt for men, denial and negation of their needs and abdication of responsibility for their own actions is, for some unknown reason, very satisfying to women, but the only men who fall for it are the ones who are arrested in their own adolescence. I hope you bitches are having fun playing with these emotionally deformed children.

Sex is the most bonding activity between 2 human beings that there is. Certainly it is fraught with anxieties, confusion, and risk, but only the most pathological males can have even marginally satisfying sex with a woman and not experience deep warm and tender feelings toward her which will persist for the remainder of his life, unless the woman does something to destroy them, which all too many women do. Alex Comfort, M.B., PhD, in a book written 25 years ago put it this way regarding men’s turn-ons: “he will love you more the more skillfully you sense and use it.” A woman who understands a man’s releasers and incorporates them into lovemaking with anything resembling subtlety will have the man eating out of her hand for life.

This relationship between sexual satisfaction and emotional bonding holds equally true in reverse. Unsatisfying sex will breed deep and subtle resentment. The worse the sex, the greater the resentment. There is only one thing more bewildering and upsetting to a man than a woman who thinks her part of sex is done when she shows up, and that he both owes her satisfaction from the experience and after the fact owes her for the opportunity to provide her satisfaction. This one thing is the woman who shows remarkable skill and subtlety in finding and using a man’s turn-OFFS, offending and disgusting his every sensibility, then blames his lack of response on some defect within him. There is a special kind of hatred that men reserve for such women.

It is evidence of the power and persistence of the male sex drive that men will return to such women just to get their rocks off, and in fact this is less due to sexual desire than to an inability to believe that anyone could possibly be THAT stupid and insensitive. Many men are also so confused and conflicted about their own sexuality, and have so much shame tied up with it, that they do not realize how pathological the experience was. Men who are clearer about it simply never call back. Only now, since the 1990s, this has become a criminal act.

Male sexuality is extremely undervalued, just as female sexuality is extremely overvalued. In this culture men are conditioned to believe that their only source of intimacy and love is the woman who is their mate and the only means they have to get female sexuality, intimacy, and love is to purchase it with their performance and their economic assets. This impoverishes both men and woman because it destroys the trust and faith in each other that is essential to intimacy. Men need to reclaim the value of their sexuality, if necessary by refusing to have sex with any woman who does not value his as highly as he values hers and by making it an absolute condition that she respects and honors his needs, rather that telling him what they “should” be.

{ 254 comments… read them below or add one }

someone October 31, 2009 at 13:14

“5) Humans are among the distinct minority among animal species in several respects including:”

Humans aren’t animals.

“14) Regardless of all this, there still ain’t nothin’ happening unless the female is receptive (except maybe a rape charge when the male reacts in the way nature intended to the cues which are being sent dishonestly).”

Go jump off a bridge you fucking piece of shit.

“I know that many women will want to crucify me for this next statement.”

Really? I can’t possibly imagine why!

Why is it that rape is so often excused, justified and downplayed by MRAs? My guess, and the most likely explanation, is that the whole MRA movement is just a way of trying to somehow legitimize violent misogyny. The MRA movement is just as bad as feminism, possibly even worse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6
Chuck October 31, 2009 at 13:20

someone, you’re a nobody. please be quiet.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
someone October 31, 2009 at 13:29

Everyone here is a nobody. Try again.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4
Kimskinovgorod October 31, 2009 at 13:42

someone
“Humans aren´t animals”

Humans are bi-pedal hominids belonging to the group Homo Sapiens (latin: “wise man” or “knowing man”) in Homonidae, the great ape family…
Like most higher primates, humans are social in nature…

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Kimskinovgorod October 31, 2009 at 13:45

someone

Okay, you´re not…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
someone October 31, 2009 at 13:48

Humans are distinct from animals. There’s a reason why ‘human’s and ‘animal’ are separate concepts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Oekedulleke October 31, 2009 at 13:51

Someone

“Humans aren’t animals.” – Read a god damn book.

“blablabla… mra’s are excusing rape and whawhawha”

If you would care to, just for once, listen to the actual arguments without having an emotional hyper response like a programmed pavlovian dog, you might understand that the fact that some rapes have a biological basis does not mean the act is being excused.

Feminist’s claim that rape is “all about power” is utterly absurd and very counter productive. If women refuse to realise that bombarding a male brain with sexual signals will produce a reaction (and the more aggressive the male, the stronger it will be) then bad things are bound to happen, in fact it becomes a certainty that they will. The phrase “some women DO ask for it” doesn’t mean they are responsible in a legal sense, or not a victim. It means that some women are too stupid to realise they are playing with fire and they shouldn’t be surprised when they get burned.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Kimskinovgorod October 31, 2009 at 13:53

someone

That would make gorilla´s and chimpanzees non-animals…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Oekedulleke October 31, 2009 at 13:55

“Humans are distinct from animals. There’s a reason why ‘human’s and ‘animal’ are separate concepts.”

Its not a separate concept you dolt, “human” is the name of an animal species, our species.

quote:” Humans are bipedal primates belonging to the species Homo sapiens (Latin: “wise man” or “knowing man”) in Hominidae, the great ape family.”

That’s still very much within the animal kingdom.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
someone October 31, 2009 at 14:01

“Read a god damn book.”

Develop some critical thinking skills. Just because it says something in a book (or on Wikipedia) doesn’t mean it’s automatically true.

“If you would care to, just for once, listen to the actual arguments without having an emotional hyper response like a programmed pavlovian dog, you might understand that the fact that some rapes have a biological basis does not mean the act is being excused.”

Except he actually was making excuses for rape.

“Its not a separate concept you dolt, “human” is the name of an animal species, our species.”

They’re separate concepts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Patrick Brown October 31, 2009 at 14:02

Zed, bravo.

Everyone else, ignore “someone”. He/she is just throwing a tantrum to distract attention from the uncomfortable truths in the article.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
anonymous October 31, 2009 at 14:04

“Nothing exists in the animal world without a purpose. All behavior is purposeful. This purpose is to survive. Life LIVES. Survival of the species is an imperative that drives all living things.” These claims are problematic.

A species may strive to survive, but any individual member of that species may not. Individual behavior may guarantee the non-survival of an individual while simultaneously increasing the possibility of survival of a species. And individual behavior may guarantee the non-survival of an individual while simultaneously decreasing the possibility of survival of a species. Any deed of heroic sacrifice or any self-destructive compulsive behavior is evidence that
the claim that all behavior is towards survival is false. Some behavior is, and some is not.

In a theoretical location with a uniformity of climate variables and resources, there are two groups of humans. Humans in culture A wear a certain set of clothing. Humans in culture B wear a different set of clothing. Being different, one will be ever-so-slightly (or greatly) superior to the other in insuring survival. You claim all behavior is purposeful toward survival. And yet both clothing sets A and B endure. Sometimes behavior will neither contribute to nor take away from species or individual survival. It just happens.

Heterosexual sexual preference contributes to species survival. But a preference in a partner’s height or eye color may neither contribute to nor take away from species or individual survival. It just happens. And then there’s homosexual sexual preference, which contributes exactly nothing to species survival yet appears to exist in the real world and in a relatively steady percentage of the population. It just happens.

Some behavior (I suggest) is a side-effect of a biological advantage. An individual may be extra-smart (good for survival) and their particular brain/body chemistry also works out to being left handed (rare, slightly bad for survival). Men are more aggressive than women or children (good for survival) and men’s particular brain/body chemistry also works out to having a shorter life span (naturally or through acts of violence). A group may have a body type good for living in high elevations (good for survival in high elevations) and as a side effect be unable to digest certain foods (neutral for survival if those foods aren’t needed or common).

The problem of altruism for evolutionary psychology is a worthy one to address. It’s what Richard Dawkins tried to solve with his ‘selfish gene’ model. The problems of where our behaviors come from, and where we want them to be, are worthy ones to address as well. The Church of Scientology agrees with the ‘all life seeks to live’ claim, as does Objectivism, as does Marxism, as does Egoism. All four are mistaken. The is/ought divide remains divided. But you’re asking the right questions, and should keep looking.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Girm October 31, 2009 at 14:05

@someone

Except he actually was making excuses for rape.

I am personally very offended by marine biologists excusing dolphin rape as natural. Obviously those same biologists just think dolphin rape is perfectly natural are evil just like MRA’s.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Girm October 31, 2009 at 14:10

@anonymous October 31, 2009 at 2:04 pm
You are missing the fact survival is about the group with most higher animals forms instead of just the individual (See ants, humans, ect). The type of clothing picked usually has basis in need: Fur lined in arctic areas, less clothing in warmer climates. Any tribe that wares fur lined clothing in the tropics would quickly be displaced by a group that wears less clothing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Talleyrand October 31, 2009 at 14:12

Chuck,

Don’t play with the imbeciles in the low end of the gene pool. Anyone that says “humans aren’t animals,” is a complete bloody fool whose opinion is born of willful ignorance and unfit for any kind of rational discussion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
someone October 31, 2009 at 14:41

Patrick Brown: “Everyone else, ignore “someone”. He/she is just throwing a tantrum to distract attention from the uncomfortable truths in the article.”

Yes, how dare anyone “throw a tantrum” because someone is excusing rape. In fact, we should all go rape some bitches right now.

Girm: “I am personally very offended by marine biologists excusing dolphin rape as natural. Obviously those same biologists just think dolphin rape is perfectly natural are evil just like MRA’s.”

Protip: just because something is natural doesn’t mean it’s good or acceptable or something that needs to be excused.

Talleyrand: “Don’t play with the imbeciles in the low end of the gene pool. Anyone that says “humans aren’t animals,” is a complete bloody fool whose opinion is born of willful ignorance and unfit for any kind of rational discussion.”

Claiming that humans are animals is ridiculous, and quoting Wikipedia isn’t going to change that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Welmer October 31, 2009 at 15:08

Yes, how dare anyone “throw a tantrum” because someone is excusing rape. In fact, we should all go rape some bitches right now.

-someone

The definition of rape is a moving target with feminists. It is, in fact, anything they want it to be. Given that fact, practically any man can be accused of “excusing rape.” I’ll take it a step farther: any man can be accused of being a rapist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
kis October 31, 2009 at 15:13

Except he actually was making excuses for rape.

There’s a big difference between a reason/cause and an excuse. That you can’t see that difference is kind of pathetic. Almost… female? I mean, Lorena Bobitt “had her reasons”, too. A lot of women think that translates into her having an excuse, when she most certainly did not.

Women can be such self-deceiving chicken shits, y’know? I mean, hottest sex of my life was with an acquaintance who simply took my hand without a word or any preamble, led me to a secluded place outside and didn’t take my initial “we shouldn’t” for an answer (although I know him well enough to know he’d have taken “no” for one, if it had come to that).

I’m self-aware and honest enough with myself to see it for what it was–more exciting because he dominated me, because he mastered me, because he swept my resistance aside.

Another woman would quite likely have called it rape. And not even date rape, because there was a degree of…lingering injury involved. But it was, at its most basic, his reptilian brain seducing my reptilian brain.

I’d have seen it that way whether he’d called the next day or not.

Women are obeying their reptilian brains, but at the same time refuse to acknowledge that instinct has anything to do with their own behavior, or with that of men.

I was watching a sitcom recently that showed a beta guy sitting in a waiting room with a woman who had to be DDD, in a tight shirt with cleavage on full display. Even the way she was sitting, she was shoving them right in his face. And then she gets all pissed off with him because he can’t drag his attention from them. Poor guy was trying to have a conversation with her, and just “digging himself in deeper” (if you’re a feminist, you’d see it that way, anyway).

I told my daughter (she’s 14) that the man looking at them was perfectly normal, and he ought to have called the woman on her bullshit. If she didn’t want men looking at them, she’d cover them up. I mean, WTF do you think is going to happen when you put them on display?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Renee October 31, 2009 at 15:23

14) Regardless of all this, there still ain’t nothin’ happening unless the female is receptive (except maybe a rape charge when the male reacts in the way nature intended to the cues which are being sent dishonestly).

So are you saying that rape is in a way a natural reaction or in the case of date rape, unbridled passion?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
zed October 31, 2009 at 15:34

I was watching a sitcom recently that showed a beta guy sitting in a waiting room with a woman who had to be DDD, in a tight shirt with cleavage on full display. Even the way she was sitting, she was shoving them right in his face. And then she gets all pissed off with him because he can’t drag his attention from them. Poor guy was trying to have a conversation with her, and just “digging himself in deeper” (if you’re a feminist, you’d see it that way, anyway).

That’s why they put magazines in waiting rooms.

Ignoring those kinds of female games is an acquired skill, but one definitely worth developing.

Good comments, kis. You are obviously one of the very few women in the world who get it.

piercedhead October 31, 2009 at 15:34

That’s an interesting explanation for some kinds of rape zed. I’ve certainly felt the extreme frustration of dealing with people who try to change the terms of agreement at the last moment in the hope of exacting a better deal, but it hadn’t occurred to me that this can happen in sexual transactions as well as business. I’m glad to see we’re finally breaking free of the ‘all rape is wrong and ask no questions’ attitude of the last few decades, and at last making an attempt at deconstructing the phenomenon into something that can be understood. The constant use of rape as nothing other than a means of painting all men black is starting to get so tired it’s time to put it to bed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
zed October 31, 2009 at 15:36

So are you saying that rape is in a way a natural reaction or in the case of date rape, unbridled passion?

I’m saying that men need to learn that women are faking it, and how and why, in self-defense.

Renee October 31, 2009 at 15:36

Kis,

There’s a big difference between a reason/cause and an excuse. That you can’t see that difference is kind of pathetic. Almost… female? I mean, Lorena Bobitt “had her reasons”, too. A lot of women think that translates into her having an excuse, when she most certainly did not.

I’m sorry. Maybe this is me being “female/pathetic” and all but can you elaborate?

I was always one of those people who will go on the attack if it seems that someone is blaming the victim for being raped, that includes bringing up what they were wearing, getting so drunk that they passed out, etc., etc. (not talking about stating or discussing percautions). I always believed that the reason/cause for rape was that the rapist choose to rape. They are in control of their reactions and solely responsible for choosing to rape a person. Now based on your quote and the comment that you were responding to, is a woman acting seductively without intention of having sex a excuse or a cause/reason for rape? I have my own opinion, I’m just trying to get a sense of what you’re saying.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 31, 2009 at 15:37

As far as I’m concerned, rape is pretty clear cut. And it should be: if a woman physically resists a man he must use a great deal of brutality or threats of such in order to consummate the act.

Nowadays, the sex act is considered rape if the woman felt ambivalent about sex, but ambivalence is not rape. Rape is a knife to the throat, a gun held to the head, a severe beating, threats to kill, sex with someone in a stupor from a beating or mind-altering substances, etc. There is usually physical evidence from such encounters.

Anything else involves some degree of consent, and is not criminal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
zed October 31, 2009 at 15:42

is a woman acting seductively without intention of having sex a excuse or a cause/reason for rape?

A woman acting seductively without any intention of having sex is a vicious exploitive bitch. When something nasty happens to a vicious exploitive bitch, lots of people yawn.

If she doesn’t want the peaches, it is a much better idea to not shake the tree than to blame all men for the poor impulse control of the particular man she chose to jerk around with his involuntary reactions.

Yes, men can learn to control them. Then, when a woman who truly is “receptive” would actually like to get that reaction, she can’t because other vicious exploitive bitches have taught men too well how to control them, and that a woman showing signs of receptivity is more likely faking it than not.

Think about that the next Friday or Saturday night you are sitting at home without a date.

kis October 31, 2009 at 15:42

So are you saying that rape is in a way a natural reaction or in the case of date rape, unbridled passion?

Date rape has causes, just like any other act, and not all those causes are internal to the perpetrator.

And non-consensual sex is so biologically programmed into the species that females have evolved physical compensations for it. Genital arousal patterns in women are the same (regardless of their sexual orientation) no matter what sexual material you put in front of them–whether it’s m/f, f/f, m/m or even videos of chimpanzees mating. Some scientist theorize that it’s an evolutionary response to rape.

Simply put, women can’t always choose when and with whom they have sex, so their bodies are primed to prepare for sex in response to any sexual signal at all–often without them being aware of it, and sometimes even when they’re emotionally repelled by the particular signal. Makes sense from an injury avoidance standpoint–especially back when we were all living in caves and there were no antibiotics. Women whose genitals were injured through non-consensual sex often ended up unable to pass on their genes, through death or decreased fertility from subsequent infection of those injuries.

The very existence of this biological response makes me think that non-consensual sex is probably fairly “natural” to the species.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
zed October 31, 2009 at 15:52

Nowadays, the sex act is considered rape if the woman felt ambivalent about sex, but ambivalence is not rape.

And there is one of the biggest causes of “Heterosexual Bed Death” afflicting a lot of women over 40 these days and forcing them to become “cougars.” It’s staggering to read about all the women even in their 20s who can no longer attract the serious attention of a man and are reduced to seducing teenage boys out of desperation.

http://naughtyneighbors.blogspot.com/
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=39783

There is no point at all in giving a woman “the look” if it is all rape anyway.

kis October 31, 2009 at 15:53

Now based on your quote and the comment that you were responding to, is a woman acting seductively without intention of having sex a excuse or a cause/reason for rape?

I’m saying there’s a difference between a reason/cause and an excuse.

Look at it this way. Adults who suffered sexual abuse as a child are more likely to become abusers themselves. The abuse they suffered is the “reason” or the “cause”. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an “excuse” for them abusing. Yes, the buck stops at the person inflicting a non-consensual act on another person. They have no excuse. But pretending there are no causes or reasons for their behavior, other than they wanted to, well, that’s kind of living in an intellectual and psychological vacuum.

We are products of our biology *and* our environment. And there are responses to environmental stimuli programmed into our biology that can put huge strain on people who are forced to resist those responses when the stimuli are pushed in their faces everywhere they turn. The fact that men can live in this society, and only 1 in 4 (or 1 in 7 or whatever the figure of the week is) are raped, instead of 1 in 1, is IMO, a credit to men’s ability to maintain restraints on their own behavior.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Welmer October 31, 2009 at 15:56

It’s staggering to read about all the women even in their 20s who can no longer attract the serious attention of a man and are reduced to seducing teenage boys out of desperation.

-zed

A friend of mine is a defense attorney, and one of his clients was just such a teenage boy who was seduced by an older woman. She seduced the boy, then claimed he raped her, and the kid suddenly found himself facing serious prison time.

Fortunately, the evidence was in the boy’s favor (witnesses to her behavior as well as her communication with the boy), and he was exonerated, but what a terrible price to pay as a boy!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
zed October 31, 2009 at 15:59

She seduced the boy, then claimed he raped her, and the kid suddenly found himself facing serious prison time.

is a woman acting seductively without intention of having sex a excuse or a cause/reason for rape?

In this day and age, a woman can act seductively, with every intention of having sex, and still claim rape.

That is why the word and concept itself have become absolutely meaningless.

Ragnar October 31, 2009 at 16:01

APES
Homo Sapiens are basicly a form of primates. Men formed bands and evolved concepts like respect for property. Furthermore they formed ideologies and philosophy and ethics. Alongside this their prosperity was made by inventions of technological sort. On top of this their societies needed more complex laws to function. Due to goodwill they expanded the concept of rights to people not being essential for the wellbeing of their societies.
The last part is what we today see as a grave error and is backfiring big time. Bachkfiring to such an extent that it endangers the entire society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
kis October 31, 2009 at 16:05

Meant to say:

The fact that men can live in this society, and only 1 in 4 (or 1 in 7 or whatever the figure of the week is) women are raped,

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Hestia October 31, 2009 at 16:06

Renee- I was always one of those people who will go on the attack if it seems that someone is blaming the victim for being raped, that includes bringing up what they were wearing, getting so drunk that they passed out, etc., etc. (not talking about stating or discussing percautions).

To discuss “precautions” means we must look objectively at stupid behavior choices that can get people in trouble, make them feel lousy, or make them want to blame somebody else for their action. To do otherwise might make more victims, either of stupidity or crime, and is not the noble pursuit feminists think it is. This isn’t just when it comes to rape but many other issues in life as well.

The use of irresponsible use of alcohol or other drugs is a fine example of stupid choices that can embarrass a person or ruin their life. If you go to parties, get drunk, hang out with people of questionable character, and make other poor choices, there is a good chance your foolish choices will come back to haunt you one day.

If somebody is intoxicated they are more likely to make stupid decisions they would have never made had they been sober and oftentimes these are decisions they cannot take back. They might take their car keys, drive home, and kill people when they hit them on the road. They might run their mouths and get into a fight, sustaining injuries and assault charges. They might drunk dial an ex and make a fool of themselves or get a silly tattoo they’ll forever regret. And they might go off into the bedroom with somebody they would have never had sex with otherwise, regret it the next morning, and try to make themselves feel better by calling it rape. These are all real risks, things young people especially need to be aware of, to understand the serious results that can come with a choice made in just a moment.

Also, I’d add going off into a bedroom with somebody you wouldn’t have otherwise speaks volumes about a woman’s friends as well as her. If her friends gave a care about her, why don’t they stop her and make sure she wants to do this and won’t regret it later. Real friends don’t let their friends drive off cliffs and make decisions that might harm them emotionally or otherwise.

WRT the clothing issue, what would you think of an individual who waltzed around the streets of the Bronx, Gary, Indiana, or Detroit with a handful of cash, unarmed, and alone at night who then got robbed? Many would say they acted in a foolish manner and set themselves up for a crime. Most of us consider such behavior to be a good way to get yourself mugged, so most sane people would never flash cash or other valuables around, particularly in circumstances that make us more vulnerable than usual. This isn’t a precaution that is taken to “blame victims” of muggings, but to hopefully prevent the best a person can being a victim themselves.

To advise girls and women that certain clothing choices are inappropriate as they are overtly sensual and might attract the wrong kind of attention is a truth. To point out certain bits of clothing could provide easier access and make it harder to fight if a woman is targeted by a violent rapist, the type of crime Welmer described above, is a good thing. To advise all people to be sure they are always wearing clothing and shoes they can run in if need be is wise, not only to prevent crime but in the event of some sort of disaster from which you must run. This is all good common sense that should be taken into consideration when purchasing a wardrobe or considering clothing for a specific activity. What I might wear around my own home and what I might wear when going out at night when I might be alone in a place that leaves me on edge are two very different things because of this. Being able to conceal carry my firearm and run quickly are considerations when I’m outside of my home.

A frank dialogue of sexuality, women using their beauty power, how men react, and why this is unfair in many circumstances and possibly dangerous in a select few is something that needs to be addressed as well. As is a real definition of rape, again much like Welmer’s. This would prevent false accusations, help women make better choices to stop their cruel abuse of sexual power over men as a whole, and allow women to make better choices so they don’t make decisions that they regret later, ones that could lead to them feeling used and lodging a complaint against a man who has done nothing wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
JohnnyBravo October 31, 2009 at 16:14

Renee-

I don’t think anyone is diminishing the rapist’s ability to make a choice in the matter, but what causes this “blaming of the victim,” as it were, is the victims blatant disregard for reality and common sense.

Call me a cold-hearted bastard, but if you lead someone on all night, or wear “revealing” (mildly put) clothes and saunter through a bad neighborhood, I’ll immediately have less sympathy for you than if someone attacked and raped you out of the blue. The fault here is that you are challenging reality.

The brutal truth is that humans are constantly looking to satisfy their urges, and in a scenario where that would conflict with the well-being (physical or material) of another person, two factors must be considered.

The first is self-control, the ability to ignore your urges and keep them at bay. The second is the strength of the urge.

The strength of one’s self-control is determined genetically (eg men with high levels of testosterone will have less self-control) but can be altered through substances such as drugs and alcohol.

The strength of the urges themselves are dependent on the near past and on the current situation. For example, someone who has not eaten in days will steal food to survive (ie do material harm to another person) if his hunger is strong enough to override his self-control.

However, certain things will temporarily increase the power of our urges. Consider the previous example, but in two different ways. In the first, the hungry man simply sees the food, say on the shelf of a grocery store. In the second, he sees the food being consumed by another person, who makes no secret of how tasty the food is, with the overwhelming smell of the food and the spectacle of a feast affecting the hungry man.

Despite having been hungry for the same amount of time, the second situation would tax the man’s self-control much more than the first. Irrespective of why this is the case, that’s just how it is.

For the same reason, it is considered extremely rude to eat in public during Ramadan in muslim countries. All matters of faith aside, you are placing an additional burden on people who have to struggle with their urges.

Sexuality is an urge like any other. So even if someone is sex-starved, so to say (though not necessarily, they might just have an enormous appetite), putting an extra burden on them, and in many cases hampering their self-control with alcohol, is pretty goddamn stupid. People have much less tolerance and sympathy for misery which is partially self-inflicted.

So “asking for it” in this context means challenging reality. It seems people had more common sense and did not view life through rose-tinted glasses in the past, but now all that is gone in our quest to forgo reality in favor of wishful thinking. If only people were perfectly in control of their urges at all times, but they aren’t and ignoring this will get you raped, robbed, killed and much more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
The Ox October 31, 2009 at 16:27

Bah. Humans are indeed animals.

Unique animals, higher animals, animals capable of the most amazing things in all the natural world, not the least of which is the ability to recognize just how amazing the world, indeed the universe, actually is…but we are a form of animal life nonetheless.

We have our flaws & failings, our weak points & our strong ones, as individuals & as a species.

The best part of that article was how far it really went to explaining just where some of our present day worst socio-cultural problems rest, and what the appropriate course of corrective action would be.

The author(s) of the article, well it was pure genius.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
kis October 31, 2009 at 16:34

Look at it this way, too, Renee. Even things women don’t necessarily think are signals of sexual receptiveness actually are. High heels change a woman’s stance and walk to mimic the natural changes in her stance and walk when she’s fertile, and tight jeans and skirts accentuate that. Blush simulates sexual arousal. Boobs are a butt women wear on their chests and enhancing them enhances the signal. A woman’s darker, fuller lips mimic aroused female genetalia, and wearing lipstick (especially slick, shiny lipgloss) enhances that signal as well.

Add in all the behavioral signals like the sensual displays women put on on a typical night club dance floor.

So now, without even speaking to or making eye contact with a man, she’s basically broadcast sexual signals all over the place. Add in a bunch of serious flirting and body language directed at a specific man, and then she agrees to go back to his place–even into his bedroom. She’s basically spent all evening conveying a willingness to have sex.

And then she says no. I don’t call that consensual sex, but I have a hard time calling it rape.

Or worse, she says yes, then decides she regrets it, that she never would have had sex with him if she hadn’t had all those appletinis. Despite her consent, some would say it’s still rape. Despite the fact that he might have had as much to drink as she had, and was therefore no more in control of his baser impulses than she was, some would still say it’s rape.

The definition of rape has gotten so murky it’s ceased to have any reasonable meaning at all. We equate a woman being attacked walking from her car to her door after work with one who woke up next to a guy she decided she didn’t like so much in the light of day and decides she didn’t consent after all.

It’s pathetic, and it makes women look like kids who can’t be held accountable for their own decisions. I mean, how many men wake up wishing they could gnaw their arm off because in a moment of drunken weakness they slept with Alice the Goon? But they DON’T call it rape.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
wow October 31, 2009 at 16:44

I teach high school boys, and for their protection I tell them to NEVER touch a female with out her direct consent.

However, I also teach these male teenagers that females are not all sugar and spice and will have no problem using their sexual appeal as a form of control and POWER over male students.

These are a few things boys deal with on a regular basis in today’s school:

1. Inappropriate touching by girls (eg. ass grab, crotch grab)
2. direct sexual innuendos (eg. female bragging about her BJ prowess, suggestive talk)
3. sexually suggestive text messages
4. sexually suggestive emails
5. sexually suggestive pictures via email, facebook, cell phone pics, etc.,
6. lengthy phone calls where the female is as sexually suggestive as much as he is
7. inappropriate ogling from a female and her freinds
8. sexually suggestive behaviour (eg. propping up breasts, opening legs, licking lips)

The above list was produced by teenage boys!

None of the above gives any adolescent male the right to rape a female. But, seeing as teenage boys have 20-30X the circulating testosterone levels as their female peers, can someone teach females that intentionally using their sexuality as a form of control and power is unethical, and that acting, dressing and talking like a whore is dangerous…for everybody.

The boys are incredibly thankful that I point all of this out, but are upset and somewhat resentful to hear that many female students are simpling playing with their emotions on a sexual level and really have NO interest on a sexual level.

Much of the above list would also be grounds for sexual assault in a feminized world.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
zed October 31, 2009 at 16:46

It’s pathetic, and it makes women look like kids who can’t be held accountable for their own decisions

That is feminism in a nutshell. It makes all women look pathetic, and I cannot for the life of me understand why women have not been screaming their heads off about it. The fact that they haven’t, just adds to how pathetic they all look.

The good news for men is that some time around age 45-50 nature hands us a “get out of jail free” card. We go through a corresponding change of life analogous to the one women our age are going through, and the reasons to avoid them become more significant than our diminished biological need to seek them out.

They win because we quit bothering them, we win because we finally have some peace and quiet and no longer have to put up with their cold and vicious manipulation.

Everybody wins. :)

zed October 31, 2009 at 16:49

The boys are incredibly thankful that I point all of this out, but are upset and somewhat resentful to hear that many female students are simpling playing with their emotions on a sexual level and really have NO interest on a sexual level.

Like any medicine, it may taste bad going down, but will be good for them in the long run. The lessons they are learning today will pay big dividends later in life.

Kimskinovgorod October 31, 2009 at 16:54

Free, Oh, Lord,-Free At Last !!!
K.-age 46.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
JohnnyBravo October 31, 2009 at 17:59

“Everybody wins. :)

Except for the prime productive years of both men and women being wasted with sexual frustrations, excesses, anxieties, ambivalence and lack of fulfillment.

One has to wonder whether or not civilization is sustainable the way things are now.

Because on thing is sure, the institution of marriage has made civilization and the most awe-inspiring accomplishments of man possible. Freed from the slavery of their instincts, men could go about conquering nature.

The “hook up culture” has resulted in hundreds of millenia of apes chucking shit at each other before we learned to control ourselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
zed October 31, 2009 at 18:56

Except for the prime productive years of both men and women being wasted with sexual frustrations, excesses, anxieties, ambivalence and lack of fulfillment.

Well, yeah, there is that drawback. ;)

Here is the dilemma – our “democratically” elected leaders are leading us full speed down the path to oblivion. We basically have 2 choices for dealing with that – elect new leaders, or stop following them.

Both require a change in awareness. Once that change happens, it doesn’t matter so much which choice we make – we simply take back the power over our own lives.

I was being sarcastic up to a point, and that point is that as the boomers reach the stage of End Game, we are in a pretty good position to point out what we did that didn’t work and why it didn’t work.

The biological sex drive by itself is not enough to continue to drive men to consort with women who have become absolute scum of human beings. Unless some way can be found to drive home to the average woman the point that being absolute scum as a human being is NOT going to result in a happy life, there sure isn’t much point for men to keep pulling the pins on the hand grenades and then immediately falling on them.

The only hope is to wake enough women up to how badly feminism has burned them and get them to break ranks with the sisterhood. If enough of them can be convinced to do that and join with the men who really would like to have decent, fulfilling, mutual relationships with them, then perhaps we could get somewhere.

The question for MRAs boils down to: if you were in a leaky lifeboat, even if you knew that it was leaking faster than you could bail the water out – would you stop bailing and just passively await your fate, or keep bailing until you drew your last breath?

Sean_MacCloud October 31, 2009 at 19:13

Testing before voting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
JohnnyBravo October 31, 2009 at 19:27

“The question for MRAs boils down to: if you were in a leaky lifeboat, even if you knew that it was leaking faster than you could bail the water out – would you stop bailing and just passively await your fate, or keep bailing until you drew your last breath?”

I commented about that before, but I guess I’ll say it again:

We’re not alone on that lifeboat. All of western mankind is on it. Now unless everyone can at least bail out as much as they let in through their weight, the whole enterprise is hopeless. A few men can frantically try to save us all, but they will fail.

Much better, then, to just wait. Bailing the water out will just prolong the inevitable. Just wait, until the water has soaked everyone, and let the error of their ways sink in through very real consequences.

Once they realize the very real threat to their comfort and existence, they will bail water out faster than any of us right now.

It is like the old Soviet Union. The white Russians did not destroy it. They could not. Instead, the generations growing up during the worst excesses did her in, after realizing that they could not possibly go on like that.

Similarly, there is nothing we can do but wait. Let them tie the rope around their own neck. Until then we will just have to sit still and anticipate the day we can hang them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jack Donovan October 31, 2009 at 21:17

High quality stuff, as always, zed. Insightful.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Kimskinovgorod October 31, 2009 at 21:22

zed

It appears to me, that since more and more men refuse to get married, subsequent have children, and the last couple of generations of women are so overjoyed with their newfound power, and so thoroughly programmed with this “men are stupid-throw rocks at them”-attitude, that it would take a whole new generation of girls, brought up away from their mothers.

The present generation, it became obvious already in the beginning of this discussion, go ballistic at the sheer mentioning of any responsibility, as to what they are wearing, getting excessively drunk and so forth.

Since raising girls without their mothers are, obviously, not an item, this will leave the women with just one or two choices. To rely on spermbanks, and that choice won´t be open for long, -or the most stupid, thickheaded, and horny men, which just will lead to another generation, far smaller in number, and raised with no contact to the males at all. And thus even more anti-male, than the last two.

No matter how you look at it, it´s a downward spiral going faster and faster, and I just don´t see women in large numbers, suddenly seeing the light, since they appear to have way to much fun.

One way of making that happen sooner than later, would be for men to act against their programming, and extend the “no-marriage” into “no-help” sanctions, where men will absolutely refuse to help women, outside of work and so on, with anything at all. No dire misfortune, on the womens behalf, should ever lead a man to raise anything but an eyebrow, and turn their backs on them and walk away. Maybe that would make a difference after a while, but I seriously have my doubts…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
globalman October 31, 2009 at 21:43

someone October 31, 2009 at 2:41 pm

This woman is a good example of why we should just trash the crap trolls like this put here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jack Donovan October 31, 2009 at 21:48

No dire misfortune, on the womens behalf, should ever lead a man to raise anything but an eyebrow, and turn their backs on them and walk away. Maybe that would make a difference after a while, but I seriously have my doubts…

…and the tears of women were just water to him…

You raise a good point. I don’t know what the answer is at the moment. A part of me thinks an actual freak-out about the change in demography is burgeoning…a reality check where people of European descent suddenly realize that there are fewer and fewer of them, and that the feminism and the anti-human ideal of a gender neutral society are major reasons why. We’re still animals, and we have animal needs and we have to deal with the reality of that. Religion kept things in check for so long, but now it…can’t. I’d like to see some sort of rational, secular conservatism take over, but without religion I don’t know how it would stick.

Some folks here have mentioned some ways to start “opting out” and blocking women at the individual level. One was refusing to be serviced by female practitioners, and requesting to deal with men whenever possible.

I already do this to some extent. I have a position where I don’t have to report to women directly, and I’d avoid working for a female manager even if it meant taking less money or quitting. I worked for women for years and I won’t do it anymore. My close friends are all men. I guess in a sense I could see the “boy’s club” being rebuilt from the bottom up, through private associations, with winks and nods.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
globalman October 31, 2009 at 22:24

Zed,
superlative work again…..where did you learn to write dude?

“15) All this adds up to the fact that the female controls the sexual interaction.”
Nope…..this is only true until you learn “The power of money beats the power of pussy every time.” Women will do anything for male attention and a shot at some money. Evidence? Try watching some amateur porn. That will show you how far women will degrade themselves just to get a little bit of male attention. They are attention whores.

Western women are universally crap and not worth talking to. Even the few that are, aren’t. They will be feminised soon enough. They don’t like that opinion? Tough! I would not put my penis in the mouth of any western woman for fear she might bite to show me how ‘empowered’ she is. They can have the vibrators and cats. Eastern women are wonderful. But ALL women are children. They have so little processing power between their ears it’s not funny. So, to have offspring and to give those offspring the best chance in life they must belong to the male exclusively. The woman gets to stay of she behaves herself. Yep, ‘honour and OBEY’. Period. Or get the f*** out woman. Most women will stay because they can’t actually support themselves as evidenced by ‘alimony and child support’. Most men will treat them well because we have something women don’t. Class. But I would recommend against kids right now. No point. We have enough people already.

Love? Women are not capable of it. Period. No need for any more discussion on that point.

Relationships? They are actually not possible between a man and a woman. ‘Relationships’ are a scam introduced to brainwash men into providing for women. And I used to be called ‘Mr. Relationships’ by my friends. LOL! I have studied and worked on ‘relationships’ for 32 years. My conclusion is that a reasonably intelligent man can not actually have a relationship with a woman as men understand relationships. Women don’t want men, they want what men provide, whereas men actually really want a relationship with a woman as we have been programmed to want such. The alphas are more the exception to this and they representn about 10% of men anyway. Alphas inherently know that women are worthless except as baby making machines and that ‘relationships’ with them are a joke. Us poor ‘beta providers’ believed our mums that woman want relationships. It’s all a lie.

So, what is an alternative? I am living it. ‘Relaxionships’. While the woman is relaxing to be with, she can stay, apart from that, she goes. Real simple. I now play (because I am not one) alpha male when I want to attract women and it works like a magnet. When I was young I didn’t act alpha as I wanted a woman for my whole life and didn’t want to attract sluts. Now? Sluts will do just fine. I gotta die of something. LOL! (Though of course I am careful.) Every woman who talks to me knows that sex has to be on offer. I now make ‘shallow hal’ look like the marinara trench. I am far happier than I ever was as a married man. I really don’t care at all about the women I have sex with. If I read one of the women I know got run over by a train in the obits I would think ‘Gee, I’ll miss having sex sex with her.’ I am indifferent even to the women I really like. Oh well. Welcome to the 21st century man ladies. ;-)

As for kids? Reproduction? Kids are over-rated. Don’t have them. Certainly not until it is absolutely rock solid and can not be contested that any child a man has is his legal property and NO-ONE can interfere with HIS child. Certainly not the mother. When a man can shoot and kill lawfully any person who interferes with his kids then maybe it will be worth having them again. Apart from that? Why bother? There are already too many people in the world. Get a dog. It will love you more than any female child. And yes, I raised 4 and my former boys turned out great. I know what I am talking about.

Women don’t like my opinions? GOOD! F*** off and go to the feministing echo chamber. As long as I draw breath I will be telling young men western women are creap, don’t have babies, don’t co-habit, date as many woman as you can, toss them out when they are no longer relaxing and enjoy your life. I will tell men do NOT follow in my footsteps of ‘marriage with children’. I will point to my life as evidence that being the best possible father and family man is a complete waste of time today. My ex is 47, fat, and ‘entitled’. She made my life very difficult. Now? I get to date ‘supermodels’. I travel the world as I see fit. For any man who reads this? Marriage is a scam. Even when it’s ‘great’ it’s crap compared to being a bachelor. Who the hell wants to be legally tied to an old woman. Let their ‘sistas’ take care of them. When I am too old to be able to get hot chicks I’ll just lay down on the train tracks and meet my maker. I hope to die having sex at a ripe old age.

And yes. Do NOT have sex with any woman who does not acknowledge that you are the master in the relationship. Just don’t do it. You don’t need to. All this ‘equality’ bullshit is just that. Men are better than women. So don’t be letting any women push you around like I did for so many years just because you ‘love’ her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
globalman October 31, 2009 at 22:36

Renee October 31, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“I always believed that the reason/cause for rape was that the rapist choose to rape.”
Well as a man who has had his wife, after a three month absence, kiss him, fondle him, suck on his dick and profess undying love only to say ‘NO’ as he wanted to ‘make love’ thus making it ‘rape’ if I tried to make love with the woman I love and have shared my life with for 20 years I can see how you would think she would be the ‘victim’ if I ‘chose’ to be a rapist and to rape the woman I loved by making love with her…..and you wonder why we think you woman are so stupid and such crap now?

Western women are cruel and vicious to their husbands now. They wield emotional abuse like a whip. They will call the police in to bash the shit out of their husbands at gun point without blinking an eye and lord it over him in their ‘empowerment’. They are disgusting. That is why I will not touch a western woman and I do not recommend any other man touch a western woman though I realise many men are not in my position. Western women have shown their hand and it is one of disgrace. Thank you Renee for giving me the opportunity of poiinting out to young men what they can look forward to if they ‘rape’ the woman they love, the mother of their babies, even after extensive foreplay after a prolonged period apart. Yep..that right there is ‘rape’ according to you women now. And yes, on that occasion my ex even objected to me going to the bathroom and would not leave me alone to ‘do what a man has got to do’. You women are so charming now. You really are. I will never allow a woman in my house ever again. Well done.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
globalman October 31, 2009 at 22:39

wow October 31, 2009 at 4:44 pm
“I teach high school boys”
Just teach them that western women are crap.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Kimskinovgorod October 31, 2009 at 22:54

Jack Donovan
“..I could see the “boy´s club” being rebuild…”

Yes, something like that, or all of the above mentioned…A general strike or refusion to deal with anything that involves women, apart from the most necessary contacts. A reluctance to answer or an obvious hesitation, whenever talked to or asked to do something. Women would pick up on that real fast, with their alleged finer social skills.

Or just plain acting stupid and unable to understand what they want, until explained by a man, with the subsequent acting normal and intelligent, until said woman speaks again. Men have proved themselves quite capable of practicing that kind of “underground sabotage” during the WWII and other wars, where a great number of men were held captives by an enemy. In Europe, as an example, it almost became a sport to tell the germans jokes, that didn´t translate to other languages than your own. And we have the advantage of them not being able to beat us up or shoot us….yet.

There´s also the fine art of silence…

Whenever a single woman, or a group of women, join a group of men, -instead of the men thinking about moderating their language, and acting PC, they could choose to keep quiet, and only answer in the shortest possible terms, whenever spoken to by women. And as soon as the woman, or women, leaves the group, all would return to normal, and the men could maybe even throw in a laugh or two. No social being would be able to stand that kind of being “shut out” of a group for long, neither as a single or in groups. All it would take is that the men stop being the “doérs”, and start to be the “silent watchers”.

We could call it Operation: Deep Freeze…:)

But seriously, not all options are tried out to the full extend,-far from it…

Religion and violent overthrows of goverments are not an option, since no system have ever proved able to keep any group of humans down for very long. It just makes them a stronger enemy, when they decide to take back power. But by using our social abilities and the far greater need to belong to a group, that the majority of women have, as a weapon, -now that would really, really sting…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Puma October 31, 2009 at 22:54

Science is Rape!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Puma October 31, 2009 at 22:54

Someone tell the roosters and chickens… no means no … yes means maybe!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Puma October 31, 2009 at 23:11

Hey it’s my Uncle Jeff in that photo!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Kimskinovgorod October 31, 2009 at 23:13

Puma

Yeah, I remember him…He got shot, right ???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
someone October 31, 2009 at 23:25

Welmer: “The definition of rape is a moving target with feminists. It is, in fact, anything they want it to be. Given that fact, practically any man can be accused of “excusing rape.” I’ll take it a step farther: any man can be accused of being a rapist.”

This is completely irrelevant since rape is still rape. Why are you being evasive about this?

kis: “There’s a big difference between a reason/cause and an excuse. That you can’t see that difference is kind of pathetic.”

I don’t need to see something that isn’t there.

Welmer: “As far as I’m concerned, rape is pretty clear cut. And it should be: if a woman physically resists a man he must use a great deal of brutality or threats of such in order to consummate the act.”

That’s not clear cut, it leaves loopholes. But that’s exactly what you want, isn’t it? Now I will wait for the inevitable “BUT I’M NOT DEFENDING RAPE” bullshit response.

globalman: “This woman is a good example of why we should just trash the crap trolls like this put here.”

Yes, clearly anyone who is opposed to rape must be a woman, there can be no other explanation. And oh look, what’s that: a completely random, unfounded and unexplained accusation of trolling that you will never be able to back up in any way whatsoever!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Welmer October 31, 2009 at 23:37

That’s not clear cut, it leaves loopholes. But that’s exactly what you want, isn’t it? Now I will wait for the inevitable “BUT I’M NOT DEFENDING RAPE” bullshit response.

-someone

It’s totally clear cut. No loopholes for the men. YOU are the one who wants loopholes — for the slut. Infinite loopholes…

What’s your definition of rape? “It didn’t feel right”? “I changed my mind”?

Sorry, that shit doesn’t hold up in a real court, and there will come a day – not too far in the future – when girls who falsely cry rape will get tossed in the slammer for their abuse of justice. It will be a happy, righteous day, but sadly little consolation for the thousands of falsely accused men.

When women who falsely accuse men of rape are put through the same thing men who are falsely accused are subjected to, then, and only then, will there be justice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
someone October 31, 2009 at 23:43

Just as I predicted. Whenever some MRA makes excuses for rape or otherwise defends or downplays it, and someone calls him out on it, he starts backpedaling like hell. It’s like MRAs have no idea what they’re saying until someone points it out to them. Kind of like feminists actually.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Lee October 31, 2009 at 23:51

Globalman really laid it all out for us didn’t he. Nice job
Lets not lose our heads here gents. It’s pretty easy to turn the tables on women. You can evoke EXACTLY the same urges in women that they can in us if you would make the effort to learn Game.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Welmer October 31, 2009 at 23:54

Just as I predicted. Whenever some MRA makes excuses for rape or otherwise defends or downplays it, and someone calls him out on it, he starts backpedaling like hell. It’s like MRAs have no idea what they’re saying until someone points it out to them. Kind of like feminists actually.

-someone

Just keep tuning in, someone. We’ll take it a step further.

No backpedaling here.

hehe

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Arbitrary October 31, 2009 at 23:59

Yeah, except some of the things this society calls “rape” really don’t deserve that name. For example, in many US states, both people involved in a sexual act can be technically, as the law is written, rape victims due to that act.

I posted the following comment on the subject when there was a trackback to another blog from an earlier post here, in which someone compared rape to assault. The comment was (predictably) moderated into oblivion, but it explains some of the problems with rape laws rather nicely.

You are misrepresenting the response to your post on The Spearhead; for the most part the people who agreed with you were feminists who post there in order to play Devil’s advocate, or people who only agreed with part of your analogy.

Incidentally, your analogy itself is inaccurate. You say (about cases where both combatants in a wrestling match are drunk):

“OK. Now lets say both are drunk. Now clearly there are times when two drunk people decide to wrestle mutually (even though it may be a bad idea). But if it’s clear from the situation that one person was the aggressor, then it becomes drunken assault.”

But rape laws, as they currently exist, do not mirror that. Once the imputed victim is shown to have been “mentally incapacitated”, there is no burden of proof to show that the other party was the aggressor, or, indeed, that the imputed victim was more “mentally incapacitated” than the imputed rapist. As the laws are currently written (in some states), it is possible to rape someone while you yourself are unconscious–take, for example the state of Washington, which defines rape of the second degree as:

RCW 9A.44.050
Rape in the second degree.

(1) A person is guilty of rape in the second degree when, under circumstances not constituting rape in the first degree, the person engages in sexual intercourse with another person:

(a) By forcible compulsion;

(b) When the victim is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated;
[part (c) and further redacted, for full section go to http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.050 ]

And defines mental incapacity as:
RCW 9A.44.010
Definitions.

As used in this chapter:
[redacted]
(4) “Mental incapacity” is that condition existing at the time of the offense which prevents a person from understanding the nature or consequences of the act of sexual intercourse whether that condition is produced by illness, defect, the influence of a substance or from some other cause.
[redacted]
[For full section, go to http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.010 ]

Thus, as written, a completely unconscious man is raping a drunk woman if she has intercourse with him. I am curious whether you actually believe such an occurrence really ought to qualify as rape (in that direction); I have no evidence that anyone has ever been convicted of such a thing–and one hopes that any reasonable judge would throw out such a case as absurd–but it is awkward that such an important law admits a situation so comically ridiculous (at least, it is comic so long as no one is ever actually prosecuted for it).

It is worth noting that the woman is also theoretically guilty of rape under such a circumstance, but the mere fact that both involved parties can be victims of rape from the same non-violent sexual act ought to be enough to give one pause.

MRAs aren’t simply idiots; they understand that the use of physical force to coerce a person to have sex is reprehensible and rightfully illegal. What concerns them is the unfortunately not unheard of circumstance wherein two people both willingly take judgment impairing substances, engage in intercourse, and then one of the two (statistically, in heterosexual coupling, the woman) accuses the other of rape days or even weeks or months later. Similarly understood is the need to provide legal protection from the use of coercive substances in lieu of physical force. But no distinction is made between willfully choosing to impair one’s judgment, and being deceived into doing so, nor is the relative state of judgment of the imputed rapist even considered. It is these specific aspects of rape law–together with the fact that it is organized as a de facto system of guilty until proven innocent [see (1) at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.020 , compared to (1) at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.030 ]–to which MRAs strenuously object. As your analogy did not address these particular concerns (indeed, it would seem to agree with the MRA position that they ought to be concerns), it was not apparent that it was supposed to appear as an argument against the rough consensus at The Spearhead. In essence, you attacked a straw man, and then you were confused as everyone agreed with what you said.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Jack Donovan November 1, 2009 at 00:09

Kimskinovgorod -

Whenever a single woman, or a group of women, join a group of men, -instead of the men thinking about moderating their language, and acting PC, they could choose to keep quiet, and only answer in the shortest possible terms, whenever spoken to by women.

Actually, it’s been my experience that men often do this already. Men don’t trust women, so they shut down. Women believe men are emotionally stunted and unable to express themselves, because men talk about different things when women are around. I’ve had guys tell me all sorts of honest, thoughtful and occasionally embarrassing things when women are not around.

But yes, there could be more of that. Men have this thing where they want to “give the girl a chance”…it’s a form of chivalry…but that mentality has to change now that women have an advantage in society. They invaded and destroyed all-male social institutions in the name of “equality,” but surely now that women are more than 50% of the work force, we can begin rebuilding them. We have to stop allowing women to guilt men into submission…because that’s where they are winning. It’s not the strength of women, it is women exploiting the weaknesses of men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Absinthe November 1, 2009 at 00:23

Excellent article. The spearhead has become one of my must read blogs.

“Somone” reminds me of TokyoJesusFist from Roissy’s blog

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Welmer November 1, 2009 at 00:24

I think men have to start learning to simply ignore them.

I’ve got kids, and I’m a very attentive dad, but there are times when they are just doing their kid thing and I am talking to another adult. In this case, the kids may be present, but their input is not relevant to my conversation. I just give them a hug and kiss and tell them to go play — daddy is talking to another grown-up. They get it.

Men can do the same with women. If some woman is around, it doesn’t mean you have to worry about her. You don’t have to worry about what you say, and you certainly don’t have to listen to her opinion if nobody asked for it. Women can and will say all sorts of things, and they can be trusted to misrepresent you anyway, so it doesn’t even matter if they hear what you say. You could speak like St. Francis and out of her mouth you come off as Rasputin. It’s just that ridiculous.

Men simply have to learn to stop acting like little boys around their mommies. This is an American problem Jung noted long ago. Don’t think of the woman around as your mommy — think of her as a little girl. Humor her from time to time, but for God’s sake don’t take her seriously. In fact, this is how women themselves treat men in America today. It’s pretty pathetic how obsequious American men are around women. We are like little boys as soon as some woman enters the room. Pathetic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Welmer November 1, 2009 at 00:25

Excellent article. The spearhead has become one of my must read blogs.

“Somone” reminds me of TokyoJesusFist from Roissy’s blog

Probably is, given the rape fixation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
jz November 1, 2009 at 00:37

@Welmer,

Rape is a ..a gun held….. a severe beating, threats to kill, sex with someone in a stupor ……………There is usually physical evidence from such encounters. Anything else involves some degree of consent, and is not criminal.

I was developing sympathy with your point of view; until this nonsense. Welmer, you have no idea what you are writing about. Clearly you have no experience with rape. You are theorizing only, or extrapolating into what you prefer to believe.

I’ve done medical/forensic exams on perhaps 30-40 sexual assaults, and I’ve read a bit of the scarce medical literature. I’ve heard the stories enough to be suspect of the outliers. “Physical evidence” of trauma is almost never present. When present, it is typically to the face. I’ve seen grass and dirt in the vagina, but never perineum trauma.

Reconsider your thoughts on this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Welmer November 1, 2009 at 00:50

I’ve done medical/forensic exams on perhaps 30-40 sexual assaults, and I’ve read a bit of the scarce medical literature. I’ve heard the stories enough to be suspect of the outliers. “Physical evidence” of trauma is almost never present. When present, it is typically to the face. I’ve seen grass and dirt in the vagina, but never perineum trauma.

This is why I mentioned “threats.” There is no physiological trauma from a threat, but the physical implements are often quite real and can be found. Gun, knife, gloves, tape, breaking and entering, etc.

If there was no forcible entry to a residence, no encounter with a stranger, no weapon, no incapacitation, no evidence of restraint, AND no physical injury, rape is highly unlikely. If you take these elements away, any sexual encounter can be rape — anytime a woman calls it so.

BTW, physiological evidence and physical evidence are not one and the same, although the latter contains the former.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan November 1, 2009 at 00:54

Welmer -

Humor her from time to time, but for God’s sake don’t take her seriously. In fact, this is how women themselves treat men in America today.

This is completely true. And it’s the old TV/film stereotype about how women used to be treated in the office…a la “9 to 5.” Whatever sweetheart, can you go get me some coffee? Thanks.

However, there is the reality that men do have to protect themselves, especially at work. Socially, I agree with you completely, but for instance I don’t really need the girls upstairs in the office, who think I’m a nice guy, reading my blog.

And a lot of average, completely silly and meaningless guy banter that happens at my workplace on a regular basis would look lovely on a sexual harassment complaint. Men are almost all hyper aware of the potential for something like that to cost them their jobs. I’ve seen it actually happen. One word from a bitch is enough for some employers to take the safe route and get rid of the guy.

I greet my buddy regularly with disgusting, graphic descriptions of how I fucked his mother, and he reciprocates with stories about how my mother is a fat, banged out whore who is impossible to please. (Of course I have met his mother and am always a perfect gentleman). It’s juvenile, but it’s funny, and no harm is meant by it. Then there’s the mildly racist jokes and the weird fake homoerotic goofing around and the inevitable talk about our redneck co-worker’s bestiality problem. All stupid, but just guys being guys. Occasionally it reminds me of the construction trailer scene from Gran Torino. But when the bosses’ wife’s pal who does the books in service walks by…yeah…she doesn’t need to hear that.

So I get what you’re saying, and I honestly tend to be belligerent and refuse to censor myself down to tea party talk, but men have some legitimate concerns.

Socially though…as Camille Paglia would say, “No Law In The Arena.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 1, 2009 at 00:57

Well, yeah, at work of course. You’re right on that one.

This is why working with women should be scrupulously avoided if at all possible.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod November 1, 2009 at 00:59

Jack Donovan
NO trust.
NO chances.
NO chivalry.
They went out the window with feminism and should be something deserved.

Welmer
“think of them as little girls.”
I like the analogy !
If you won´t take responsibility for your actions, you ARE a child in my book.

Zed
Excellent work !!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
someone November 1, 2009 at 01:03

“Probably is, given the rape fixation.”

Naturally, anyone who opposes rape is a villain in the wacky, upside down world of MRA. Crazy people with “fixations” (nevermind the fact that I wasn’t even the one who brought up this subject).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Asher November 1, 2009 at 01:04

In a certain sense, someone is correct that human beings are not animals, but this is because “humanitas” is a spiritual concept. Starting about three years ago, I began excising the term “human” from my lexicon and began correcting others on their use, rather misuse, of the term. It seems pretty clear, that the term “human” heavily connotes something spiritual, something more than merely the biological. So, “human” is a positive assertion that there is something more than animal, and what is the symbol for the category “more than animal”? Spiritual.

So, to say “more than animal” is to assert a spiritual dimension to our species, one which I see is very much unwarranted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jack Donovan November 1, 2009 at 01:12

Welmer –

This is why working with women should be scrupulously avoided if at all possible.

Agreed.

The whole rape “debate” is intentionally pedantic.

It’s pretty obvious that you’re saying that real rape is a violent assault that you can prove happened, and everyone agrees that’s bad and should be punished. The “he said/she said” date rape bullshit is what has to go. I think it’s fair to say you should have to have evidence to strongly suggest that it was a violent assault to ruin a man’s life and begin prosecution. Whether or not you have experience inspecting battered vaginas hardly discredits your argument.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary November 1, 2009 at 01:19

Someone, my previous comment was directed more or less at you. Do you have any answer to the questions it contains?

Asher, the kingdom Animalia is typically defined to contain all multicellular eukaryotic organisms. Humans are multicellular eukaryotic organisms, and so are typically termed animals by biologists, despite colloquial usage to the contrary.

Furthermore, the idea that “human” ought to be considered a spiritual term, while “animal” ought to be considered non-spiritual, is itself amusing. The term “animal” is derived from the root anima, as in that which has a soul. The term “human”, on the other hand, finds its roots in humus, meaning “of the earth”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
someone November 1, 2009 at 01:38

What previous comment?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Arbitrary November 1, 2009 at 01:44

Just do a “find on page” for “arbitrary”. In particular, I’d like your reaction to the part in the quoted section indicating “I am curious whether you actually believe such an occurrence really ought to qualify as rape”…although the quoted section was not originally written to you, I posted it here specifically to get your reaction.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 1, 2009 at 01:47

Sorry, that shit doesn’t hold up in a real court, and there will come a day – not too far in the future – when girls who falsely cry rape will get tossed in the slammer for their abuse of justice.

One can hope.

May I ask why you are optimistic that this day will arrive soon?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
someone November 1, 2009 at 01:56

Arbitrary, what you’re talking about is irrelevant. You are trying to change the subject. I have seen this tactic before.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Arbitrary November 1, 2009 at 02:12

No, what I’m talking about is the legal definition of rape. The question is, in essence, do you think it is appropriate? If the answer is no, then we can talk about degree and type of a change. If the answer is yes, then we have to start from the issues that exist under the current definition before we can consider any others.

Under the current definition, I am perfectly willing to defend the actions of the many people falsely accused of rape, and of some of the many people accused of rapes in which no physical violence, intimidation, or willful incapacitation occurred. Your effort, it appears, is to brand anyone willing to make such a defense as identical to a person who would defend those who actually engage in the violent violation of the body of another person. If this is not your intention, please clarify your position.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
someone November 1, 2009 at 02:23

Rape doesn’t become acceptable or understandable just because false rape charges exist. That doesn’t even make any goddamn sense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Arbitrary November 1, 2009 at 02:27

My earlier comment didn’t talk about false rape at all. My most recent comment before this one only mentioned it to include those accused of false rape as a group of people I’d be willing to defend. No one here has claimed that rape is acceptable because false rape exists. The question I am asking you is, if you don’t like Welmer’s definition, how would you define rape? Do you think the current definition under the law is appropriate?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
someone November 1, 2009 at 02:30

“No one here has claimed that rape is acceptable because false rape exists.”

Except this is what you were arguing for, unless you’re just being/acting confused and muddying the waters with irrelevant nonsense.

“The question I am asking you is, if you don’t like Welmer’s definition, how would you define rape? Do you think the current definition under the law is appropriate?”

Irrelevant!

Staying on topic sure is difficult for some people.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Arbitrary November 1, 2009 at 02:39

But, under the law, the type of circumstance I originally asked for your comment on is not false rape. It is, in the legal sense, very real rape; enforcing the letter of the law in such a circumstance would result in a conviction. These circumstances are a major aspect of the problems with existing rape laws, the lack of repercussions for false claims is a separate issue. If you believe this to be off topic, then I am afraid you will have to delineate for me what you think the bounds of the topic are.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
someone November 1, 2009 at 03:04

This is so classic. Whenever MRAs are confronted with the fact that rape is unquestionably wrong, they start going on about unjust rape laws and feminism and whatnot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Arbitrary November 1, 2009 at 03:09

Similarly classic (and, conveniently entertaining) is your continued dismissal of my questions. If rape is unquestionably wrong, shouldn’t it be important to be clear on what exactly constitutes rape?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
kis November 1, 2009 at 03:23

I think someone is being an ass. Ignore him/her.

Okay, given what Arbitrary has posted, wouldn’t one possible strategy be for any man accused of rape after a drunken one night stand to turn around and press rape charges against the woman involved, since he was also too drunk to consent to sex? (He could even claim that he didn’t call her the next day because he didn’t know what he was doing while drunk and once sober totally regretted what happened. The lack of the phone call would only bolster his case.) I mean, one or two times it might get laughed at, but if enough men did it, wouldn’t someone maybe catch on that the legal definition of rape is stupid?

And wouldn’t women be less likely to charge a man with rape over her morning after regrets if she knew there was a chance she’d end up in the same position he’s in? Perhaps not with the same likelihood of conviction, but stuck with a public defender and the ordeal of a trial as viewed from the other side of the courtroom?

Or maybe–just maybe–a few men who wake up hungover and feeling like a squirrel crawled in their mouth and died, lying next to Alice the Goon (or even her better-looking sister) show up at the police station a week later tearfully claiming they were taken advantage of by a predatory female while intoxicated? Like a pre-emptive strike? Maybe a few dozen cases like that would get some attention?

I’d feel bad for the individual women, but not for women in general.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
someone November 1, 2009 at 03:24

I dismiss your questions because they are irrelevant and off-topic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
someone November 1, 2009 at 03:26

“I think someone is being an ass. Ignore him/her.”

Hell yeah bro, anyone who is against rape must be an ass. Let’s go rape some bitches right now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Arbitrary November 1, 2009 at 03:51

Kis, I expect you’d have a hard time finding DAs willing to prosecute such cases, and without it getting all the way to a courtroom I doubt there’d be any media coverage.

Someone, I expect you have a hard time finding people to debate against because you refuse to define the scope of a topic you wish to discuss, and without such a definition ignore or misrepresent any position not in accord with your own point of view.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
kis November 1, 2009 at 03:51

Someone, let me tell you something.

The best sex I’ve ever had happened on wet grass in the pouring rain. It left me hypothermic, and covered with bruises, whisker burn so bad it took a month to heal, a bite mark that left a scar, and what seem to be permanent marks on both knees (I mean, it’s been a year and they’re still there). And come to think of it, a rape kit might have unearthed dirt or grass in my vagina, heh.

I was legally impaired but not staggering drunk (*maybe* a .08 or .09). He was more drunk than I was.

I consented. I could easily have charged him with rape–I had evidence all over me. Hence, problem one: the false rape charge.

Problem two: Had I gotten behind the wheel and driven my car into a crowd of kids out trick or treating, I would have been held accountable for that under the law. I’d have faced a whole slew of charges, including impaired driving, vehicular manslaughter, and possibly more severe charges such as depraved indifference homicide. So when I’m drunk, I am held accountable for my decision to drive a vehicle. Saying I was too drunk to know what I was doing is not a defense. But at the same level of impairment, I am not held accountable for my my decision to have sex? Saying I was too drunk removes my responsibility in that case? This is insane!

Problem three: *He* could have charged *me* with rape. He was drunker than I was. And likewise, he was covered with all kinds of evidence as well (no whisker burn, though, heh). Considering he was separated form his wife at the time, and has subsequently gone back to her, he certainly would have a motive for doing so if what we’d done had become public knowledge.

So now we have three different ways one of us could abuse the law and fuck up the life of the other. Over a consenting act that we both enjoyed like whoa and like damn. This is, in a word, ridiculous.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Oekedulleke November 1, 2009 at 03:52

@someone

You’re not an ass because you are against rape, but because you are incapable or unwilling to listen to the actual arguments being made here.

If arbitrary asks you what your definition of rape is, and you answer “irrelevant”. Thats being an ass. Your every post here has been about rape, and asking where you draw the lines is very relevant if you want to have a serious and honest discussion about the topic.

But you don’t want that ofcourse, you wouldn’t know honesty and truth if it stared you in the face.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
someone November 1, 2009 at 03:59

“Someone, let me tell you something.”

Why are you telling me this? It is irrelevant. As I have said many times now.

Oekedulleke: “You’re not an ass because you are against rape, but because you are incapable or unwilling to listen to the actual arguments being made here.”

Because the arguments are irrelevant.

“But you don’t want that ofcourse, you wouldn’t know honesty and truth if it stared you in the face.”

I don’t know honesty and truth because I, unlike everyone else, am staying on-topic? Ok, I guess that makes sense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
kis November 1, 2009 at 03:59

Kis, I expect you’d have a hard time finding DAs willing to prosecute such cases, and without it getting all the way to a courtroom I doubt there’d be any media coverage.

You’d just need one sympathetic DA. And I’m pretty sure you’d need a case where the woman was mostly sober and the man quite spectacularly impaired–but it does happen. I mean, if she’s not legally impaired and he is, the onus should be on her to wait until he’s sober enough to give consent, right?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis November 1, 2009 at 04:04

I don’t know honesty and truth because I, unlike everyone else, am staying on-topic?

I don’t know how much more on-topic you’d like to have things. What is this “topic” of which you speak? Please, help us understand, because obviously, you are the arbiter of the topic up for discussion.

Or perhaps you should go sit in the corner and think about stuff for a while. Maybe you could look in your thesaurus for a synonym for “irrelevant”, because your comments are a tad redundant. Just sayin’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary November 1, 2009 at 04:11

Unfortunately, Kis, the law itself (often, as in the case of the state of Washington, above) does not specify any quantity limits on what it means to be mentally incapacitated. And while the onus should be on her under such circumstances, public opinion is easily swayed against such a position, and any political opponents of the DA have an interest in doing so.

I think you are correct that a pre-emptive strike is probably best in cases where you think you might be accused of date rape, but predicting when that’s likely, and when the other person simply had a drunken good time, is probably non-trivial.

Of course, it’s safest to just avoid the situation to begin with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis November 1, 2009 at 04:15

Of course, it’s safest to just avoid the situation to begin with.

I refuse to advocate for a world where romps in the wet grass are a thing of the past. Sigh.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis November 1, 2009 at 04:27

This whole idea of using drunkenness as an excuse to not take responsibility for your decisions is crazy–especially when the law then puts that responsibility on the shoulders of another drunk person

I mean, I know a guy who went to a party at a friend’s summer cottage. Everyone brought their own booze, they all got drunk, then this guy suggested they all go to the lake to swim. The people who went drank more while there. He dived off the dock, struck a submerged tree trunk and broke his neck. He’s quadriplegic now. So he sued his friend who owned the cottage. The basis of the suit was that he was drunk and his friend (who was also drunk) should have stopped him. The friend did own the premises where much of the liquor had been consumed, but had not supplied any of the liquor and didn’t even go with them to the lake, which was not on his property. Furthermore, he was also drunk.

The guy won the suit.

But honestly. If being drunk is an excuse not to take responsibility for being stupid and breaking your neck, how is it not an excuse for not being able to foresee someone else’s drunken stupidity?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
someone November 1, 2009 at 04:46

“I don’t know how much more on-topic you’d like to have things. What is this “topic” of which you speak? Please, help us understand, because obviously, you are the arbiter of the topic up for discussion.”

I am saying that rape is not acceptable and you can’t make excuses for it, but it seems nobody here agrees.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Oekedulleke November 1, 2009 at 05:16

“I am saying that rape is not acceptable and you can’t make excuses for it, but it seems nobody here agrees.”

And time and again everyone here has answered to this that we are NOT excusing rape, but looking at WHY certain rapes occur.

Concluding that women should not be running around drunk and in revealing clothing at night in a dark ally because its unsafe doesn’t mean we’re blaming the victim if she gets raped. If your goal is to fight rape and keep women safe, then that should include safe and responsible behavior from the women too. Telling girls that they shouldn’t flash their boobs at a bunch of drunk men isn’t patriarchal oppression, its common sense.

and THAT is what this article is about: if a girl shows her breasts or rubs herself all over a guy, she signals to him that she is willing to have sex to a very primitive part of his brain. and this will have consequences if she is faking those signals and blows him off. To 99,9 % of men it will make them angry and bitter towards her, and to a few others it will mean raping her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Paul November 1, 2009 at 05:29

Zed I felt that this was a very insightful article. It was clear and covered a wide range. I began to read down the comments but gave up quickly as they seemed to bet bogged down into discussion of rape and nothing else. But your article does much more as it illuminated a whole range of phenomena.

I have a question. In my twenties which occurred during the 70′s. I was aware that my sexual needs where coming from a part of me that was outside the control of my conscious brain. You refer to it as the ‘reptilian brain’. By this I don’t mean that I could not control my actions but that I could not control my feelings. After all sexual desire is very largely just frustration so it would be better not to have it. So my question is how can this reptilian brain be controlled? Does anyone else agree that the reptilian brain is largely a source of self destruction in a man?

Welmer I agree with you about the definition of rape and indeed you are correct that at different times different definitions have prevailed, including I think what we now consider adultery. For sure what we have now comes close to just criminalizing male sexuality.

Can I suggest that none of us ever respond to somebody whatever guise she appears in. I prefer intelligent discussion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avenger November 1, 2009 at 05:48

There is no such thing as rape.This was more of a social rule that was later put into law and the law is only what is in the Statute. If we left it to the feminists or even the average female they would claim that they were raped if a man looked at them the wrong way “mental rape” or did it telepathically. We’re not dealing with rational men here so we’ll just have to put our foot down and stop this childish nonsense now. Any female who consents to being with a man cannot be raped and this would include husbands, boyfriends and anyone they go with on a date. If anything happens that they don’t like it would just be considered bad behaviour not a crime. Voluntary intoxication would not be a defence to a crime (DWI etc) so it can’t be used to claim a female was raped and besides, if she was so intoxicated (usually the man is too) how would she remember if she wanted sex at the time or not.Another problem with females is that they normally behave erratically whether from hormonal fluctuations or because we permit them to, so it’s hard to tell if they’re drunk or just behaving like an average female. Females who send out mating signals are asking for sex and girls who dress in a sexually provocative way and go to clubs or bars are looking for male attention otherwise they could just as well drink or dance at their home with their girlfriends.Criminal laws cannot be ambiguous or open to interpretation or opinion because they are criminal laws that result in criminal penalties and if there’s any doubt something then it us not a crime. In cases of he said she said there can be no crime because we cannot take one person’s word over another’s without any further proof which is impossible to have in these “rape” cases where only two people are present. If a man said that a female stole his wallet full of money he would have to prove it in some way. If a female agrees to see a man where they are alone (like he invites her to his house) then it should be presumed that anything that happens is consentual because men and women have nothing in common except sex and reproduction and a grown woman should know this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed November 1, 2009 at 06:11

if a girl shows her breasts or rubs herself all over a guy, she signals to him that she is willing to have sex to a very primitive part of his brain. and this will have consequences if she is faking those signals and blows him off. To 99,9 % of men it will make them angry and bitter towards her

And over time as a man has more and more experiences like that with women, and with women who will argue to the death for the right of women to use men’s instinctive responses to jerk men around, that anger and bitterness will generalize more and more toward women in general.

One fascinating thing about this discussion is that when I wrote this essay the “rayyyype!” hysteria was not as advanced as it is today. “Rayyyype!” is certainly the nuclear device of the gender war because it strikes at the very heart of what is the most unique activity which is specific to male-female interaction. Turning this interaction criminal, and giving women free license to falsely accuse men of it, introduces a risk factor into every interaction a man has with a woman. As women’s attractiveness and men’s level of desire decline with age, that risk factor eventually becomes significant enough to deter men from interacting with women at all, much less seeking to form relationships with them. I saw several comments above alluding to or suggesting this sort of avoidance.

As I said in the intro, this was written before Game even appeared on the radar. But, the phenomenon it describes actually predicts the rise of Game. Game is men consciously learning how to beat on women’s instinctive involuntary reactions as a form of counter-attack.

The positions of women like someone and Renee, who show absolutely no regard, concern, or consideration for men as human beings, illustrate why the sociopathology of guys like Roissy is on the rise, and why so few other men care even if they have not personally adopted that stance. The destruction of men’s ability to have any concern for women at all will eventually be to women’s severe detriment.

Something else which occurred to me as I dusted off the article and have watched the ensuing discussion is that there has been a fundamental change in women post feminism. I think younger men are dealing with an entirely different type of woman than most older men realize. Both sexes of my generation were raised under the old value system and the changes that we made were adjustments, not adoption of something completely and fundamentally different.

I knew that young men today were dealing with creatures who were mostly selfish monsters, but I have gained new appreciation for what men of Gen X and Gen Y are dealing with.

Renee November 1, 2009 at 06:13

Zed,

I’m saying that men need to learn that women are faking it, and how and why, in self-defense.

Thanks :) Sorry if I missed it while reading your post.

Anyway, I hope you don’t believe that I myself think that it’s just fine for a woman to purposefully lead a guy on or act seductively without the intention of sex.

Think about that the next Friday or Saturday night you are sitting at home without a date

Well considering the fact that I’m single, that’s pretty much every Friday and Saturday night lol :P
————————-
Welmer,

Rape is a knife to the throat, a gun held to the head, a severe beating, threats to kill, sex with someone in a stupor from a beating or mind-altering substances, etc. There is usually physical evidence from such encounters.
Anything else involves some degree of consent, and is not criminal.

Hmmmmm, other than that last sentence, I agree. I mean a person can still overpower you without using weapons or in the absence of drugs. To me, if someone forces you to have sex after you said no and/or resist, then that’s rape.
—————————
Kis,

We are products of our biology *and* our environment. And there are responses to environmental stimuli programmed into our biology that can put huge strain on people who are forced to resist those responses when the stimuli are pushed in their faces everywhere they turn. The fact that men can live in this society, and only 1 in 4 (or 1 in 7 or whatever the figure of the week is) are raped, instead of 1 in 1, is IMO, a credit to men’s ability to maintain restraints on their own behavior.

Putting it that way, it sounds like any man is capable of rape if pushed far enough, which of course isn’t true. In fact it’s one of the common complaints about feminism.

The very existence of this biological response makes me think that non-consensual sex is probably fairly “natural” to the species.
But how do you explain rape and sexual assault of women in their home or just walking to her car. What about in cases where it’s children male and female?
—————————–
The thing is, what is considered “acting seductively” nowadays? Oh I know the general idea of what it consist of but I think most of the time it doesn’t reach that far. I mean a guy can say that he was lead on just by being kissed. I should be able to kiss a guy without expecting to put out right (keep in mind that I’m not talking about a total stranger here). What about if you’re dancing with a guy at a club or party with him, or the occasional chit-chat? Who’s to say how often a rape victim actually acts seductive? And no I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen.

And the clothing…I know what revealing clothing looks like, but the problem is people have different ideas as to what’s considered revealing. What about dresses that stop a little bit above the knee but it’s form-fitting (not spandex form-fitting), or if your outfit is decent, it’s just that you show a little cleavage?

Don’t get me wrong, I basically agree with just about everything you all said. What I’m getting at is this. Because things have gotten so confusing now, to me, consent is whether that person says yes or no, verbal or I guess behavioral (like if the person’s rigid, crying, hesistant – yes this can be problematic) to sex at that very moment. If they say no, then end it. And no I’m not saying pressuring someone to have sex is rape, unless….well….you threaten them with bodily harm.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
someone November 1, 2009 at 06:22

Oekedulleke: “And time and again everyone here has answered to this that we are NOT excusing rape, but looking at WHY certain rapes occur.”

Zed was completely excusing rape in his article, and I don’t see people rushing to condemn him. Everyone is just talking about how rape laws are unfair, which has nothing to do with the fact that rape is unquestionably wrong and nothing can justify or excuse it.

Avenger: “There is no such thing as rape.”

Having sex with someone against their will is rape. Period.

“Any female who consents to being with a man cannot be raped and this would include husbands, boyfriends and anyone they go with on a date.”

Here’s another clear example of a person arbitrarily justifying rape.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
zed November 1, 2009 at 06:25

I have a question. In my twenties which occurred during the 70’s. I was aware that my sexual needs where coming from a part of me that was outside the control of my conscious brain. You refer to it as the ‘reptilian brain’. By this I don’t mean that I could not control my actions but that I could not control my feelings. After all sexual desire is very largely just frustration so it would be better not to have it. So my question is how can this reptilian brain be controlled? Does anyone else agree that the reptilian brain is largely a source of self destruction in a man?

Oboy. Welmer has asked us to steer away from discussion of religion, and so far I have gone along with that completely. I do not hide the fact that I am a priest of zen, but I do not go out of my way to advertise that, either.

Personally, I think we are hosed as far as social solutions are concerned. The current level of cultural entropy is too far gone and has way too much support to ever reverse it. I think the only possible solutions for men are personal ones, and individual strategies.

My own personal choice is to internalize and constantly meditate on the principle that “All suffering comes from desire.” I cannot control my feelings, but I can control my actions and behaviors. That seems to be one advantage men have over women – as FM discussed in her post http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/21/self-control-a-masculine-quality/

Self-control gives me the power to exist as comfortably as is possible in a world that often seems chaotic and irrational. As a strategy, changing one person – me – seems have a lot better chances for success than demanding that I get to do whatever I want to do and that the entire rest of the world has to change in order to gratify me.

zed November 1, 2009 at 06:26

Anyway, I hope you don’t believe that I myself think that it’s just fine for a woman to purposefully lead a guy on or act seductively without the intention of sex.

That is exactly the impression I have of you, Renee, because that is the position you always argue.

Renee November 1, 2009 at 06:37

Ok, maybe that behavioral part was kind of lame. I was just trying to cover all the bases so to speak.

About that victim-blaming thing. To me victim-blaming is actually blaming or partly blaming the victim for being raped, which I have seen happen online (I’m not including you all in this). This is different than admiting that there were perhaps steps that the victim could have taken to lessen the risks, or things that the person shouldn’t have done. But I personally hate it when, lets say a woman talks about her experience and the discussion goes to what she should have or shouldn’t have done. I’m thinking she has already thought about that, if not blamed herself for what happened. I think another problem seems to be this generalization of rape victims and their behavior in situations like parties, dates, and clubs. Of course it happens but how often? Do we really know how often a rape victim “acted seductively” or that she wore revealing clothing if it was actually revealing? Did she really lead him on, or was that his excuse?

And anyway, I’ve always been curious as to whether people discuss what the victim should or shouldn’t have done in other cases like they do in rape cases?

Sorry if I’m going way off topic here lol.
————————-
Welmer,

This is why working with women should be scrupulously avoided if at all possible.

Lol, I wouldn’t go that far. Just don’t have sex with them. Simple as that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
zed November 1, 2009 at 06:41

Because things have gotten so confusing now, to me, consent is whether that person says yes or no, verbal or I guess behavioral (like if the person’s rigid, crying, hesistant – yes this can be problematic) to sex at that very moment. If they say no, then end it.

I get the impression that you may never have actually had sex. Read what kis has to say. Actual sex is vague and confusing, fraught with uncertainties on the part of both people, and some of the point of my essay was that it is most definitely NOT entirely conscious and rational.

Plus, under that is a subtle power grab that not all men are going to go along with. The famous “Antioch Rules” which require getting verbal consent at every level of intimacy establish a parent-child relationship where “consent”=”permission.”

Man: “(mother) May I touch your breast?”
Man: “(mother) May I touch your thigh?”
Man: “(mother) May I put a finger inside you?”

Man thinks “Aw, fuggit. I think I’ll go play WoW.”

By re-defining sex exclusively in terms convenient to the mental construct of what the woman wants, not only are feminsts making sure that sex never meets any of a man’s needs, thus decreasing men’s motivation to even engage in it, much less go through all the bullshit involved in pursuing it. They are also guaranteeing that it never meets any of the woman’s needs either.

I never give women “the look” which kis demands for women to “start their engines” because acquiring “consent” to do so has just become too damn obnoxious.

Think about that the next Friday or Saturday night you are sitting at home without a date

Well considering the fact that I’m single, that’s pretty much every Friday and Saturday night lol

Well, you might want to think about that. IIRC, you are black, about 25, and are one of the rare black children recently whose parents are actually married. I’m sure that you are aware that only about 30% of black women are married. I’m not sure whether that is something you ever want to do, but if it is I think you would have some vested interest in understanding why relationships have gone to hell over the past 40 years.

zed November 1, 2009 at 06:47

Just don’t have sex with them. Simple as that.

A nation of neuters. What a pleasant idea. Something to keep in mind the next time a woman bitches about the fact that no men are approaching her and men don’t seem to see her as a woman.

Of course, with the skyrocketing STD rates among women, a lot of men are realizing that may be the best option. Let the Alphas and the Gamers get all the diseases.

Renee November 1, 2009 at 06:55

Zed,

That is exactly the impression I have of you, Renee, because that is the position you always argue.

LOL Where??? And if you’re taking about that whole breasts conversation then I think you missed the point.

The positions of women like someone and Renee, who show absolutely no regard, concern, or consideration for men as human beings, illustrate why the sociopathology of guys like Roissy is on the rise……

Oh PLEASE, like I think it’s fine and dandy for a woman to rub herself all on a guy and/or wear revealing clothing and not expect a response if she does it to the wrong guy. Now perhaps you got the wrong impression from my first comment. I never said that a woman getting drunk, wearing revealing clothing, acting seductively, etc. was ok, just that I didn’t believe she should be entirely blamed for being raped, which you all agree with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Renee November 1, 2009 at 07:09

Zed,

I get the impression that you may never have actually had sex.

You caught me, I’m a virgin…..yes I’m 25 year old virgin. As I said before, I agree with most of what’s being said, at least with you, kis, and Hestia.

A nation of neuters. What a pleasant idea. Something to keep in mind the next time a woman bitches about the fact that no men are approaching her and men don’t seem to see her as a woman.

Don’t be so dramatic lol. In fact you can just disregard that part. Welmer was talking about never working with women. I was just saying don’t have sex with your coworkers. But then I looked at Jack’s post that he responded to and they were talking about “guy banters” and risk of sexual harrasment so nevermind :P

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
zed November 1, 2009 at 07:11

Oh PLEASE, like I think it’s fine and dandy for a woman to rub herself all on a guy and/or wear revealing clothing and not expect a response if she does it to the wrong guy. Now perhaps you got the wrong impression from my first comment.

Perhaps I did. I have been having this same argument with women for the past 40 years and I am absolutely sick to death of it. I may not appreciate the nuances of how your position may be subtly different, and I am so sick to death of beating this dead horse over and over that I don’t have much motivation to try.

I’m not going to dig back through all your posts to find the one particular point I’m talking about, but it was something to the effect that “his reaction is his responsibility. ”

Now, let’s take it this way – suppose I start following you around with a bunch of paper bags and keep blowing them up and popping them behind you just because I get such a kick out of you getting startled. Hey, your reaction is your responsibility, right. I should have the right to jump out of hiding and yell “BOO!” at you any time I want to and it is your responsibility not to react. And, if one of those times you get so startled that you slap my face for doing it, then, well, there is just no excuse for that, right?

I went over one aspect of this stupid form of female argument with kis. If a woman jumps over everything a man has just pointed out to argue with one part of it, there is no sense that she implicitly agrees with everything else – just that she doesn’t have the time to argue with all of it.

Now, everything y0u have said has given me the distinct impression that there is absolutely no way in the world to get across to you the concept that you and every other woman in the world actually share the world with other human beings called “men.” And, that if you ever want any chance of peacefully coexisting with them, you have to show some regard, concern, and consideration for their needs and circumstances, even if they are not exactly what you want.

And, so far, I have seen absolutely no evidence from you that you are willing to do that. Every admission from you that men have a point seems like it is grudgingly extracted from you and only comes at the tail end of extended argument.

Yes, you have given exactly the impression that you think it is fine and dandy for for a woman to rub herself all on a guy and/or wear revealing clothing and not expect a response if she does it to the wrong guy.

And, it is the impression that women like you cannot even be forced to give any consideration at all to men’s perspective which has pushed me to the point where if a woman does use her sexuality to jerk men around and chooses the wrong, unsocialized, guy to do it to and gets hurt, I really do not care and feel no concern for such a woman because in my POV she has been acting just as sociopathically as the man in this situation.

zed November 1, 2009 at 07:25

yes I’m 25 year old virgin

Then you are arguing from a position of absolute ignorance on a subject which you could not possibly know anything about or have any input which is worth even listening to.

I believe that it was Mark Twain who said “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to say something and remove all doubt.”

That is why I really don’t put any effort into trying to understand your position, and simply use your posts as openings to make points I want to make to the lurkers.

Jess November 1, 2009 at 07:35

hmm. I am so thankful I do not know any of you in real life.

but you do make me very grateful for my husband. The head of our household that would never raise his hand against a woman. Who no matter WHAT I was wearing or what I was doing, would ever harm me. Who I can trust completely. He doesnt’ have to rape me because he makes me feel safe and loved enough that I have NEVER refused him and offer him regularly…not as payment but because I love him and want to have sex with him.

I feel sorry for the women in your lifes.

and Jack Donovan, you may ACT like a gentleman in front of the mothers of your coworkers and friends, but you are not a gentleman, I am disappointed to read your comments on this. Promoting men does not require tearing down women any more than promoting women requires tearing down men.

women have their strengths and weaknesses. So do men. There is a reason and a need for both. We should honor both.

ps Zed:

you do a disservice to men by claiming they can’t control themselves, that they are helpless slaves to their biology. I have a higher opinion of men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
zed November 1, 2009 at 07:42

ps Zed:

you do a disservice to men by claiming they can’t control themselves, that they are helpless slaves to their biology. I have a higher opinion of men.

You totally missed my point, which is a great example of why I don’t have a very high opinion of women.

Some of us certainly can control ourselves. But, historically women also had restrictions on their behavior which made men controlling themselves a cooperative effort between men and women. Back in HS, everyone was constantly exhorted to act like “young ladies and gentlemen.” If a girl showed up with too short a skirt, or showing too much cleavage, she was sent home.

The issue is not men’s self control, but that women have been freed from ANY AND ALL cultural expectations that they, too, need to exercise a bit of good judgement and self-control.

And, the secondary point, is that women being allowed to run around half naked, shove their boobs in men’s faces any time they want, and demand that only the male half of the human race exercise “self-control” is resulting in men shutting down on women completely and withdrawing from them into video games, etc.

Yes, you had better be very thankful for your husband and treat him well, because if you ever end up back out in the war zone that modern dating has become, you are quite unlikely to ever find another one.

Jess November 1, 2009 at 07:59

LOL

no, I doubt I would…all the good men are already married up and aren’t available.

the problem seems to be definitions…you say “half naked, shoving boobs in men’s faces”…ok your definition of half naked and someone else’s definition may be different. What is ‘half naked’? form fitting jeans? a bikini? a dress?

and ‘shoving boobs in men’s faces’…is that walking up to a man and thrusting them forward? ok, I would agree…but if that includes sitting in a cafe with a sweater on that was form fitting, then I wouldn’t agree.

women have not been freed from any and all cultural expectations, we still are blamed for the worlds troubles…aren’t we, Zed?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
zed November 1, 2009 at 08:01

women have not been freed from any and all cultural expectations, we still are blamed for the worlds troubles…aren’t we, Zed

No, in fact you are not, Jess. That has been taken over by “teh Patriarchy.”

And, as a simple tutorial in reading comprehension, the statement actually read –
“women have been freed from ANY AND ALL cultural expectations that they, too, need to exercise a bit of good judgement and self-control.

Renee November 1, 2009 at 08:03

Avenger,

There is no such thing as rape.

Yeah, tell that to women who were jumped while going to their car, children who were raped and molested, etc., etc.

If we left it to the feminists or even the average female they would claim that they were raped if a man looked at them the wrong way “mental rape” or did it telepathically.

I guess I’m not the average female then.

Any female who consents to being with a man cannot be raped and this would include husbands, boyfriends and anyone they go with on a date. If anything happens that they don’t like it would just be considered bad behaviour not a crime.

STOP THE PRESSES! Ok, I’m sorry but being married and having a boyfriend are two COMPLETELY different things. Heck going on a date doesn’t even factor in. When you’re married (or at least in an idea marriage), consent is basically automatic for legal and Biblical/spiritual reasons. Having a boyfriend or going on a date doesn’t and shouldn’t grant automatic consent in and of itself. Now when it comes to the idea of “marital rape” I would apply it to cases of domestic abuse, arranged marriages, child brides, things like that. But hey I don’t agree with premarital sex so……
Voluntary intoxication would not be a defence to a crime (DWI etc) so it can’t be used to claim a female was raped and besides, if she was so intoxicated (usually the man is too) how would she remember if she wanted sex at the time or not.
I’m not sure what you mean about DUI being used as a defense to a crime and used to claim someone was raped. Maybe I’m just confused by your wording. The only thing I’m thinking of is if a woman is so drunk that she passes out and someone rapes her even though she didn’t seduce anyone and minded her own business. But like you said, how would she know unless there were witnesses.

Another problem with females is that they normally behave erratically whether from hormonal fluctuations or because we permit them to, so it’s hard to tell if they’re drunk or just behaving like an average female.

Oh come on! Sometimes I think you guys over exaggerate the whole hormone fluctuation, erratic behavior thing. Not saying it doesn’t happen, but I don’t think it happens to the extent that you all seem to imply. There’s a BIG difference between a women who’s drunk and one who’s ovulating or on her period.

Females who send out mating signals are asking for sex and girls who dress in a sexually provocative way and go to clubs or bars are looking for male attention otherwise they could just as well drink or dance at their home with their girlfriends.

But just going to clubs or bars isn’t always asking for sex, at least in my case.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jess November 1, 2009 at 08:07

oh I comprehended the sentence, Zed, thanks…

now if you could adress my questions?

what do you define as ‘half naked’ and ‘shoving boobs in men’s faces’?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
zed November 1, 2009 at 08:11
Females who send out mating signals are asking for sex and girls who dress in a sexually provocative way and go to clubs or bars are looking for male attention otherwise they could just as well drink or dance at their home with their girlfriends.

But just going to clubs or bars isn’t always asking for sex, at least in my case.

1) is it about seeking male attention? If not, why do you go to places where men are present? You could easily go to lesbian bars, dance your heart out, and not be bothered by men.
2) using their sexuality to seek men’s attention while at the same time trying to deny that such attention is fundamentally based on men’s sexual response is at the heart of the conflict and disconnect. This is the source of men’s animosity. It is also the reason why women who may actually be interested in sexual attention from men, and sex, attract mostly sociopathic men, because the rest of us have been conditioned to expect nothing other than sexual fraud from women as a means of gratifying their egos.

Jess November 1, 2009 at 08:24

ok now we are getting somewhere. Women that dare to enter anywhere men are present are offering sex.

so you feel women should be segregated. What about church? Or school? or anywhere really..

I am not aware of the existence of Lesbian bars in this area…what about Chili’s? they have a bar area and men are there…if I go with my friends, I have to have sex with any man that decides he wants me?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Jess November 1, 2009 at 08:27

because the rest of us have been conditioned to expect nothing other than sexual fraud from women as a means of gratifying their egos.

wow…just like puppy dogs.

come on, Zed, men are not that trainable, well at least the men I know aren’t…they seem perfectly able to find women to have sex with and I dont’ consider any or them to be sociopaths. They are fine upstanding members of the community.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Comment_Whatever November 1, 2009 at 08:29

Is unsatisfied sexual desire easier to deal with than a slap to the face?

I think it’s pretty obvious, from the amount of dangerous stunts men have done for CENTURIES to try to impress the woman they desire, that men view physical injury as a lot less unpleasant than unsatisfied desire.

Yet some women here are falling into hysterics over the possibility of a woman being slapped, while just not caring if half-naked women parade in front of men all day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jess November 1, 2009 at 08:35

???

I missed that comment whatever….

did we define what ‘half naked’ means?

or is that just going to be a throw away comment to try to make a point because you can’t define it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Hestia November 1, 2009 at 08:51

Jess-He doesnt’ have to rape me because he makes me feel safe and loved enough that I have NEVER refused him and offer him regularly…not as payment but because I love him and want to have sex with him.
This depends on the jurisdiction that you live in. Some areas have laws that are so anti-male that going by their standards, most wives have technically been raped multiple times by their husbands, for the reason they didn’t obtain direct permission before each sex act. It would appear many legislators have never had sex before since they don’t seem how ridiculous obtaining “permission” would be before each escalation in sex, especially for married couples. Just think of how absurd this would be, for your husband to ask you before he moves on during foreplay. “Can I touch you breast? Can I move my hand down your body?”

I realize zed’s post is about the biological issues of sex, but in today’s world they cannot really be separate from the legal issues as well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed November 1, 2009 at 08:59

what do you define as ‘half naked’ and ’shoving boobs in men’s faces’?

Ok, since you asked, and I have sort of been itching to tell this story anyway, I will give you the most extreme example that I have been subjected to so far. I wish I had time to tell the whole thing, complete with backstory and nuance, but it would run several pages.

A few years ago the ex-wife of a long-term buddy of mine with whom she was having an affair and cheating on her current husband, started working on me to fly out to California for a surprise 50th birthday party. I was between jobs and did not want to spend the money, so I declined. Well, then, another “friend” of his started working on me saying that the woman, who I will call “Jane” would dance naked. I just laughed, because Jane was the most sexually uptight woman I had ever met in my life. She would go to a beach wearing a one-piece bathing suit and still spend most of her day huddled up in a wrap. Some of this changed when she got breast implants, just about the time the marriage was breaking up. She sort of lied to her still-then-husband by simply saying she had “a problem” with her breasts. Of course he and everyone else leapt to the conclusion “BREAST CANCER” and it wasn’t until he picked her up from the hospital to take her to spend a few days taking care of her that he realized that the “problem” she had with her breasts was that they were too small.

So, anyway, the concept that there was a man somewhere in the world who would not immediately rush out and buy a plane ticket to fly across the country to watch some woman shake her fake boobs and saggy butt eventually soaked in and Jane said “what if I send you the money for the plane ticket?” Well, ok, now you’re talking. She sent me a check, I bought the tickets and flew out for the party.

It was in the SF area, and turned into a perfect example of “Californication”. The “theme” of the party was “Leather and Lace, or nothing at all”, so most people there were dressed up in some sort of S/M-lite garb. About half the women chose the “nothing at all” option and were simply not just half-naked, but as naked as when they came out of the womb.

The guest list, either by accident or intent, included about 1/3 “lone wolf” males there, I assume, to provide an audience for the semi-to-completely naked women, all of whom never strayed out of the protective zone of their boyfriends’ “you can look but you better not touch” glares. There were party games full of sexual innuendo aimed at the “birthday boy”, and the whole thing was full of so much bullshit I wished I had brought my hip waders.

I generally tried to find some place where no one else was to put in my time until it was over, going “Beam me up, Scotty, there is obvious no intelligent life on this planet.”

But, oh no, my so-called friend, Jane, was not going to let me off the hook so easily. Later in the evening, when most people were disgustingly drunk, she got up announced the “main entertainment” for the evening. She announced that she was, indeed, going to “dance naked”, and told the story how I had declined the first few suggestions of that, while everyone got a good laugh at the very idea that a man existed in the world who would not drop everything and spend whatever it took to watch some sad middle-aged woman act like a stripper. “Ha, ha, ha.” A good laugh was had by all.

Well, then she announced that she really was going to do it, but that she was going to “make him work for it.” She goes through this big involved build up about how she is going to ask me questions about my buddy, and for every one I get right she is going to off a piece of clothing. She was standing in the middle of the room wearing exactly 3 pieces of clothing – a sheer body stocking and a pair of high heels.

Now, if I hadn’t known that she was as bogus as bogus gets, I might have actually believed all the bullshit she was putting out. But I had learned.

So, there I was at my best buddy’s birthday party, set up by his ex-wife who was cheating on her current husband with her ex-husband, and cornered in such a way that I either had to play good sport and go along with the whole travesty, or come off like a real spoil sport.

I played along, got about 15 questions right against her 3 articles of clothing, and wondered just what kind of bogus act was coming next. She changed “costumes” and with a grand entrance stumbled out into the middle of everyone and proceeded to basically fall out of her shoes because she was so drunk. I stood there shaking my head over what complete trash my buddy and his ex-wife/current-girlfriend had become, and what scum of the earth they had chosen to associate with. I kept thinking that if anyone in the room cared about this woman in the least they would have grabbed her, taken her into the bathroom, dunked her head under cold water, and screamed in her face “WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING?!!!”

Obviously, none of her so-called “friends”, not even the man she was currently sleeping with, cared about her enough to do that.

So, like a root canal in the dentist’s chair, eventually it was over and I could disappear out the back door again.

But, Jane was not quite through with me, yet. She deliberately sought me out, apparently so she could pretend to give a shit about someone who had considered her a friend for a couple of decades, and asked me if I was having a good time. I told her that I really wasn’t, and that being a lone wolf among a bunch of couples, particularly women who were partially to completely naked, just made me feel rather lonely and disconnected.

Her response was the sort of classic cutoff, dismisal, and refuation which women excel at and which really annoys men – “Well, at least you have all these beautiful women to LOOK AT!

And in that moment I got a blinding flash of insight which explained something I had observed about a lot of women and could never understand – because she was getting to be the center of attention, because she was getting her ego gratified and getting to pretend that she was still desirable, even if she had to cough up $350 to get part of her audience there, then I “should” (or must) be enjoying it as much as she was.

Now, I certainly would not have walked across the street to witness this sad spectacle, much less paid money and gone through the hassles of traveling in order to do it. But, her ego needed gratifying so much that she was willing to spend money out of her own pocket, and destroy not only my friendship with her but also my friendship with my buddy, in exhange for one evening of getting to be the center of attention.

That is what I am talking about. Now, I expect that you will come up with all sorts of justifications for her behavior, but I will warn you in advance that I will dismiss them all as nonsense. Anyone who would use me to that extent, and then dismiss the mildest of points that, no, I really wasn’t enjoying it, is someone I really need to keep out of my life.

Jess November 1, 2009 at 09:01

thank you, Hestia, yes it is silly to expect that.

I would start laughing if he stopped and asked permission every other minute…which if he saw that, he would do it just to make me laugh…he does love to pick on me..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jess November 1, 2009 at 09:23

no, Zed, that was completely inexcuseable.

but I hope that at some point you can understand that not all women are like that. just as all men are not rapists wannabes..

sounds to me that there was a lot of misbehaviour there by a lot of people.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
slwerner November 1, 2009 at 09:28

Someone calling themselves “someone” – “This is so classic. Whenever MRAs are confronted with the fact that rape is unquestionably wrong, they start going on about unjust rape laws and feminism and whatnot.”

I thought I recognized this “classic” mis-directing BS – Jeana!, is that you?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed November 1, 2009 at 09:37

I hope that at some point you can understand that not all women are like that. just as all men are not rapists wannabes..

The points I am making, Jess, are –
1) it really doesn’t matter whether “all women are like that” if a man happens to run up against one of the great many who are
2) if I had not had quite a bit of previous experience with learning to distrust women’s sexual signals, I might have actually been taken in by her games and allowed myself to really be jerked around,
3) instead I did what Renee is demanding of men and controlled my own reactions even in the middle of 20 naked women running wild. Contrary to your own knee-jerk reaction and dismissal, I was a paragon of self-control
4) over time, that self-control, which I have been forced to develop and perfect due to many more far less extreme examples has become habitual – as has my distrust of women’s sexual signals – thus, when I see a woman signalling sexually my first reaction is not “Wow, cool, potential mate” but rather “what does she have in mind to jerk me around?”
5) behavoir like this by women who are “like that” (which is rapidly becoming one of the lamest and tiredest knee-jerk refutations by women of what men are trying to get across) harms women who “aren’t like that” but who would potentially like some day to have a relationship with a man because at some point the bullshit men have to wade through in order to pursue such women becomes more odious than any potential reward we can imagine.
6) further, the knee-jerk defense of women like this, along with the knee-jerk opposition to what men are saying, leads us to believe that most women really are “like that” in that they seem to see absolutely no problem with these women’s behavior, will defend and justify it to the absolute death, and in general do not show any characteristics which appear substantially different.

Given how miserable the marriages of most of my married friends are, enduring psychological torture for the opportunity to lock in long-term psychological torture makes absolutely no sense.

wow November 1, 2009 at 09:39

Jess,

You are perseverating on a metaphor. Clearly zed is implying women are using their sexuality to deliberatley entice men. It is about control and power and women intentionally wield this power and blame men if they take it too far. This is unethical behaviour, by women. Men need to be taught that women can be unethical and are in fact capable of deceptive sexual behaviour first and foremost and that consent is paramount. Women need to be taught that inappropriately presenting themselves on a sexual level is dangerous and stupid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
zed November 1, 2009 at 09:40

I thought I recognized this “classic” mis-directing BS – Jeana!, is that you?

Good catch, slwerner! Now that she has been banned at FRS, she needed to find somewhere else to spread her mental illness.

Welmer might let her hang around just to serve as the 10 best arguments against marriage anyone could come up with. She does more for the marriage strike single-handed than any number of MRAs could ever do.

Novaseeker November 1, 2009 at 09:47

The definition of rape is a moving target with feminists. It is, in fact, anything they want it to be. Given that fact, practically any man can be accused of “excusing rape.” I’ll take it a step farther: any man can be accused of being a rapist.

And also remember that the feminist catechism goes further than that. Per feminism, rape is a socio-political tool used by men, as a class, to oppress and control women, as a class, by keeping all women in a state of constant fear of all men and male physical power. Therefore all men *are* rapists, per feminism, because we all “benefit from rape” due to the fear that it creates in women, as a class, which serves to oppress and control them for the benefit of *all* men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed November 1, 2009 at 09:51

sounds to me that there was a lot of misbehaviour there by a lot of people.

True, but that is classic misdirection. “A lot of people” did not hound me for weeks to get me to come. “A lot of people” did not send me a personal check for plane fare so I would come. “A lot of people” did not stand up in the middle of the room and orchestrate the whole sham.

I have had no contact with either of them since that party. A 25 year friendship with my buddy went “poof” when I realized that he was every bit as much scum as the people he associated with. Any man who knowingly cheats with a married woman long term simply cannot be trusted in any other context – even if she is his ex-wife.

Asher November 1, 2009 at 10:01

A) For some “thing” to exist it must be defined
B) The commentator someone does not define “rape”
C) For someone, “rape” is not defined
D) Therefore, “rape” does not exist
E) If “rape” does not exist, then how can it be wrong

Haha, perfectly reasoned out useing someone’s premises. In someone’s world rape does not exist, although I does in mine because I’m not a pedantic little twit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Asher November 1, 2009 at 10:15

BTW, I don’t like to drink at all before sex, and I don’t use any drugs, so this is not really personally about me. Okay, we have two different issues going on here:

A) What sort of behavior in which individual commentators here would engage
B) What sort behavior society punishes

They are different topics, but almost everyone here is confusing them. Let’s say a guy and girl have a couple of stiff drinks each, the girl is dressing and behaving in a manner to draw sexual attention, they then go back start fooling around, the girl expresses reservations, the guy persists, and she gives in. The next day she wakes up and has regrets. Now let’s even grant that what the guy did was “wrong”. The real question is:

Is it in society’s interest to prosecute such a man?

Rules exist to regulate and promote social order and promote a well-functioning society. What they do for any particular individual is merely incidental to that function. The reason I support MRAs is not because of unfairness toward males, but because the current sets of rules, even more those pushed by feminists, are socially destructive, in general.

The answer to my question above is no. Prosecuting such a man does not promote a well-functioning society, and it is a complete waste of social resources and capital. Even if we say the man is “wrong” it does not follow that it is in society’s interests to prosecute him, since we clearly do not prosecute everything we find wrong.

MRAs do themselves a disservice by not pointing out the social destructiveness of those who want to prosecute everything they term “wrong”.

Stop defending. Attack, attack, attack. As I’ve said previously in so many comments, if MRA is not about attaining real political power, that of forcing our opponents to our will, then it is just more masturbation, a topic with which I’m sure most men who spend a fair amount of time online are acquainted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
someone November 1, 2009 at 10:53

slwerner: “I thought I recognized this “classic” mis-directing BS – Jeana!, is that you?”

Who are you talking to?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
zed November 1, 2009 at 10:56

Stop defending. Attack, attack, attack. As I’ve said previously in so many comments, if MRA is not about attaining real political power, that of forcing our opponents to our will, then it is just more masturbation, a topic with which I’m sure most men who spend a fair amount of time online are acquainted.

LOL, somehow I doubt that your insinuation will wound anyone to the core as you seemed to intend.

Now, there are “attacks”, and then there are “attacks.”

In any war, cutting the enemy’s food supply is just as effective as going after their foot soldiers. In fact, with limited forces it is actually even more effective.

Now, let’s take the scenario you describe –

Let’s say a guy and girl have a couple of stiff drinks each, the girl is dressing and behaving in a manner to draw sexual attention, they then go back start fooling around, the girl expresses reservations, the guy persists, and she gives in. The next day she wakes up and has regrets. Now let’s even grant that what the guy did was “wrong”. The real question is:

Is it in society’s interest to prosecute such a man?

And change it just a bit –
Let’s say I take a woman out on what is the holy grail of single womanhood – the “Saturday Night Date.” We have a nice dinner, a bottle of wine, and then another. ROmance hangs heavy in the air. We are engaging in what 20-30 short years ago would have been considered “extended foreplay.” One thing leads to another, as most people of that time would have expected, and in fact wondered what was wrong with the man if it didn’t. She is all “bedroom eyes”, and he (understandably) does not want to “spoil the mood” by saying “Pardon me, but would you mind signing this ‘consent to intercourse or various other sexual activities” form?” Things follow their natural progression.

Now, under strict interpretation of the way the law is being applied, if she has 2nd thoughts the next day, or if I do something to piss her off and she wants to get back at me, then what we have done meets the strict intepretation of “rayyyype.”

Now, is it in society’s interest to prosecute such a man?

It is certainly in the interests of feminism for several reasons –
1) it counts among the bogus and inflated rape statistics,
2) it furthers the division and distrust between men and women,
3) it basically makes every man who has ever had sex with a woman into a criminal and allows him to be punished and put into prison on the flimsiest of justifications

Now, let’s examine what is really going on here. What some people would view as a perfectly natural, normal, human activity has now become a crime unless certain specific conditions are met. It is tantamount to making breathing, sleeping, urinating, or defecation a crime except under certain conditions.

And the salient condition is this magical, mystical, ephemeral token called “consent”, which is really nothing more than a mental state within the woman’s mind. It could be obviously present to any observer on Saturday night, but somehow mysteriously evaporate between then and Sunday morning.

So, what is the best way to attack the food supply of the rape-hoax industry?

Well, one way is for men to internalize the feminist position that all sex is rape simply because women, as a group, are not strong enough in this culture to give meaningful consent. Wow, it’s ALL rape? Gosh, I never knew!!! What a fool I have been!!! All these women who gave me every reason to believe that my attention was actually welcome were just acting out of fear! < - sarcasm alert

Now, for those younger men whose biological drives still impel them to “think with their penises” now and then, all this may not have worn away any sense that the encounter they are about to go through will be pleasant. But, as a man’s physical needs decrease with age, eventually a crossover point is reached beyond which the entire idea is regarded more negatively than positively.

So, one way to cut off the rape-hoax industry to is to reduce the number of “gray” instances which can be revised after-the-fact into female victimization. Since this magical token called “consent” no longer has a tangible existence – prior sexual relationship? Irrelevant. Existence of a maritial relationship? Also irrelevant. Prior false accusations by the accuser? Indmissable due to rape shield laws. – the best way to proceed is to simply assume that it doesn’t exist, and live a life of restraint and self-control all the time.

So, when enough women are going without relationships due to the fact that decent men are deciding to have nothing to do with them, and being forced to spend almost $20,000 USD in order go through IVF with donor sperm,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1224225/Daddies-damned-Who-British-women-think-fathers-irrelevant.html#ixzz0VTp2CKtL

Then, maybe, eventually, enough of those women who “aren’t like that” will one day wake up and say to themselves “Hey, maybe there is a problem here. Maybe we need to start listening to what the men who are refusing to date us, and refusing to father children with us, and running Game on us, are saying about all this – instead of arguing them to distraction over every point they try to make.”

Renee November 1, 2009 at 11:34

Ok I don’t know what the deal was with this computer I’m using but I was trying to reply to some of zed’s comments in the above post. Just disregard the above post.

Is there a way you can delete comments?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
zed November 1, 2009 at 11:37

I deleted it for you.

someone November 1, 2009 at 11:48

Asher: “Haha, perfectly reasoned out useing someone’s premises. In someone’s world rape does not exist, although I does in mine because I’m not a pedantic little twit.”

Those aren’t my premises, they’re your premises. You are projecting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Renee November 1, 2009 at 12:06

Zed,

I’m not going to dig back through all your posts to find the one particular point I’m talking about, but it was something to the effect that “his reaction is his responsibility. ”

I don’t remember making that comment, but if I did I admit that the more accurate phrase would be “his/her actions are his/her responsibility”, and that I was incorrect if I did indeed make that phrase. So getting startled is entirely different than making the decision to rape somebody. No one gets startled into raping a person.

I went over one aspect of this stupid form of female argument with kis. If a woman jumps over everything a man has just pointed out to argue with one part of it, there is no sense that she implicitly agrees with everything else – just that she doesn’t have the time to argue with all of it.

Looking at this post, all I did was ask a question and shared what I believe to Hestia. Anything else, I just responded to what others have said. With me, it basically means that I do agree with everthing else, I’m just eager to get to the point lol.

Now, everything y0u have said has given me the distinct impression that there is absolutely no way in the world to get across to you the concept that you and every other woman in the world actually share the world with other human beings called “men.” And, that if you ever want any chance of peacefully coexisting with them, you have to show some regard, concern, and consideration for their needs and circumstances, even if they are not exactly what you want.

Well it seems you have the wrong impression. I can’t remember posting anything so drastic as to make you think that. Have I disagreed with a few things, yeah, but disagreeing with someone on a few points is not equivalent to not being concerned, showing regard, etc. to what men go through. But hey, maybe it’s like what you said, that I don’t always start off saying what I agree with right off the bat. If anything, I usually just start off with a question.

And, so far, I have seen absolutely no evidence from you that you are willing to do that. Every admission from you that men have a point seems like it is grudgingly extracted from you and only comes at the tail end of extended argument.

Sorry if you think that because I’ve been pretty much open about what you guys post and have to say, and I agree with many of it. Also I actually have admited that men have a point before the tail end of an arguement believe it or not :p

Yes, you have given exactly the impression that you think it is fine and dandy for for a woman to rub herself all on a guy and/or wear revealing clothing and not expect a response if she does it to the wrong guy.

Well how you came up to that conclusion I have no idea. If by chance I actually made a comment that insinuated that (which I highly doubt), I’m sorry. Otherwise you’re either putting words in my mouth, jumping to conclusions, or you’re getting too emotional to think straight and comprehend what exactly I’m saying.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
zed November 1, 2009 at 12:55

Otherwise you’re either putting words in my mouth, jumping to conclusions, or you’re getting too emotional to think straight and comprehend what exactly I’m saying.

I’ve explained to you before that you are coming into the end of a 40 year screaming match between men and women. Things are not starting on an even keel.

And, you even admit that –

But hey, maybe it’s like what you said, that I don’t always start off saying what I agree with right off the bat. If anything, I usually just start off with a question.

So, your methods do have some contribution to whatever extent the communication between us has been less than perfect.

But, you still refuse to take any responsibility for that, or even indicate any willingness to perhaps change your methods to improve the communcation, and instead want to blame it all on me “getting too emotional to think straight.”

I’m certainly not doing this for my benefit, Renee. I’ve rounded the final curve and am in the home stretch. All I have to do is effectively prevent a woman from destroying my life the way so many women I have known have destroyed the lives of men I’ve known.

You, however, have almost your entire adult life ahead of you. If you are unwilling to take any suggestions about how you might be able to have some direct influence on making it better… well, it is your life, not mine.

kis November 1, 2009 at 13:11

Putting it that way, it sounds like any man is capable of rape if pushed far enough, which of course isn’t true. In fact it’s one of the common complaints about feminism.

Inferring that sounds like you think one man would only ever be capable of raping one woman. What I’m saying is, far far far more men resist those impulses than act on them. You can’t infer from “1 in 4 woman are raped” that “1 in 4 men are rapists”. You could have only 1 in 100 or 1000 men who do not resist those impulses, and still end up with 1 in 4 women being raped–especially since men who rape (by Welmer’s definition) almost always offend more than once, as do date rapists, as do roofie rapists, and men who like to fuck drunk women.

I mean, I was doped with GHB one night. I’m pretty sure who did it–I mean, he was acting like such a good samaritan–”oh, are you okay, let me help get you somewhere safe”. If I’d woken up in a strange bed with no memory and a tender crotch (and possibly a blistering case of herpes), THAT would have been rape. But I had friends there who got me home. Barring that, I’m well-acquainted with the bartender, and SHE would have got me home safe. I WASN’T an idiot. Further, I didn’t spend the evening rubbing myself all over the guy.

But if I’d just been intoxicated and ended up boning the guy and wishing in the morning I hadn’t. I’m sorry, that’s not rape.

As with drunk driving, the precipitating act is not the driving (or the consenting) while under the influence. It’s the drinking itself. And that’s on the woman, not the man.

Because things have gotten so confusing now, to me, consent is whether that person says yes or no, verbal or I guess behavioral (like if the person’s rigid, crying, hesistant – yes this can be problematic) to sex at that very moment. If they say no, then end it. And no I’m not saying pressuring someone to have sex is rape, unless….well….you threaten them with bodily harm

I agree. I think the problem is that the definition of rape is too broad, so when people discuss it, you end up with argument’s like someone’s, where everything is deemed irrelevant. As far as I’m concerned, we call it “date rape” because we are already acknowledging it’s different in nature from violent stranger rape. It’s more murky. I mean, yes, I have called a halt to proceedings and expected the man to comply–and in every case he has. But I also acknowledge that doing this is putting a very real strain on him. And I have never tended to behave in the ways many women do–I don’t rub all over a guy on the dance floor, and if I go back with him to his place, it’s because I fully intend to have sex with him. There have been times I wished I hadn’t, but THAT’S ON ME.

But there’s a huge problem even with defining date rape. Female sexuality is such that the date rape scenario can still be ambiguous to the men who commit it. Deep in their reptilian brains, women want to be chased, seduced, cajoled, convinced, even dominated. Deep in their reptilian brains, men have equal but opposite impulses. It’s a pattern you see over and over in romance novels. It resonates because it calls to those primal needs women have. He pursues, she resists, he persists, she puts up more resistance, he keeps at it and prevails. In those novels, you’re reading from the female’s POV. You know it is *her feelings and attraction* she’s resisting, and when she finally concedes, we know she’s consented–even if nowhere in the dialog does she say to him, “yes, I consent to have sex with you.”

But men IRL don’t have a handy-dandy written narrative of what’s going on in a woman’s mind. Deep down, women don’t WANT to have to say, clearly and explicitly, “yes, I consent to sex with you.” They don’t. It interferes with one of the most basic, deep seated arousal patterns in women. So she yields.

Is she yielding because she wants to yield, or is she yielding because she’s exhausted and tired of fending him off and she just really really wants to go home? Add in the confusion of female physical sexual arousal–her body may be giving him every indication that she’s enjoying what he’s doing, even if she isn’t. She may even have an orgasm–even with violent stranger rape, this can happen. She’s quite possibly not physically resisting him–we can infer that from the fact that in many date rape cases the woman has no injuries–but is she not resisting because she wants him, or because she wants to avoid injury, or because she hates confrontation? Some men will assume that this woman who came onto him all evening, who consented to go back to his place, who put herself in a position where sex was likely to happen, is just following the pursue-resist, pursue-resist pattern that is quite natural to human sexuality. That her no might not mean “yes”, but rather “just a little more and I’m yours.”

Does this mean that a man who has sex with a woman who has only told him “no”, perhaps over and over, is not rape? No. But there are extenuating circumstances that should differentiate it from violent stranger rape. It should be a lesser crime, perhaps?

And now, lets say the woman does yield because the man has proved himself worthy by cajoling and seducing and persisting. Her reptilian brain is saying “hell, yes”. She has consented in her mind to sex, but she has not said those magic words, because they have the effect of a bucket of cold water on the heat of the moment.

Let’s say, he was a lousy lay. Or she woke up in the morning to find him gone and he doesn’t call. Or he finishes up, thanks her for the bang, says it’s been a slice but don’t expect a call. Or he tells all his friends that she’s an easy lay but only good for a one-nighter, and only when he’s not wearing his contact lenses. She feels used and manipulated. But has she been raped?

Under the law, yes. Because she didn’t say “yes, I consent to sex with you.” And with the laws the way they are, and feminists telling her she’s been raped, I can imagine quite a few women going tearfully to the police station to have his ass arrested. But I’m sorry, being an asshole or shitty in bed is NOT a crime. Still, off he goes to jail.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee November 1, 2009 at 13:12

Zed,
Thanks for deleting that comment :)

Then you are arguing from a position of absolute ignorance on a subject which you could not possibly know anything about or have any input which is worth even listening to.

OH COME ON, just because I’m a virgin doesn’t mean that I’m completely clueless in matters of rape and consent. Have I learned and considered some new ideas in this post, yes, but that’s more related to what I’ve been taught by society vs. what some of you posted. Some stuff are just obvious, be careful what you wear when you go out and be careful at what “signals” you give off. Don’t act “seductive” if you don’t plan on having sex.

1) is it about seeking male attention? If not, why do you go to places where men are present? You could easily go to lesbian bars, dance your heart out, and not be bothered by men.

Well considering where I live is conservative, I doubt I could find a lesbian bar even if I wanted to. Anyway, with me, when I go to bars and clubs, it really isn’t all about seeking male attention. Do I check out the guys, of course. Do I approach them, no. I don’t even make eye contact that much, much less flirt. It’s mainly about being around new people, getting out of the house, and being with friends. With that being said, perhaps I am seeking male attention if seeking attention consists of dressing nice. I just never thought that seeking male attention in that way is equivalent to asking for sex, at least not literally. But then again he used the phrase “provocative dress”, so that’s probably different.

2) using their sexuality to seek men’s attention while at the same time trying to deny that such attention is fundamentally based on men’s sexual response is at the heart of the conflict and disconnect. This is the source of men’s animosity. It is also the reason why women who may actually be interested in sexual attention from men, and sex, attract mostly sociopathic men, because the rest of us have been conditioned to expect nothing other than sexual fraud from women as a means of gratifying their egos.

Ok, I see what you mean.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Globalman November 1, 2009 at 13:13

zed November 1, 2009 at 6:41 am
“Plus, under that is a subtle power grab that not all men are going to go along with. The famous “Antioch Rules” which require getting verbal consent at every level of intimacy establish a parent-child relationship where “consent”=”permission.”

Zed…awsome insight for the young guys…..Young men, listen the f*** up to Zed. He knows what he is talking about. You are so privileged that he has time to write for you. With this ‘permission’ to have sex with your wife thing. This is then obviously used to severely emotional abuse the husband. I know many men who will not touch their wives any more because they are sick to death of begging for a bit of intimacy from a woman who consistently claims to ‘love’ them while abusing them.

Young men? My example. After years of abuse I put in this HUGE effort to ‘beg’ for intimacy. I flew my wife over the the US, we stayed a suite in the Swisshotel (USD800/night) in Boston though I got a good deal. We ate at ‘Legal Seafood’, we went to shows, I gave her a few grand to go shopping with as I was attending a conference so she had her days free to do as she wished with plenty of money to go with it.

When we went back to New Jersey to where I was working I asked(begged) to make love and she said no. I was so furious I lost my temper for the first time since I was 12 and finished up locking myself in the bathroom for fear of hitting her in my anger. I took an oath that I would never again ask this women for permission to have sex with her. No f***ing way. It is too humiliating and too abusive to be constantly told ‘No’.

Of course, inside 3 months she is bitching about how she feels I don’t love her any more because I won’t ask her for sex. I explained that 10 years of begging and abuse and rejection was more than enough for any one man and that if she wanted sex she was going to have to be ‘equal’ and ask. Well, inside 6 months she is near hysterical about all this. Remember, she is an ‘equal’ and it was ok for her to abuse me for 10 years and by the way I never said ‘no’ to her I just made her do the asking…yet this is too much. After 6 months she is ‘deeply humiliated’, ‘depressed’, ‘angry’, ‘upset’….you name it….and remember, she has NEVER been told no in this 6 months. Shortly after I was in Saudi Arabia for 15 months and only home 6 weeks in that 15 months. At the end I said “So, I’ve been home for 6 weeks in 15 months, have you had little enough sex to be happy yet?” And she viciously and vindictively said “I think I’ve had a shade too much” This is what you young guys have to look forward to if you get married.

Anyway….I was back in Europe and we were seeing each other more often and she is bitching and complaining. So I say “Ok, you don’t like asking, tell you what, you put a red ribbon on the bed head and that means you have given permission for me to have sex with you. No red ribbon? I don’t touch you.” So she agrees and that works for a while except one evening I try to do something that she suddenly says ‘No’ to in the middle of ‘activity’. I point to the red ribbon and say “You have given your permission to have sex, you have no right to say ‘NO’ in the middle”. Sweetums decides that she has every right to tell me exactly what she will and won’t do whenever she feels like it. Ok…so now I propose different coloured ribbons to indicate different levels of sexual activity that she is giving permission to engage in. Gold, silver, yellow. Of course, she is all ‘upset’ about having to give ‘pre-permission’ as to what exactly I can do with her so treasured fat body. As a husband of 16 years I am supposed to blindly go forward in attempting intimacy with my wife until sweetums decides “no you can’t do that this time”. Really? This is life as a modern married man? Let me get drunk and watch the football….please….

That’s not the end of it…it even gets worse. I was doing a contract in Germany and so it was very easy to back and forth and we were spending more time together….I only had a small double bed in my tiny(read cheap) apartment in Germany. So she would come over. We would be necessarily close in the bed and she would be saying “I only want a cuddle, no sex tonight” blah, blah….The obvious result is I could not sleep so I could not work properly. Some nights I had to sleep on the couch which was only 4 feet long and I am over 6 feet tall. Then I would have to get up and go to work. Of course sweetums is all ‘upset’ that I am sleeping on the couch and not in bed with her. Really? In the end I said:
“F*** it. I don’t want you coming to see me any more because I love you, I adore you, I want to be intimate with you, and I simply can no longer stand being so close to you and being told no. I hate it. It’s abusive. It’s degrading. It’s humiliating. I am simply not going to put up with it any more. If you want to come and see me, you have to pre-agree to anything I want or stay the f*** home with the kids and let me get some sleep on the weekends so I can work properly to earn money for the family.” Of course sweetums is all hysterial about this ultimatum. I “hate” her blah, blah. Nope..the problem was I loved her and I didn’t like being abused by the woman I loved.

So yes you young guys…the ‘marital rape’ laws are all about destroying the ability of a man and woman to maintain an intimate relationship over a long period of time by making the balance of power go entirely in the womans favour. And given that the majority of men visiting prostitutes are ‘married with children’ with a wife who will not provide what he needs and lives in fear of going to jail if they try too hard to get it? Well, most women only have themselves to blame for their husbands going to prostitutes. The #1 reason men cheat is because they are rejected at home. I now tell men “any man who is getting none at home should go and get what he needs elsewhere because faithfullness is not appreciated or rewarded. I am an example of that”. I know what you read here looks harsh. But what do you think it is like to live this year in and year out. I am not at all unusual in this respect.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
zed November 1, 2009 at 13:16

Ok, I see what you mean.

LAST statement of the post, but at least it indicates progress.

Sean_MacCloud November 1, 2009 at 13:16

I don’t agree with everything in the LONG article.

But either way it wasn’t excusing rape legally or otherwise.

Note ‘someone’[anti reality cultist from above comments] is a jack ass. I will keep saying it: females [and most dudes] make horrible philosophers.

Liberalism’s big tent is all things to all people all the time. It fits scientists and the anti science cultists [feminists, liberals and the "someone's" from above]; it fits cause and effect understandings and “some people [read men] are just evul by choice”. (Just like it fits rural rubes vs cosmopolitan fops; ethnic nationalists vs host labor and feminists vs both of those too.) It is an _impossible alliance_ only made tenable by the abysmal idea that is capitalism and democracy.

Kis makes some good arguments to ‘someone’: [understanding cause (though as said I don't fully agree with Zed's article) is not excusing, same as understanding child abuse cycle of abuse does not legally or morally excuse that (unless it's a woman perp of course).

Note society does use its long winded excuses when it's trying to protect its favored classes.

The liberal tent is non stop hypocrisy --because conservatives (not rightists) let them get away with that! Conservatives are dogs: they bark at everything equally --burglar and girlscout selling cookies, raccoon in the basement and kids bike-riding past. Only sometimes does the liberal master let them off the leash to go bite.

Take nurture syndrome theories for example.

Some liberal will say [blacks or wimmins commit crimes for so and so syndrome reason] and then the inherently block headed conservatives scream “nee nee!” (heads spastically going back and forth, like the alien Muppets from the Sesame Street phone ringing bits). Conservatives are dogs– they can’t understand anything other than eat, poop and howl (and a good stick chase). Their master says “hush!” The dumb dogs are dismissed with a head tucked “gruff!”. Then some other time someone[liberal or otherwise] will make an argument that uses the same exact syndrome-based understandings that have already become precedent to mitigate lynchmob scenarios that formed around an accused who isn’t part of the protected classes. The dumb dogs of conservatism will naturally bark their “nee nee” (heads a`motoring –”brrrring!”) –since they can’t understand anything ever–but this time their liberal masters will not tell them to hush. Consequently the causation theory and mitigation will not stick this time.

Same is true with nationalism issues. Only when war benefits liberal interests will the dumb conformist Dogs Of It be let off the leash without major hulla baloo.

———-
FYI, that lion photo is not of a rape and resistance. It is the peculiar spike issues of the male’s penis and typical female dualism [females are "reactionary submissives"] –helped no doubt by the spikes. (I wonder what purpose those spikes have.) It does demonstrate though that sex is horrible thing …you share with someone you love.

A better thing to note about lions is ‘shit test’…

Male lion taking a nap after long day of killing other lions, induced by female provocation (eg peeing on the outer ring of the pride’s territory so as to bring in new enemy males). Female horny because the sleeping male ousted or killed her husband(s) and killed her cubs (that autonomically turns her on). She rubs herself back and forth across male’s face–often very vulgarly, stopping with pudenda to his snout. He shoos a couple of times–being as he’s all tuckered out from the take-over-bid murder spree– but eventually the pheromones etc do their thing and get behind his upper lip. He gets up and stretches in that cat way, butt in air, and walks towards her. She sees him coming… and bolts! For kiloms, with him in tow. Can he hack it?

Shit test.

The western male has failed his. He has bred himself down the path of a runt (ie beneath human female) as his way of trying to stop the female induced male vs male murder spree and now he can’t hack it…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman November 1, 2009 at 13:19

Zed, please just ignore Renee. Do you know how much crap the rest of us have to scroll past? She’s a woman. She has nothing interesting to say…worse, she’s stupid even for a woman.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
someone November 1, 2009 at 13:22

“I point to the red ribbon and say “You have given your permission to have sex, you have no right to say ‘NO’ in the middle.”

You know, I am not so sure if this will hold up in court.

“So yes you young guys…the ‘marital rape’ laws are all about destroying the ability of a man and woman to maintain an intimate relationship over a long period of time by making the balance of power go entirely in the womans favour.”

No, marital rape laws are all about preventing rape. Just because you’re married doesn’t mean you can commit rape. You’re not the first MRA I’ve seen who’s angry because he can’t (legally) rape his wife.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Welmer November 1, 2009 at 13:24

You’re not the first MRA I’ve seen who’s angry because he can’t (legally) rape his wife.

-someone

One more of those kinds of statements and that’s it for you here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
someone November 1, 2009 at 13:27

Sean_MacCloud: “Note ’someone’[anti reality cultist from above comments] is a jack ass. I will keep saying it: females [and most dudes] make horrible philosophers.”

Do you incorrectly assume that I am a woman (and a jackass) just because I’m opposed to rape?

“Liberalism’s big tent is all things to all people all the time. It fits scientists and the anti science cultists [feminists, liberals and the "someone's" from above];”

I am not a liberal. And at what point have I argued against science? You are delusional.

“Kis makes some good arguments to ’someone’: [understanding cause (though as said I don’t fully agree with Zed’s article) is not excusing, same as understanding child abuse cycle of abuse does not legally or morally excuse that (unless it’s a woman perp of course).”

The article blatantly excuses rape, and so do several users here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Welmer November 1, 2009 at 13:30

The article blatantly excuses rape, and so do several users here.

-someone

FYI folks, the above lie is an example of what gets you banned here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Asher November 1, 2009 at 13:34

@someone

No, they are your premises, evne though you don’t actually realize them. See, language is a public thing, it exists in the public square, so there is not right to some personal, internal set of premises or language.

A) You don’t have a definition of rape. This is clear. A chair is just part of undifferentiated reality until it has been defined and identified as a chair; read WVO Quine for a lucid explanation as to why.

B) Silence is assent. So, when others put forth a reasonable, good faith definition of rape, and you do not respond, this indicates that you are conceding the point. Again, this is a standard understanding of what constitutes reason in debate. To not oppose a point is to assent to it.

C) You have repeatedly refused to define rape. That is not my premise, it is a statement of fact.

D) Again, combine A and C and you arrive at the inevitable conclusion that rape does not exist. Look, it’s a simple little syllogism: all things must have a definition, someone has no definition for rape, therefore, rape does not exist. The first part is axiomatic, the second empirical, and the third is a logically necessary conclusion from the first two.

E) Again we can construct a simple, little syllogism:

a) For something to be wrong it must exist
b) Since someone has not defined rape it does not exist for her
c) Therefore is not wrong.

See, simple little syllogisms.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella November 1, 2009 at 13:37

“I point to the red ribbon and say “You have given your permission to have sex, you have no right to say ‘NO’ in the middle.”

You know, I am not so sure if this will hold up in court.

That’s fair, then? To agree to sex and then backtrack in the middle of the act? He’s not angry because he can’t ‘rape his wife’, he’s angry that women are allowed to behave in such a manner. Is that fair treatment of one’s spouse, in your estimation?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee November 1, 2009 at 13:38

Zed,

But, you still refuse to take any responsibility for that, or even indicate any willingness to perhaps change your methods to improve the communcation, and instead want to blame it all on me “getting too emotional to think straight.”

First of all, the key word here is “otherwise”:

Well how you came up to that conclusion I have no idea. If by chance I actually made a comment that insinuated that (which I highly doubt), I’m sorry. Otherwise you’re either putting words in my mouth, jumping to conclusions, or you’re getting too emotional to think straight and comprehend what exactly I’m saying.

This was in response to you thinking that I gave the impression of it being ok for a woman to rub herself on the wrong guy and not get a response. So that phrase has nothing to do with blaming you instead of me taking responsibility for my method of communication.

Speaking of responsibility, I’ll try to do better when it comes to discussions. I guess the problem is, I actually do start off saying or admiting that I agree with something most of the time on this site, that’s why I never saw it has that big of a problem. Is it just that I don’t do it to you? Another issue is that I don’t see a problem in getting straight to the point, especially when my response is a question (which is what happens most of the time – from what I recall).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Doug1 November 1, 2009 at 13:38

Wow—

I teach high school boys, and for their protection I tell them to NEVER touch a female with out her direct consent.

Touching a girl without her explicit verbal consent is a key part of game. However there should be some Indications of Interest (IOI’s) from her first. Such as her paying close attention to what your saying, smiling at you, etc. Also the kind of touch is important. Touching her butt is only for well into the attraction phase. Touching her arm for a second etc. can be done much earlier. In general she should have some interest in you first. Your touch can feel slightly invasive to her, but should never feel very much so or wholly unwanted. Still an arm touch is way less risky in schools than a butt pat.

1. Inappropriate touching by girls (eg. ass grab, crotch grab)
2. direct sexual innuendos (eg. female bragging about her BJ prowess, suggestive talk)
3. sexually suggestive text messages
4. sexually suggestive emails
5. sexually suggestive pictures via email, facebook, cell phone pics, etc.,
6. lengthy phone calls where the female is as sexually suggestive as much as he is
7. inappropriate ogling from a female and her freinds
8. sexually suggestive behaviour (eg. propping up breasts, opening legs, licking lips)

None of the above gives any adolescent male the right to rape a female.

No, but they should give him the right to do similar reciprocal things back to the girl in question in response, including for the similar purpose of putting her down when that’s what she was doing to him. But often don’t in today’s wholly one sided school environments.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Asher November 1, 2009 at 13:44

oops meant to say

c) Therefore {insert “rape” because someone has yet to define the term] is not wrong.

The crux of the argument is that someone cannot claim something is wrong until she has defined it and then explained why “it” is wrong.

The point is that there’s no object of reference, so what she’s saying doesn’t even rise to the level of wrong. It’s just meaningless babble.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman November 1, 2009 at 13:50

Lee October 31, 2009 at 11:51 pm
“Globalman really laid it all out for us didn’t he. Nice job”
Thanks Lee. My purpose is to use my life as an example to young men why they should NOT get married and have children like I did. I am just ‘telling it like it is’. Young men can then make their own decisions. If they think ‘my woman is different’? Well, they deserve everything they get.

When I was young raising a brood of children was considered one of the most noble and honourable things a man could aspire to. Being a father is a really tough job and it was immensely respected. Now we are despised and hated for wanting to be fathers to our children. We are also despised if we are removed from our homes at gun point and then exercise our right to refuse to pay for children stolen from us.

Indeed, fathers are the new ‘Jews’ only we are more persecuted than Jews in Nazi Germany circa 1936. It is no exaggeration to say what was done to me was not lawful in Nazi Germany in 1936 for a Jewish man. We are despised no matter what we do. We work hard to provide the best opportunities for our kids we are ‘negligent and not spending enough time at home’. We spend time at home and we are ‘lazy for not getting out and working harder to provide more money for better opportunities’. I will never again recommend marriage to a young man. It’s a complete wasted of time now. You want kids? Surrogate or adopt and take 110% responsibility for YOUR kids.

F*** these stupid feminist bitches and the guvments that promote the depopulation agenda. Men always hold the power because only men will take decisive action. My decisive action is to remove my labour and energy from their system and protect myself against their sexist, unlawful and biased statutes by rescinding my consent to be governed by them. I am totally free of ‘their’ system except for the proceeds of my house which were stolen by deception. If I could find 12 good men in Australia I might get that judicial registrar thown in jail for a while. It is up to men to decide if they will create dejour courts and incarcerate these family law judges that are breaking common law. You have the right to do this. All men are equal before the law. Judges are incarcerating men without a trial of their peers and without judgment to the law of the land and that is not lawful. We have every right to try them and incarcerate them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 1, 2009 at 13:52

someone–

This is completely irrelevant since rape is still rape. Why are you being evasive about this?

What a supremely stupid statement.

There are many different definitions of rape. Some feminists are even pushing for the definition that anything other than a verbalize request to have intercourse makes it rape and that once a woman accuses a man of rape, the burden of proof is on the man that she made such an request. This some rad feminists are trying to sell under the slogan “yes means yes”. Talk about outrageous.

Most date rape changes should be thrown out and men should refuse to convict unless there really is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she either very explicitly and unambiguously made it clear that she didn’t want to have intercourse and stuck to the position as it was beginning, and evidence of struggle will usually be necessary for this to be clear beyond a reasonable doubt, or 2) she was physically unable to say no, because passed out drunk or similar. Her merely being drunk and not persisting with no should no way no how make it rape just because she regrets it the next day. All men should jury nullify any rape laws that feminists pass anywhere that say otherwise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Asher November 1, 2009 at 13:52

someone, you can’t oppose rape until you define it. Your comments have no object of reference. There is no “thing” prior to definition.

@zed

You completely missed my point, which is that there are two sets:

A) Things that are wrong
B) Things that society should use coercion to prevent or minimize

Not all A’s are B’s. Some, maybe not all, of what is called date rape does NOT fall into the category of B. Feminists who call such behavior “rape” are undermining the legitimacy of female claims to the use of coercive state force in their protection. Consider the following statements:

A) Feminists undermine the bases of civilization
B) Women are more likely to experience sexual predation outside of civilization
C) Therefore, feminists promote rape.

See how easy it is? Heh, fun with simpletons.

Zed, my problem with you, is that the MRAs are too focused on wrongs done to males as opposed to the overall undermining of society in which feminists engage. You’re not engaged in a winning set of tactics.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Asher November 1, 2009 at 13:55

For the record, much of what feminists call “date rape” is behavior I find unseemly, and it is behavior in which I wouldn’t even consider engaging. But that does not necessarily imply that it is in society’s interests to prosecute such behavior.

Again, just because something is wrong that does not mean that society has an interest in preventing it. Don’t defend men. Defend society against feminists.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman November 1, 2009 at 14:00

Asher November 1, 2009 at 1:44 pm
“It’s just meaningless babble.”
As is everything else women say.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman November 1, 2009 at 14:04

Asher November 1, 2009 at 1:52 pm
“You’re not engaged in a winning set of tactics.”
Asher, this is my point too. MRAs have not understood the real enemy and therefore are not engaged with a set of tactics that can win the war. The real enemy is the Illuminati and their depopulation agenda whether people accept it or not. The winning tactic is to use common law and get men to ‘opt out’ of the Illuminati control grid and force their hand to either start shooting or back down. Either way, the bad guys are not going away without a fight, and if that is the case it is better the fight occurs sooner rather than later. If the world stood up to hitlter in 36 it would have been a whole different story than waiting 3 more years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 1, 2009 at 14:05

someone–

“Someone, let me tell you something.”

Why are you telling me this? It is irrelevant. As I have said many times now.

No. Kis story about an act of passionate sex while she was impaired but not mentally incapacitated by drink couldn’t have been more relevant. It was an excellent example of a borderline situation or anyway one that could look that way or way over the feminist line in fact, if she had regretted her sex act the next day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 1, 2009 at 14:08

Her reptilian brain is saying “hell, yes”. She has consented in her mind to sex, but she has not said those magic words, because they have the effect of a bucket of cold water on the heat of the moment.

And, the entire construct that those words have to be said is a huge bucket of cold water on the opportunity for the moment to even heat up in the first place.

It’s more than a bit sad to observe that in this entire dialogue the man in question is simply a bit player, nothing more than a footnote. Everything is about the woman and her side of the experience. The idea of a man as a human being with a somewhat different, but complementary, side of the experience is simply absent.

Kis is the only woman on this thread who even remotely shows signs of getting it. Still, her perspective is a woman’s perspective, which is exactly what one might expect – she is still at least half woman. I suspect that her ability to articulate her perspective and see some of the broader picture might be due in part to her masculine tendencies.

Men are not robots, we do not exist in this world simply to be and do what women want us to. We are substantively different in a number of ways. A lot of human history and most cultural values are a rough compromise between what women need and what men need.

In all of nature, the male element is the reproductive servant of the female element. When the ovum is ripe, the female element notifies the male “it is time for your sperm.” With Black Widow spiders and Preying Mantises, the delivery of that sperm is the last act of the male’s life.

Women’s cues are all non-verbal. How many times have you heard a woman bitch that a man did not “pick up on her signals.” We often let women get away with that because it is simpler to let them think we are just dumb than have to go through explaining that we did see the signals, but we still weren’t interested.

The current distorted view that all men are mindless horny beasts in a perpetual state of rut is horribly destructive to relationships. Under the old paradigm of marriage, women had a built-in mate and could count on sperm and support almost regardless of how badly she let herself go. She didn’t have to put any effort at all into attracting a suitable male.

As women have become more and more overt, and more and more dishonest, in their sexual signalling, men have come to distrust it and ignore the signals even more. Thus, women are forced to work even harder to attract male attention. A steadily growing number of women are so desperate they are forced to resort to statutorily raping teenage boys in order to get the sexual attention they crave.

If you look around at what is happening to women, they are cutting up their bodies, having foreign substances injected, damn near wearing their boobs outside their clothes, and generally acting in a totally outrageous manner in order to attract any male attention at all, much less enough of a selection to be able to have a choice of mates.

And, as usual, they are blaming all this on men – because if they don’t do it, then men tend to ignore them.

Back in the days when everyone understood all this, it worked to women’s advantage because the most intelligent, most adventuresome, men were indeed the most likely to “pick up on their signals” or at least take a risk if those signals were vague (which they always were.)

But today, we have a situation where a woman can get into bed with a man, rub his penis, and that is still not considered to be a clear indication of “consent.”
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/21/self-control-a-masculine-quality/

Somewhere in all this there is still a crime called “rape.” Unfortunately, no one can find it any longer because it is buried under so much bullshit.

What kis has so far failed to cover is that men also respond to their version of “the look.” I would be willing to bet that every man reading this will immediately understand what I mean by the “come hither” look. This is generally the signal to start the mating dance which might possibly end up with a “heat of the moment” moment.

So, a woman out and about and “on the prowl” spots a man who she finds attractive and who she would like to find her attractive, so that she can turn on and experience a “heat of the moment” moment. The man sees the look, and his first thought is “She’s lying, she is trying to trap me into a rape charge.” So, he looks the other way. Heterosexual Bed Death.

Even though it is the woman who starts the ball rolling by indicating a willingness to be approached, for some odd reason it is still men in this culture who are the “designated initiators.” If things do proceed to a “heat of the moment” moment, he will take the fall for it. If she gets pregnant, then “he got her” pregnant. If the magic token of “consent” somehow evaporates between night and morning (or 20 years later) he will face a rape charge.

Women like kis actually realize that there is such an experience as sex which isn’t rape. The rest of the women posting here do not seem to realize that. The odd thing is that such an attitude actually increases the chances that a woman will have a very unpleasant sexual experience because only the most aggressive and sociopathic (and horny) men will decide that the vague signals he is getting are worth the risk of a rape charge, particularly when even if he does risk it and follow things all the way through, the experience may end up seeming to him to be a lot like humping a corpse.

Every year young women have to get more outrageous and extreme in their behavior in order to compete with other women for what is a rapidly shrinking pool of male interest. Every year the bar gets raised in terms of risk for a man in playing the “designated initiator” role, and a few generally decent but not hugely aggressive and sociopathic men no longer clear it.

The most fundamental proof a woman’s purely sexual power is the ability to make a man totally lose control of himself. Delilah and Samson come to mind. Every year the number of women who can have their female sexual power confirmed in that way shrinks as the risk of losing control grows from perhaps a slap in the face to a lengthy jail term, lost of reputation, job and friends. A “pretty” woman, a 7, is no longer worth taking that risk. She now has to be an 8 or above.

It is a cold, ugly, and lonely world you women are creating for your daughters. When being their mates ends up with the male getting his head bitten off, the grrls are going to have the choice between spiders, bugs, and IVF.

Renee November 1, 2009 at 14:10

Avenger,

Criminal laws cannot be ambiguous or open to interpretation or opinion because they are criminal laws that result in criminal penalties and if there’s any doubt something then it us not a crime. In cases of he said she said there can be no crime because we cannot take one person’s word over another’s without any further proof which is impossible to have in these “rape” cases where only two people are present. If a man said that a female stole his wallet full of money he would have to prove it in some way.

I agree that the whole he said/she said thing without any evidence is really problematic.

If a female agrees to see a man where they are alone (like he invites her to his house) then it should be presumed that anything that happens is consentual because men and women have nothing in common except sex and reproduction and a grown woman should know this.

BUT I don’t agree with this. A woman going over a guy’s house, a guy visiting a woman at her house, and a woman agreeing to see a man where they are alone DOES NOT equal automatic consent in and of itself. How can you even think that? Oh that’s right, “because men and women have nothing in common except sex and reproduction”. I’ve been over guys’ apartment and dormrooms and all we did was watch anime/SciFi channel and play videogames. Now grant it they were either my friends or classmates but still.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
harry November 1, 2009 at 14:10

@Fifth

“May I ask why you are optimistic that this day [when false accusers are prosecuted] will arrive soon?”

You obviously have not visited my most excellent site today.

Top of the front page -> Judges in the UK are promising prison for all false rape accusers.

So, there is some light getting through – perhaps.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 1, 2009 at 14:17

Someone–

Having sex with someone against their will is rape. Period.

Not that’s not enough. She has to clearly and unambiguously communicate that it’s against her will, and that she didn’t change her mind just before the act commenced, or that she was incapable of doing so due to e.g. mental incapacity, e.g. passed out. Clouded judgment drunk sex is not rape just because her judgement becomes different the next morning. A large percentage of first time consensual sex between a pair occurs when one or both have been drinking. Drinking is a very well known and age old aphrodisiac. Drink while socially mingling and while being picked up is a strong social custom in the Euro and offshoot societies world.

I’ve had sex with women who have moaned nos as I was undressing them, but did nothing to try to stop me. I’ve never had sex with a woman who no sharply.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 1, 2009 at 14:19

See how easy it is? Heh, fun with simpletons.

Asher, being a condescending ass is no more of a winning strategy.

What you so obviously fail to get is that “society” has created a large number of people, many of them men, who have no interest at all in “saving” it, and would be quite happy to see the whole thing go down in flames. I personally regard this as short-sighted because life for them will get a whole lot worse for them than it is now, despite what they think.

Anyone who truly is interested in “saving society” needs to realize in what ways the current trends are self-destructive and take whatever steps it can to reverse those trends, or at least slow them down. Any approach that depends entirely on the continued destruction of men’s lives is going to eventually lose so much support that it will collapse entirely.

harry November 1, 2009 at 14:40

@someone

“Having sex with someone against their will is rape. Period.”

Hocus pocus.

1. Rape is a crime. But for a crime to be committed the alleged criminal must have INTENDED to commit a crime. Without this intention, it is unjust to call someone a criminal. It is only because the justice system is now corrupted that men can be convicted of a crime even when it is quite clear that they had no intention of committing a crime.

2. Unless the alleged victim’s will has been conveyed properly, to argue that, “Having sex with someone against their will is rape. Period,” is just one of those empty-headed statements that are typically made by, well, emptyheads.

I also recommend my piece, …

http://www.angryharry.com/esIsEverybodyConscious.htm

… for some further clarification of this matter.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Asher November 1, 2009 at 14:52

“Having sex with someone against their will is rape. Period.”

Given the complete ambiguity of “against their will”, this assertion is simple gobbdley-gook. Human beings are not equipped with an instrument to perfectly divine the “true” state of another’s. I’d also point out the silliness of the notion of the atomistic, unitary will which is an invention out of whole cloth, it’s nothing more than an assertion, such a will is a complete myth.

Individual specimens of the human species are an agglomeration of various competing ideas, instincts and whims. There is no unitary will of the sort you’re referencing.

You guys really should read Nietzsche more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
kis November 1, 2009 at 15:02

What kis has so far failed to cover is that men also respond to their version of “the look.” I would be willing to bet that every man reading this will immediately understand what I mean by the “come hither” look. This is generally the signal to start the mating dance which might possibly end up with a “heat of the moment” moment.

In the modern vernacular, they are called “fuck me eyes”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed November 1, 2009 at 15:08

A woman going over a guy’s house, a guy visiting a woman at her house, and a woman agreeing to see a man where they are alone DOES NOT equal automatic consent in and of itself. How can you even think that? Oh that’s right, “because men and women have nothing in common except sex and reproduction”. I’ve been

And here is where the argument always inevitably stumbles – both sides look at their own experience and apply a worst-case scenario.

Let me use one of the high profile rape cases I referenced. A woman goes to Mike Tyson’s motel room late at night, and is treated to some fairly expensive entertainment. Was she really stupid enough to think that he invited her over there for milk and cookies?

In a normal “transaction” there is an understood exchange of value. If you and I agree that I am going to buy a car from you, and I give you a check then the act of cashing that check implies that you have agreed to deliver the car to me.

Now, I’m not going into whether it is right or wrong, but a lot of men do proceed from the belief that giving a woman some sort of gifts or something of value is part of the process that leads to bed. In Tyson’s case, did the woman really think she was entitled to show up, drink expensive liquor, then leave with nothing more than a “tra la la”?

Now, before a bunch of you women get your panties in a wad, men are often under the mistaken impression that the exchange is understood on both sides and that the woman is engaging in it fully aware of the implications and of her own free will.

Kis even gave the example of a woman giving her own husband a BJ and then, in his moment of post-orgasmic bliss, saying “I’m going shoe shopping, with your credit card.” The question boils down to whether payment comes before or after sex.

Personally, I detest the whole prostitution model of sex, but my personal preferences do not dictate the way that the rest of the world works. In Tyson’s or Kennedy’s cases, I would never have invited the women there in the first place to leech off my generousity, so I would have never gotten the impression that they were going to “pay” for it with sex.

zed November 1, 2009 at 15:10

In the modern vernacular, they are called “fuck me eyes”.

Does that go along with wearing what I have heard women call “Little Miss Fuck-me shoes”? ;)

kis November 1, 2009 at 15:50

Does that go along with wearing what I have heard women call “Little Miss Fuck-me shoes”?

Why yes, it does. Although every time I’ve tried on the fuck me shoes, they end up saying not “fuck me”, but “please steer clear of this woman who obviously cannot walk, and is a danger to herself and others”. If I’m chewing gum at the same time, the message is all the more pronounced.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 1, 2009 at 15:51

Harry,

Dare I say it?

!!Halelujah!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 1, 2009 at 15:56

Why is TokyoJesusFist/someone, who is a self-admitted virgin, arguing about what constitutes consensual sex vs. not?

Doesn’t that virtually invalidate any opinion he has on the subject of what is consent and what isn’t?

As anyone with extensive seduction experience knows, the whole dance of seduction comprises of escalate-resistance, escalate again-resistance, escalate-again-reciprocity, escalate-again-ecstasy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 1, 2009 at 15:59

Let me point out that TokyoJesusFist, aka someone, is the only person ever banned at Roissy’s. This after months of bringing the whole comments section down.

It takes a tremendous amount of hard work to get banned at Roissy’s, more hard work, in fact, than it would take to learn Game and sleep with a number of women.

What does that say about how TJF/someone is spending the one life he has been given?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 1, 2009 at 17:42

Kis–

You’ve got a long comment above that’s so good that I’m going to quote extensively from it. It bears repeating. It’s so good because you’ll really in touch with women’s sexuality, including that of many more edgie or submissive women, and understand full throated male sexuality as well.

But there’s a huge problem even with defining date rape. Female sexuality is such that the date rape scenario can still be ambiguous to the men who commit it. Deep in their reptilian brains, women want to be chased, seduced, cajoled, convinced, even dominated. Deep in their reptilian brains, men have equal but opposite impulses. It’s a pattern you see over and over in romance novels. It resonates because it calls to those primal needs women have. He pursues, she resists, he persists, she puts up more resistance, he keeps at it and prevails. In those novels, you’re reading from the female’s POV. You know it is *her feelings and attraction* she’s resisting, and when she finally concedes, we know she’s consented–even if nowhere in the dialog does she say to him, “yes, I consent to have sex with you.”

But men IRL don’t have a handy-dandy written narrative of what’s going on in a woman’s mind. Deep down, women don’t WANT to have to say, clearly and explicitly, “yes, I consent to sex with you.” They don’t. It interferes with one of the most basic, deep seated arousal patterns in women. So she yields.

Is she yielding because she wants to yield, or is she yielding because she’s exhausted and tired of fending him off and she just really really wants to go home? Add in the confusion of female physical sexual arousal–her body may be giving him every indication that she’s enjoying what he’s doing, even if she isn’t. She may even have an orgasm–even with violent stranger rape, this can happen. She’s quite possibly not physically resisting him–we can infer that from the fact that in many date rape cases the woman has no injuries–but is she not resisting because she wants him, or because she wants to avoid injury, or because she hates confrontation? Some men will assume that this woman who came onto him all evening, who consented to go back to his place, who put herself in a position where sex was likely to happen, is just following the pursue-resist, pursue-resist pattern that is quite natural to human sexuality. That her no might not mean “yes”, but rather “just a little more and I’m yours.”

Does this mean that a man who has sex with a woman who has only told him “no”, perhaps over and over, is not rape? No. But there are extenuating circumstances that should differentiate it from violent stranger rape. It should be a lesser crime, perhaps?

And now, lets say the woman does yield because the man has proved himself worthy by cajoling and seducing and persisting. Her reptilian brain is saying “hell, yes”. She has consented in her mind to sex, but she has not said those magic words, because they have the effect of a bucket of cold water on the heat of the moment.

Let’s say, he was a lousy lay. Or she woke up in the morning to find him gone and he doesn’t call. Or he finishes up, thanks her for the bang, says it’s been a slice but don’t expect a call. Or he tells all his friends that she’s an easy lay but only good for a one-nighter, and only when he’s not wearing his contact lenses. She feels used and manipulated. But has she been raped?

Under the law, yes. Because she didn’t say “yes, I consent to sex with you.” And with the laws the way they are, and feminists telling her she’s been raped, I can imagine quite a few women going tearfully to the police station to have his ass arrested. But I’m sorry, being an asshole or shitty in bed is NOT a crime. Still, off he goes to jail.

Hear hear. And no he shouldn’t be going off to jail for this last.

As for men that don’t hear “nos” because they think they aren’t serious nos, or are about to become yeses. The former is ok if reasonable; the later isn’t ok. As a practical matter though a woman can easily make a no unambiguous, if she comes to feel unambigous about the no herself. A shouted no is clear. “No means no. Stop now. Any more and it’s rape” Or for simplicity “rape, you’re raping me”. All of that is clear as hell.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Doug1 November 1, 2009 at 17:43

So someone = tokyojesusfist hunh.

He truly is a useless trolling tool.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 1, 2009 at 17:47

The only other animals which have sex face to face are the Bonobo chimpanzees. All others use the rear entry position.

Cetaceans are the notable exception here. They are belly-to-belly. chin to chin (but not eye to eye, of course).

Since the male’s penis has to extend outside of the otherwise streamlined shape of the body, and the female cannot bend her body in any way to make entry easier, the male’s penis can be disproportionately huge. A male blue whale has a penis up to 8 feet long.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma November 1, 2009 at 19:11

Kimskinovgorod October 31, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Puma:
Yeah, I remember him…He got shot, right ???

Uncle Jeff? Noooooooooo! ! ! ! !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod November 1, 2009 at 19:16

Puma

-Stuffed and mounted…Sorry!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz November 1, 2009 at 19:32

Well, an elephant’s penis retracts inside of his body, making him hard to distinguish from a female when not aroused… and when he is aroused and erect, his penis moves in and out of her, while his body remains motionless. It is even “hooked” to enter her better.

Ah yes, grade 8 biology reports did have their usefulness!

Go elephant go! You with your magical g-spot hitting, low calory burning penis!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Puma November 1, 2009 at 19:56

Stuffed and mounted…Sorry!

He looked so happy in the picture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimskinovgorod November 1, 2009 at 20:23

Puma

Oh, he still does…In a stiff sort of way…;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hestia November 1, 2009 at 22:03

zed-Now, I’m not going into whether it is right or wrong, but a lot of men do proceed from the belief that giving a woman some sort of gifts or something of value is part of the process that leads to bed. In Tyson’s case, did the woman really think she was entitled to show up, drink expensive liquor, then leave with nothing more than a “tra la la”?

Now, before a bunch of you women get your panties in a wad, men are often under the mistaken impression that the exchange is understood on both sides and that the woman is engaging in it fully aware of the implications and of her own free will.

In a different era, wasn’t this idea pretty much common sense? My grandmother and mother were always adamant to the girls in my family that we should not accept expensive gifts or jewelry from men we might date or fancy dinners, etc due to the many issues that could potentially come about. My grandmother said in her time this would have been seen as “owing” the man and wasn’t something “good girls” did. She encouraged me if I ever did date to be willing to pay my half on dates if I had opted to date in the true sense of the word, to make the dating experience fair as sex wasn’t an activity I was going to be participating in.

She also shared similar thoughts about going to a man’s house after a date. This isn’t something that is appropriate to do unless you are intending to do what everybody will think you’re doing. To go to his house with intentions other than this is leading him on and not something a decent woman does. And she taught us girls the same about immodest clothing and even undressing in front of one’s husband or prancing around in lingerie or other states of undress at home. She said you just don’t do these things unless you are planning on following through, otherwise you’re being a cruel selfish tease.

I often wonder how the differences in social behavior that have come about post-feminism might play into a number of issues in society today, from date rape and sexual harassment to women being offended by coarse language in situations that were once a “boys only club” and much more. Many walls have been broken down without the expectations, female privilege, and customs of the past going away with them. It’s almost as if one collective foot is firmly in the past and one is the brave new future, with a majority of people not seeing the insanity and cruelty of this position.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Sean_MacCloud November 1, 2009 at 22:23

…conservatives scream “nee nee!” (heads spastically going back and forth, like the alien Muppets from the Sesame Street phone ringing bits)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsoTWpgJe7s&feature=related

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella November 2, 2009 at 00:49

Yes, Hestia, exactly. Accepting expensive gifts, going to a man’s house after a date, these things were seen as taking things further. Jewelery was not to be accepted unless the woman were serious about forging a deeper relationship, one moving towards marriage.

She said you just don’t do these things unless you are planning on following through, otherwise you’re being a cruel selfish tease.

Yes! You’ve stated very well and completely what they rules used to be for ladylike (honest) conduct used to be. Yes, it used to be common sense. Now women have arbitrarily changed all the rules, dress all the time as if they are engaging men for sex and then get angry when men respond to it, screaming ‘objectification!’ as they stand there with cleavage, legs and God knows what else on full display. Is this what they supposedly ‘fought’ for with the feminist movement? From girls in their teens to women my age, women now dress in tight spandex T-shirts, plunging necklines, low-rise jeans with thong straps out, and other styles that reveal a LOT . How can men not look!? And why should any of them be angry? They put themselves on display and then get angry when anyone looks at them. They really don’t get the connection between the way they present themselves and they way men react to them? How is this ‘progress’? (say anything and be called a ‘prude or ‘repressed’ of course….)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed November 2, 2009 at 05:09

In a different era, wasn’t this idea pretty much common sense?

Yes, but that really was a different era, Hestia. You have seen how common sense has been thrown out the window and ideology put in its place. The fact that it is a destructive ideology does not affect at all how stubbornly people cling to it, and I think they will continue to try to blame the destructive effects it has on their lives on outside forces until they get tired enough of suffering from it to understand that giving up their treasured illusions is less painful than trying to continue to force them into existence.

They really don’t get the connection between the way they present themselves and they way men react to them?

One very common part of feminist thinking is absolute denial of cause and effect. The goal is for women to be able to do whatever they want to do and get whatever results they want to get, instead of deciding what results they want and then choosing what they have to do in order to get them.

The fact that that approach doesn’t work, never has worked, never will work, and never can work is blamed on “teh Patriarchy.”

It appears that the only way to deal with it is for those who know better to use that knowledge to live better lives, and let the ones who don’t get it keep suffering from their mistaken beliefs until they get tired of suffering or die from them.

She said you just don’t do these things unless you are planning on following through, otherwise you’re being a cruel selfish tease.

Which is why younger men came up with Game. It is the natural response to women’s abandonment of civilized behaviors in dealing with the opposite sex. It is the next stage of escalation in the Gender War. I have always maintained that men would adapt to the changing social environment, and that women in general and the SoCons who have been so busy burning men would not like what men came up with.

There is absolutely no reason to treat a cruel selfish tease who does not see or treat you as a human being with anything other than same disdain with which she treats you. Feminists so far have relied on men’s socialization and general good natures to allow them to get away with their unchecked exploitation. They have pretty much used all that up and from now on will be dealing with a much different kind of men than they have in the past.

zed November 2, 2009 at 06:20

Now women have arbitrarily changed all the rules, dress all the time as if they are engaging men for sex and then get angry when men respond to it, screaming ‘objectification!’ as they stand there with cleavage, legs and God knows what else on full display. Is this what they supposedly ‘fought’ for with the feminist movement? From girls in their teens to women my age, women now dress in tight spandex T-shirts, plunging necklines, low-rise jeans with thong straps out, and other styles that reveal a LOT . How can men not look!? And why should any of them be angry? They put themselves on display and then get angry when anyone looks at them. They really don’t get the connection between the way they present themselves and they way men react to them?

I appreciate your comments, as always, crella. (Good to see you again. All the old crowd seems to be dropping by the Spearhead for a visit.) You and Hestia are the type of women to whom I mostly aim my writing because your type is the one with the most to lose.

Hestia: It’s almost as if one collective foot is firmly in the past and one is the brave new future, with a majority of people not seeing the insanity and cruelty of this position.

One absolutely essential point to understand is that this state will not, can not, last forever. As the future continues to move forward, trying to straddle the gap will become increasingly painful for those who try. Eventually the future will drag those people out of the past by the other foot.

In the past 40 years women have enthusiastically thrown away every last tiny bit of social and sexual power they had at the middle of the 20th century. Women like Audrey Hepburn used to be able to silence a room and have every man’s eyes upon her just by walking in to it. Now, women can have their boobs, butts, and bellies hanging out and if some men actually do look at them, the women scream at the men for looking.

Feminism has torn women in half by telling them they didn’t really (or shouldn’t) want what they really did want, and that they did (or should) want what they really didn’t want. As a result the majority of modern women are schizophrenic – trying to follow the mental dictates of the sisterhood while their minds are at war with what their natures want.

Culturally, we have passed the point of no return. No matter how extensive a police state gets built up to try to force men to live up to their old roles, nothing can replace social pressure, values, and norming.

The biological drive is powerful, but it is not all-powerful. If live flesh and blood women walk around half naked and scream at men for looking at them, then men will simply take their money and spend it on non flesh and blood women who are fully naked and do not scream at them. Then, in order to compete with women who are not screaming harridans, girls will take off even more clothes, pay for even bigger breasts until Dolly Parton becomes the norm, and still will not be able to draw the attention of the same men they have taught to withhold that attention and ignore them by screaming at them and clobbering them when they did pay attention.

And, men will adapt. They will learn that successfully dealing with women requires learning how to deal with their baser natures, not their higher ones.

There is no reason to treat a selfish cruel tease as anything other than a selfish cruel tease. And hiding behind the tired lame old dodge “but NOT ALL women are ‘like that’!” is not going to accomplish a thing. Men are going to start treating all women like the ones they see. As far as men are concerned, this “other kind” is nothing but a myth.

Hestia November 2, 2009 at 09:35

crella-From girls in their teens to women my age, women now dress in tight spandex T-shirts, plunging necklines, low-rise jeans with thong straps out, and other styles that reveal a LOT . How can men not look!? And why should any of them be angry? They put themselves on display and then get angry when anyone looks at them.
The choice to dress in this fashion and the resulting upset is insane. Even as a heterosexual woman, sometimes it’s extremely hard not to gawk and stare at what some women have hanging out, especially when they are talking to me with their nearly bare breasts right there. I can only imagine how men must feel….

On a funny note, when my daughter was still nursing, she would point to the sultry magazine covers in the checkout or women in low cut shirts and ask “where da baybeeeee??” She equated all exposed cleavage to being a breastfeeding mother. :P

zed-The fact that it is a destructive ideology does not affect at all how stubbornly people cling to it, and I think they will continue to try to blame the destructive effects it has on their lives on outside forces until they get tired enough of suffering from it to understand that giving up their treasured illusions is less painful than trying to continue to force them into existence.

One very common part of feminist thinking is absolute denial of cause and effect. The goal is for women to be able to do whatever they want to do and get whatever results they want to get, instead of deciding what results they want and then choosing what they have to do in order to get them.

The denial of cause and effect and the resulting poor decision making that the ideology promotes are very destructive. On my Facebook I have a number of former high school classmates and it’s interesting to see where they are in life and where I am. Very few are married although most are now past twenty five and only one other woman has a child. Most of the women are still in school, go out partying on the weekends, and still go away for spring break style vacations. Obviously I can no longer relate to them and haven’t been able to for a number if years since we’re on two very different life paths,but listening to them and observing their lives has been interesting.

Several times I have gently tried to offer advice about relationships or life choices that were based on reality rather than feminist nonsense and each time I was ignored at best, insulted at worst. One time I pointed out quality people and interactions do not happen in a smoky bar. Another time I suggested a longtime friend read Dr, Laura’s “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands” as she was acting as if she were her boyfriend’s mother, nagging about this and that, airing their dirty relationship laundry over status messages, and then calling him 50x like a psycho after an argument. I attempted to explain to her “the cave concept” and the differences in communication styles of men and women, since this is essential knowledge to have a good relationship. Both disregarded my advice. What could I know after all, I’ve been happily married for nearly six years and have a small child, which is supposedly something these still single women want as well.

And when these women and many others I know don’t get what they want, it’s always the fault of somebody else, usually a man in some, shape, or form. Never the common denominator in their problems–themselves–but somebody else. This is sad and frustrating as the thing I have found to help me grow and mature has been learning to gracefully and honestly accept criticism and use this is as a point to examine myself and start on the changes that need to be made. “The death to self” as the process was called during my fundie days. But such ugly self-examination and hard work isn’t important I suppose when feminism can supposedly get you everything…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 2, 2009 at 09:42

Thank you for getting rid of Someone. That became spam. Repeating the same thing over and over while dismissing all counter arguments as irrelevent is intellectually dishonest and dull. If you’re going to troll, at least be entertaining.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee November 2, 2009 at 13:43

Zed at November 1, 2009 at 3:08 pm,
I pretty much agree, just one thing that I’m wondering about.

And here is where the argument always inevitably stumbles – both sides look at their own experience and apply a worst-case scenario.

Doesn’t everyone here (especially GM) do that though in some sense (not saying that it’s right or the best way to go about a discussion)? Avenger never really went into as much detail about that particular point.
—————————
Kis,
I pretty much agree with everything you posted. I’m just not getting this part:

What I’m saying is, far far far more men resist those impulses than act on them. You can’t infer from “1 in 4 woman are raped” that “1 in 4 men are rapists”. You could have only 1 in 100 or 1000 men who do not resist those impulses, and still end up with 1 in 4 women being raped–especially since men who rape (by Welmer’s definition) almost always offend more than once, as do date rapists, as do roofie rapists, and men who like to fuck drunk women.

So are you saying that the common man has impulses to rape and only to refuse to act on them or are you just refering to just a small segment of the male population?

By the way, do you believe that 1 in 4 women are raped? Personally I kind of question that statistic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
zed November 2, 2009 at 13:51
And here is where the argument always inevitably stumbles – both sides look at their own experience and apply a worst-case scenario.

Doesn’t everyone here do that though in some sense?

Yes, that was what I was saying. You take what I say and imagine the worst case scenario applied to your own life. I take what you say, and remember some worst case scenarios I have been through in my own life, as well as imagining some even worse case scenarios I have seen other men go through.

Because neither side trusts the other, the worst is always assumed and the conversation grinds to an impasse.

zed November 2, 2009 at 13:59

So are you saying that the common man has impulses to rape

Give me just a moment while I scream in frustration. Ok, I’m better now.

The average man has impulses to have sex with women. The specific conditions which govern whether that is called “rape” have changed a great deal over the past 30 years.

In any situation where you have two people and two sets of needs, there is likely to be some friction and conflict. Defining any form of sex which does not exactly meet the needs, desires, and wants of the woman at that point in time as “rape” will result in some things men want to do being called by that term. Men do not see it that way, and that is what the entire cultural screaming match is about.

DADT November 2, 2009 at 14:16

“A woman acting seductively without any intention of having sex is a vicious exploitive bitch. “…………….

So, you don’t like to flirt?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Arbitrary November 2, 2009 at 14:35

To DADT:

Most men don’t, no. The few who do like it, like it precisely because they have a realistic expectation for how far it will lead, and know how to avoid having it drive them broke.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 2, 2009 at 15:02

Flirting is flirting – acting “seductive” is something else. Seduction is a process which has an expected end result. I tease women all the time, which is a sort of flirting, and that is a whole lot different than standing around in a room full of naked women with one of them making a big deal about how she is going to “dance naked”.

Renee November 2, 2009 at 16:08

Zed,

Give me just a moment while I scream in frustration. Ok, I’m better now.

I’m glad lol.

The average man has impulses to have sex with women.

Of course.

The specific conditions which govern whether that is called “rape” have changed a great deal over the past 30 years.
In any situation where you have two people and two sets of needs, there is likely to be some friction and conflict. Defining any form of sex which does not exactly meet the needs, desires, and wants of the woman at that point in time as “rape” will result in some things men want to do being called by that term. Men do not see it that way, and that is what the entire cultural screaming match is about.

Ok….phrasing it that way, I think I understand what you’re getting at here. I just didn’t understand some of what Kis was saying:

We are products of our biology *and* our environment. And there are responses to environmental stimuli programmed into our biology that can put huge strain on people who are forced to resist those responses when the stimuli are pushed in their faces everywhere they turn. The fact that men can live in this society, and only 1 in 4 (or 1 in 7 or whatever the figure of the week is) are raped, instead of 1 in 1, is IMO, a credit to men’s ability to maintain restraints on their own behavior.

And this:

Inferring that sounds like you think one man would only ever be capable of raping one woman. What I’m saying is, far far far more men resist those impulses than act on them.

To me, she made it sound like the average man had to restrain themselves from raping someone. It didn’t sound like she was talking about sex itself.

Defining any form of sex which does not exactly meet the needs, desires, and wants of the woman at that point in time as “rape” will result in some things men want to do being called by that term.
Well I highly doubt that physically forcing someone to have sex against a woman’s will, after she clearly made it known that she didn’t want to, is something the average male wants to do. Keep in mind that rape in this case is the actual (or rather reasonable), legal definition of rape. Now based on your quote, I think I can see your point. I’m just not getting the part about “rape” being sex that doesn’t meet the woman’s needs, wants, and desires part.

But maybe that’s the point, I don’t know………
———————
Kis,
Ignore my question about rape statistics. I can see that you are as doubtful about them as I am ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Arbitrary November 2, 2009 at 16:21

Keep in mind that rape in this case is the actual (or rather reasonable), legal definition of rape.

No, I think you mean the actual reasonable definition of rape here. The legal definition includes this, but also a lot of other things: such as sex with a person who is “mentally incapacitated” (say, from having a glass of wine).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee November 2, 2009 at 16:25

Oh, thanks for the clarification Arbitrary. Now that I think about it, I think you or someone else talked about that in this post.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
zed November 2, 2009 at 16:25

Well I highly doubt that physically forcing someone to have sex against a woman’s will, after she clearly made it known that she didn’t want to, is something the average male wants to do.

I don’t think so either. That is why hearing about the bogus “rape culture” is enraging.

Keep in mind that rape in this case is the actual (or rather reasonable), legal definition of rape. Now based on your quote, I think I can see your point. I’m just not getting the part about “rape” being sex that doesn’t meet the woman’s needs, wants, and desires part.

That is basically how rape is defined, legally, these days. I know you know about the case in which the guy was convicted of “rape” because the woman “withdrew consent” and it took him 5-10 seconds to cease and desist.

That is the kind of insanity I am talking about WRT how”rape” law is applied these days. Now, when a woman says “I was raped” she might be saying that she withdrew consent and it took the guy a whole 10 seconds to stop. That’s why a lot of men are starting to go “ho hum” about the claim of rape – no one will ever convince us that such an experience is “horribly violating.” It wasn’t “horribly violating” a few seconds before she “withdrew consent”, so the only part of it that is different is that she did not have total and absolute power over the guy.

Knowing that I would have to maintain enough detachment to be able to stop instantly on command is so antithetical to the reality of passionate sex that it basically makes it so there is no reason to engage in it at all.

And, in case you have never run across it, here is Robin Morgan’s definition of rape –

“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.”

— Robin Morgan, “Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape” in “Going to Far,” 1974.

There you have it – if the woman didn’t initiate it, then it is “rape” period according to some.

In case you haven’t seen it, have a look at Kim’s roundup of feminist idiocy on the subject –
http://equalbutdifferent.blogspot.com/2009/09/feminism-and-sex.html

crella November 2, 2009 at 16:43

On a funny note, when my daughter was still nursing, she would point to the sultry magazine covers in the checkout or women in low cut shirts and ask “where da baybeeeee??”

Ha,ha, that brings back memories. My son used to point and say ‘Oppai, yum,yum’ (‘oppai’ being Japanese baby talk for nursing/breasts).

I am doing the same thing, Hestia, with mixed results, every time an opportunity presents itself. On ex-pat boards I see SAHMs complaining that their husbands (and Japanese men tend to work 60-hour weeks) don’t do enough housework on the weekends. I gently (at first) point out that those 60 hours a week to pay the mortgage should entitle Dad to sit on his keister on the weekends, and ‘don’t you think it would be a great idea to get all the housework, stocking the fridge etc done by say, 5 pm Friday and then NOBODY has any chores to do on the weekend?’ Several saw the light, some continued to stick to ‘it’s his house too, he has to wash the toilet on Saturday’. Those I go after with a little more firepower :-D The first group is so entrenched that they don’t see how wrong they are, once they see it, they perk right up and step up to bat. It’s the married dyed in the wool feminists (oxymoron much? :-P ) that see their husbands as donkeys. I was not surprised to see those women turn up one by one on the list divorced. Japanese men want wives, not another boss.

The other thing I do is ride one of the the mixed cars on the subway at night. Because of groping in the rush hour, we have ‘women only’ subway cars. I see friends for dinner once every three months or so, on the way home I always ride the guy’s car. Invariably a man will ask ‘Aren’t you nervous on this car?’ and I always say, ‘Why no, I don’t think all men are gropers’ which always leads to VERY spirited discussions (‘You’re damned right!’) about men’s pride, and their role in society. There are three or four more men that week who maybe won’t just go with the flow….

Some women, you can point things out and you see the light go on, others you’d need dynamite.

Thank you, zed. Someone posted a link at Nice Guy’s . I’ve been having fun reading through the archives. I enjoy your writing as much as ever. I see a familiar name or two from Dr. Helen’s blog, and I am very pleased to see Female Masculinist’s writings as well.

I was tickled to see the progress of the tree house, I’d been wondering!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead November 2, 2009 at 21:22

We can argue back and forth about definitions of rape and how out of touch they are, but the more interesting thing is that the most unnatural ideas of rape have gained the ascendancy. If these latter day arguments of rape are so unreasonable, why are they so predominant? Might it be because they serve a higher purpose than what we commonly suppose?

I can think of only one purpose higher than both the maintenance of justice in a civilization and the reproductive necessity of people continuing to breed into the future – and that’s survival in the here and now. So it seems reasonable to me that insane ideas about rape prevailing as they are must be linked to our immediate survival in some way that isn’t quite so obvious.

For my money (excuse the pun if you anticipate my direction), rape law and ideas have nothing to do with justice whatsoever. They are natural developments of a justice system that is no different in nature to any other business. We no longer know how we are sustained, where our shelter comes from, or who grows our food. We have absolutely no idea what provides our prosperity, how long it will last and what we would do if for some reason the entire machinery stopped working and we were left to start again. All we know is that the machinery must be kept running, and the nature of the machine is that wealth is taken from those that have it and distributed to as many hands and mouths as possible. We no longer see justice as something that is externally inserted into a community of people who already know how to get by, in order to deal with miscreants. Justice as a service no longer makes sense, because we don’t know what it could be servant to – everything else we do is equally disconnected from making a living. Our rape law is in full service to this principle – it is just another product among many, seeking out new customers who don’t need it for the highest possible price. Every man falsely accused may be one man lost, but his entire wealth is passed into the hands of law enforcement, lawyers, judges, jailers, media, real-estate agents, private investigators, landlords, governments that collect taxes from every transaction, beneficiaries that are sustained by welfare funded by government etc. His job is re-cycled to the next applicant. His loss of reputation is recycled into the increase in reputation for those that tried and jailed him – at least in the eyes of so many who aren’t that interested in anything beyond surface appearances.

Current rape law reminds me of the famous stories of ship-wrecked men sharing a life-boat, down to drawing straws as to who gets to be dinner. It’s not civilization preserving or just to kill someone to feed on their corpse, but in some situations it’s what you must do if you have no idea what else to do – even if your rescuer may be only an hour away, but the dispatch of your shipmate only 5 minutes distant.

We’ve seen it all before, in various guises. You recognize it by the fact that the victims are always male, and the horrible business is always presented in a way that women cannot see anything possibly wrong with it, and that they are being protected from some imminent evil.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis November 2, 2009 at 21:50

To me, she made it sound like the average man had to restrain themselves from raping someone. It didn’t sound like she was talking about sex itself.

Well, if you go by the definition of rape these days, that fabulous night in the freezing rain that is responsible for more single-handed orgasms in my lonely lonely life as a single mother with a mountain of baggage than anything else that has EVER happened to me, was rape.

I told him no. He persisted. I told him “we shouldn’t”. He persisted. I said, “We can’t do this, we can’t.” Yes, my protests were half-hearted. Yes, it was clear I was conflicted–I did not shout “rape” or scream “no”. But he ignored my protests, tore my clothes off and gave me the ride of my life, leaving me covered with injuries, some of which took months to heal.

I never explicitly consented. He ignored my objection–twice. It fits the “new” definition of rape to a T. If I didn’t have the sense of self worth I have, or the honest and unapologetic relationship I have with my desires, or if I was the kind of person who equates sex with love and would therefore feel abused instead of well-used when he was done with me, I could have had him charged and convicted in about ten minutes.

By some definitions of the word “rape”, there isn’t a woman alive who’s had sex who hasn’t been raped.

There you have it – if the woman didn’t initiate it, then it is “rape” period according to some.

Well, wouldn’t that depend on your definition of initiate? I mean, a woman climbing naked into a hot tub and rubbing herself all over a guy? I’d say that’s initiating sex–but I bet Robin Whoever wouldn’t. This is what’s so frustrating! So unbearable for me–because gender-queer as I am, if you treat me like a woman, I respond like one. I want nothing more than to be dominated in bed, but the law and feminist doctrine have men so uptight about everything that, Jesus, we might as well just write the whole fucking thing off.

Anais Nin:

“I do not want to be the leader. I refuse to be the leader. I want to live darkly and richly in my femaleness. I want a man lying over me, always over me. His will, his pleasure, his desire, his life, his work, his sexuality the touchstone, the command, my pivot. I don’t mind working, holding my ground intellectually, artistically; but as a woman, oh, God, as a woman I want to be dominated. I don’t mind being told to stand on my own feet, not to cling, be all that I am capable of doing, but I am going to be pursued, fucked, possessed by the will of a male at his time, his bidding.”

This is what I want. And I’m living in a world where I’m more likely to get “May I touch your breast? May I run my hand down your body? May I have intercourse with you?”

Fucking sad.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Harry November 3, 2009 at 01:23

@Kis

“This is what I want. And I’m living in a world where I’m more likely to get “May I touch your breast? May I run my hand down your body? May I have intercourse with you?”

Fucking sad.”

IMHO, there are five main reasons why this common desire among women is being thwarted.

1. As mentioned above somewhere. It is not seen as PC or ladylike for women to admit to this kind of desire – and, thus, they are ‘ashamed’ to admit to it – both publicly and privately.

2. At a more intimate level, the very act of saying to your partner, “Do what you like,” is ALREADY implying that he needs your permission – and so some of the wind is taken out of the whole idea.

3. Form the man’s POV, it is a bit dangerous these days for him to engage in such types of dominance. For example, later on it might be taken as proof that he is an abuser.

4. My understanding (which might be wrong) is that it is mostly those with well-above average IQs who are prone to have ‘kinky’ desires. Hence, the majority of the population might not understand how such desires can be anything but ‘perverted’; i.e. very wrong.

5. As per Piercedhead above, there is a huge industry (organism!) that benefits hugely by demonising the implementation and acceptance of such desires – with much of religion being part of this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 3, 2009 at 05:31

a woman climbing naked into a hot tub and rubbing herself all over a guy? I’d say that’s initiating sex–but I bet Robin Whoever wouldn’t. This is what’s so frustrating! So unbearable for me–because gender-queer as I am, if you treat me like a woman, I respond like one. I want nothing more than to be dominated in bed, but the law and feminist doctrine have men so uptight about everything that, Jesus, we might as well just write the whole fucking thing off.

LOL! Your candor is absolutely wonderful, kis. As I keep saying, this whole “rayyyype” nonsense is the nuclear device of the gender war – the ultimate weapon to drive men and women apart and guarantee that women never get what they want any more than men do.

This one paragraph of yours illustrates so many aspects of the issue. Notice how Robin Morgan’s statement was made 35 years ago. Since then they have been playing a real shell game with both “initiation” and “consent.” Yes, in the hot tub situation any sane person would say that she initiated it. But, you read Female Masculinst’s post on Responsibility as a male characteristic. A woman can climb in bed with a man and get busy rubbing his penis, and that is not taken as either intiation or “consent.” In the entire history of the world women have never intiated or “given consent”. They have flashed their “fuck me” eyes toward a man and put him on notice that it is time for him to do his “man thang.”

But. at the cultural and legal level, people did realize that those “fuck me” eyes, or rubbing her boobs all over the guy, were indeed an invitation to sex.

The fundamental basis of feminism is a denial of reality. From “gender is a social construct” to current rape law, it is a purely mental construct which denies and negates that there is even such a thing as biological reality.

And then you get women like Renee who have no clue what they are talking about because they have never had the experience, dictating for women like you what your life will be like. She keeps using the word “rape” over and over and over again with no understanding at all of the feelings and emotions involved, and trying to pin down a very vague and chaotic human experience into simple black and white terms. Every time I try to explain some of the issues I get so frustrated I want to scream because there is no way you can ever explain the experience to someone who has never had it – any more than you can explain what a sunrise looks like to a blind woman.

It goes beyond men being “uptight.” I’m not particularly “uptight” about the idea of smoking crack cocaine, but the legal penalties that I might incur from it are a major disincentive to engage in the behavior. Heterosexual Bed Death.

You saw how the very first response to my article here was a screaming troll – out to make sure that no woman ever gets the chance to have satisfying sex with a man again.

And, as Harry points out, all this fits in quite nicely with the religious influence that wants more than anything to pretend that women are totally asexual passive victims of men.

I sort of laugh when you say “if you treat me like a woman, I respond like one” and at the religious women whining that “there aren’t any men around who see me as a woman.” Well the feminists have made treating you like a woman, or even seeing you as a woman, more illegal than smoking crack cocaine.

What no one will ever deal with at all, however, is the effect that all this has on men. We are not some dumb robots quietly waiting around for women to figure out what sort of software they want to load onto us. Being badgered and beaten over the head with “rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape RAPE RAPE RAPE!!!!!!!!!” is absolutely murdering our libidos and making women look about as attractive as rolling around naked in a patch of poison ivy and stinging nettles.

It’s the weirdest fucking paradox in the world. Women may claim that they only fantasize about actually being raped and don’t really want to be taken by a man who doesn’t give a shit about them, but they are doing everything in their power to guarantee that no other sort of man will even approach them.

As John Nada keeps saying, there are 2-3 generations of women in countries dominated by Entitlement Materialist (anti-sexual) Feminism that are burnt like Roman Meal toast. Maybe women really want to see the rise of sociopathic men like Roissy who treat them as nothing but pieces of meat.

kis November 3, 2009 at 09:04

Maybe women really want to see the rise of sociopathic men like Roissy who treat them as nothing but pieces of meat.

I think what many women want is what the poster said here. Egalitarian day to day, dominant in the bedroom. Although I’m pretty sure most women would be happier still with what Dave from Hawaii has–a relationship that *seems* egalitarian because his dominance/leadership is fairly subtle most of the time. He’s dominant, but not domineering. If the examples he’s posted of his interactions with his wife are accurate, yeah, that’s the type of relationship I would love to have. I envy his wife.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee November 3, 2009 at 12:14

Zed, something that I noticed,

If a woman jumps over everything a man has just pointed out to argue with one part of it, there is no sense that she implicitly agrees with everything else – just that she doesn’t have the time to argue with all of it.

Honestly, I see this in both men and women, at least on here. If one part stands out and you have a question or a strong opinion about it, then you’ll bring it up. And like I said, to me it’s more like you do agree with everything else, except that particular part. I’m not advocating doing it all the time, but from what I’ve seen, men and women both do it, online at least. But anyway…………just an observation.

Anyway,

And then you get women like Renee who have no clue what they are talking about because they have never had the experience, dictating for women like you what your life will be like.

1)I never dictated anything, and 2)like I said before, just because I’m a virgin and may have learned a few things from this post, doesn’t mean that I’m completely clueless about the general idea about rape and consent. Anyway, most of my posts were questions and clarifications about specific points.

She keeps using the word “rape” over and over and over again with no understanding at all of the feelings and emotions involved……….

Feelings and emotions involved in rape or the general human experience when it comes to sex and the whole “mating ritual”? Because I thought the whole problem with the way rape is defined now is that it’s sometimes based only on how women felt not by what actually happened.

………and trying to pin down a very vague and chaotic human experience into simple black and white terms.

Interesting parallels here. Feminists often talk about something called “gray rape” and how rape shouldn’t only be defined as when a victim forcibly says no and/or fights back.

Just a mess.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Anon November 3, 2009 at 20:37

A reality check:

Just because a woman “wants it” does NOT mean she wants it from YOU.

Rape is sex without consent. If a woman cannot give consent (underaged, inebriated, gagged) or does not give consent or even REVOKES consent, then YOU ARE RAPING HER.

Oh, and boys? How would you feel if I pointed out that your jeans, which make some men think your ass looks exceptionally hot, means that you want it and you need it and you’re willing to take it from any man who might be bigger than you? Does that mean it’s okay for him to bend you over and shove his cock into you? You WERE sending him signals, by your own logic. <3

Have lovely lives, scum bags. I hope none of you ever breed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Welmer November 3, 2009 at 20:41

Have lovely lives, scum bags. I hope none of you ever breed.

-Anon

Too late!
:)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed November 3, 2009 at 21:21

Feelings and emotions involved in rape or the general human experience when it comes to sex and the whole “mating ritual”? Because I thought the whole problem with the way rape is defined now is that it’s sometimes based only on how women felt not by what actually happened.

I think I will take a page out of Fedrz playbook here and ask you what kind of “rape” you are talking about.

I sense that we are very close to a breakthrough in communication here, Renee. You mentioned two things in your statement above – but you left something out, and it is what you are leaving out that continues to be the sticking point – the man’s experience of what happened.

You keep using the word “rape” to cover a huge variety of circumstances – some of which might actually be a criminal act on the part of the man, and some of which might be actions on the part of the woman which, if not criminal, may be only slightly less reprehensible.

Now, take the situation I described above, for reference here is the direct link to the comment – http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/31/the-biological-context-of-sexuality-and-mating/#comment-7091

Now, would you say that I was coerced? I certainly felt coerced. Would you agree that by this coercion I was forced to engage in sexual activity I would have preferred not to have engaged in? I have to tell you that it was pretty obnoxious to be used to gratify these women’s egos by having my normal reactions jerked around.

So, given that I was coerced into engaging in a sexual activity – AGAINST MY WILL – and that the only way I could have avoided it was to leave a house that I had no idea where it was, walk until I found a place to call a taxi, find a hotel, and take a taxi to the airport the next day, do you feel that I should have been able to press criminal charges against the woman and put her in prison for 25 years?

See, men have feelings too, Renee, believe it or not. We do not like to be used, in the same way that a woman does not like to be used for sex.

But, for some reason, our feelings, our reactions are always deleted from any discussion of what happened. This is what I have meant when I keep saying that rape is now about any sex that does not meet the needs and desires of the woman.

In the scenario I described, did the woman give one shit about my needs and wants? Not even a little bit.

Now, if she had held a gun on me, and forced me to go there at gunpoint, then there would have been an actual crime called “kidnapping.” But, given that the pressure was psychological and social rather than overtly threatening me with a gun, should I still be able to have her charged with “kidnapping”?

Of course not. Social pressure and kidnapping at gunpoint ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!!!!

I am sure that most people would look at the situation and agree that the fact that I didn’t leave implied that I gave some sort of “consent” for what happened.

Now, sexual intercourse is still considered by some people to be a fairly normal human activity – far more normal than coercing someone who mistakenly considers you a “friend” to be your audience for an absolutely disgusting display of narcisistic ego gratification.

So, what in all this “gray area” makes it a crime so horrible that the man needs to be punished with years in prison? At what point does the evaporation of this mythical token called “consent” turn a normal human activity into a “horrible violation”?

Now, what my so-called “friend” put me through had nothing to do with any sort of “mating ritual.” The women there were “acting seductive” (or at least parading around naked) with absolutely no intention of it leading to sex, but I’m sure it did gratify their egos to get all the attention they got.

If I had gotten drunk along with them, and grabbed one of those women’s boobs or butts as they went past, do you think they would have been justified in pressing charges for “sexual assault”?

How much restraint is society going to demand when women are given free license to do whatever they want, not matter how unpleasant or distasteful a man might find it?

Now, I am sure that if you were to talk to “Jane”, that her perception of events would be much different than mine were. Do mine take precedence because I could portray myself as a “victim”, or do hers take precedence because she is a woman?

The point is that sometimes fucked up things that are done by icky people are just fucked up things done by icky people and not crimes worthy of a prison sentence. And, that sometimes one person may see absolutely nothing wrong with a situation that another person may be absolutely hating. And, the fact that the second person hates it doesn’t make it a crime, either, even when it has something to do with sex.

And the ugly bottom line is this. I probably come as close to hating “Jane” as anyone I have ever known in my life. The following day when she and her ex-husband (and my ex-friend) dropped me off at the airport was the last time I saw or communicated with either of them. That’s it, over and done.

But, if I were to hear that she pulled the same shit on someone else, someone less socialized, less of a gentleman and nice guy, and he didn’t take it as well as I did and she got hurt, I really would think “Well, the bitch asked for it” and would not feel the tiniest bit bad about something bad happening to her.

Does that make sense, now?

Yes, it is a mess.

kis November 3, 2009 at 21:59

Take my example, Renee.

A wild night where I never gave him verbal consent–only protests and objections followed by physical submissiveness. It was the single most exciting sexual experience of my life.

Say I’d entered into the deal wanting more than sex from him. Say I wanted a relationship. He never offered me one–in fact, I don’t think he spoke more than ten words to me that night before we got down to business, which was, incidentally, part of the thrill–but let’s say I went into it believing he wanted more, or that he’d be so enamored of the sex he’d come to want more.

Say he doesn’t call (he didn’t). And he doesn’t stop by (he did, a few times, to talk). And he doesn’t even look at me, let alone wave, as we drive past each other downtown. And then three weeks later, I see his truck parked back in the driveway of the house he shares with his wife and I know he’s gone back to her.

All of a sudden, this night–the most exciting sexual experience of my life–turns into something that makes me feel used and violated whenever I think about it.

Now, having some common sense, I’m aware that if there was a crime, it was not the sex. I consented–yes, it was only within my own mind, but boy howdy did I consent. This feeling of violation did not arise from the act of having sex with him, but from my own unrealistic expectations and the ways he did not live up to them after the fact. But now the entire experience is tainted with feelings of abuse and violation.

Is this rape? The number of women who would say yes would probably surprise you. And they wouldn’t even be looking at it from the contemptible but honest standpoint of revenge–”You show him what he gets for using someone like that! You just lie and stick it to him good!” Nope. They’d be telling me, “Awww, hon, you were raped by that pig. Have a tissue and let’s go to the police station.”

I mean, look at how prostitutes and their feminist do-gooder advocates want to have refusing to pay for services rendered criminalized not as theft or fraud, but as–you guessed it–rape. They may have even managed to do this in some jurisdictions. These are not men who grab a hooker and rape her and leave her in the alley sobbing. These are men who make a deal–sex for money–and then renege. The prostitution equivalent of dine and dash. It’s not rape.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Hestia November 3, 2009 at 22:20

If I may add an example to “this is not rape” discussion:

My sister’s college roommate, L, is a major leftist and feminist. She believes fervently in both ideologies as if they were her religion and will blindly follow any idea one of her heroes says.

Last fall L went to a conference for one of the clubs she belonged to at school. She went out with some people when the day was over and although underage, drank with her new friends. After she left the bar, she decided to invite one of the guys up to her room. They were kissing and one thing led to another and he tried to talk her into having sex. She said no. He asked again. She repeated her no and he got dressed and left. She and some of the other girls at the conference called this “attempted date rape” and told others what had happened.

This was not rape and no crime occurred. No crime was attempted. Asking a second time about taking the activities further is not a crime. It’s not uncommon for women to give a false no at first in order to feel as if they protested and thus aren’t a slut for having sex. To ask again makes sense in many scenarios as many women do play this game. Words are not rape, nowhere near it. He did not force himself on her but left when he knew nothing was going to happen. Yet he was repaid for doing this with people now looking at his as a potential date rapist.

This young man is fortunate that L didn’t go to the police as her friends were suggesting. If she had, he likely could have faced legal actions for a “rape” that didn’t occur.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 3, 2009 at 22:24

All of a sudden, this night–the most exciting sexual experience of my life–turns into something that makes me feel used and violated whenever I think about it.

Are you speaking hypothetically, to make a point to Renee that it could have played out this way, or did it actually happen like that? You certainly talk about that night in glowing terms.

zed November 3, 2009 at 22:38

he got dressed and left.

They had their clothes off at this point? Or at least he had some of his off?

Hestia November 3, 2009 at 22:44

zed-They had their clothes off at this point? Or at least he had some of his off?
According to what L told my sister, they were both in their underwear at this point. I do not understand why she invited him up to her room if it wasn’t to have sex. This wasn’t the first nor the last time she has done such a thing either. There’s no talking sense into this girl though my sister has tried.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 3, 2009 at 22:52

I do not understand why she invited him up to her room if it wasn’t to have sex.

I do.

According to what L told my sister, they were both in their underwear at this point.

So, he followed the Antioch Rules, asked for “consent”, that turned her off, he left, and she thinks it was attempted “date rape.”

I really do feel sorry for young men these days.

kis November 3, 2009 at 23:10

Are you speaking hypothetically, to make a point to Renee that it could have played out this way, or did it actually happen like that? You certainly talk about that night in glowing terms.

Yes, it was a hypothetical example of how I might have responded if I had no freaking common sense whatsoever (or if I was a feminist, although I’d argue the two might be the same), or if I was stupid enough to think that bonking a separated-but-still-technically-married man was destined to end in anything other than one night of spectacular sex.

In reality, he came by several times to talk. I knew he wanted more, but I wasn’t willing to enter a relationship with a man who was still technically married. I’m glad I decided that, since he did go back to his wife and at least I don’t have to feel like the catalyst for a family break-up. If they do break up, it won’t be because of me. If he ever does leave her, though, I am so freaking there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 4, 2009 at 06:16

Anon November 3, 2009 at 8:37 pm
A reality check:

Just because a woman “wants it” does NOT mean she wants it from YOU.

“Rape is sex without consent. If a woman cannot give consent (underaged, inebriated, gagged) or does not give consent or even REVOKES consent, then YOU ARE RAPING HER.

Oh, and boys? How would you feel if I pointed out that your jeans, which make some men think your ass looks exceptionally hot, means that you want it and you need it and you’re willing to take it from any man who might be bigger than you? Does that mean it’s okay for him to bend you over and shove his cock into you? You WERE sending him signals, by your own logic. <3

Have lovely lives, scum bags. I hope none of you ever breed."

Great example of misrepresenting the argument, creating a straw-man, avoiding honest debate even about the misrepresented argument or straw-man, and finishing off with an implied ad hominen attack. Intellectual cowardice and dishonesty. She is a classic raving harpy, too emotionally involved to take a honest look at the debate and maybe add some actual insight. Instead she distorts, distracts, and dismisses. I find the word "pathetic" is too often used as a throw away insult, but I can't help but find no other word more appropriate in describing her attempt at debate in this circumstance. She annoys me like a fly annoys a lion. I'm sorry I even have to waste my time swatting at her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee November 6, 2009 at 08:55

Zed at November 3, 2009 at 9:21 pm,
My God that was horrible. You were right to cut them loose.

Now where to begin…..

To me rape is when someone is forced into sexual intercourse against their will after they plainly made it clear that they did not want to (they said “no”, tried to fight back, etc.) To me is the reasonable definition of rape.

In your situation, even though what Jane did was awful, I wouldn’t send her to prison period for what she did. In fact in the subject of rape, I even said that the definition does not include being pressured to have sex unless you were threatened with bodily harm or with a weapon.

See, men have feelings too, Renee, believe it or not. We do not like to be used, in the same way that a woman does not like to be used for sex.

Oh believe me, I know. In fact it really bothers me to no end how boys and men have been/are being led to believe that having and expressing feelings aren’t manly, especially since it’s seen mainly as a feminine trait. But I sense that things are changing for the better.

But, for some reason, our feelings, our reactions are always deleted from any discussion of what happened. This is what I have meant when I keep saying that rape is now about any sex that does not meet the needs and desires of the woman.

Ok see what you mean. I think one of the reasons for that is anything that’s considered a crime, unless it was murder or an attack in self defense, no one really talks about the feelings, reactions, or reasons of the guilty party except when talking about a motive. In the situation when a woman cries rape, where it’s more of a he said/she said, geniune confusion and misunderstanding type of thing, I can see how the guy’s point of view, feelings, etc. should be included.

So, what in all this “gray area” makes it a crime so horrible that the man needs to be punished with years in prison? At what point does the evaporation of this mythical token called “consent” turn a normal human activity into a “horrible violation”?

Honestly, I couldn’t tell you. That’s probably why I resorted to thinking that consent is what’s decided at THAT moment, not to say that it’s ok if she gave the wrong signals. I also noticed how many people say that you shouldn’t automatically discount a rape victim if she didn’t fight back or say no. To me, I think of if a person willingly gives their money or belongings away when being threatened or held at gun point. I think that there are times in which they’re just scared. But the problem is, the guy just doesn’t know if she herself doesn’t say or do anything.

Here’s an example. Now yes this is from Feministing, and I know how you feel about it and feminism in general, so you’ve been warned lol. But it really gives insight on what they consider rape:
“Gray Rape”

If I had gotten drunk along with them, and grabbed one of those women’s boobs or butts as they went past, do you think they would have been justified in pressing charges for “sexual assault”?

No they wouldn’t, but as I was thinking about your scenerio, several thoughts came to mind. For one thing, drunk people are still held accountable for their actions most of the time, except when it comes to drunken sex, especially on the part of the woman. The other thought was about there seem to be this idea that if a woman is naked or wears provacative clothing (however you define it), then that makes them “available” in a way and gives men the freedom to do whatever with them as they please, like groping them as they go by and so forth. Maybe like a sense of entitlement in that case? But then I realize the risk of women attracting the wrong attention by being in those states of dress, or lack thereof, not that most men think or will do that. So given the circumstances and the fact that in the situation you described, you and the women would both be drunk, I come back to my original conclusion…that they wouldn’t be justified in pressing charges for sexual assault.

How much restraint is society going to demand when women are given free license to do whatever they want, not matter how unpleasant or distasteful a man might find it?

I have a feeling that this question is hypothetical. Do you mean restraint from the men?

Now, I am sure that if you were to talk to “Jane”, that her perception of events would be much different than mine were. Do mine take precedence because I could portray myself as a “victim”, or do hers take precedence because she is a woman?

Her being a woman should have nothing to do with it. My first instinct was to say that yours take precedence because of how you presented the events, but looking back on what you posted, I think the answer is that none should take precedence over the other. But here’s my question, if you were to tell this story to loved ones,friends, even people here, how can you expect them to do the same?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Renee November 6, 2009 at 09:13

The other thought was about there seem to be this idea that if a woman is naked or wears provacative clothing (however you define it), then that makes them “available” in a way and gives men the freedom to do whatever with them as they please, like groping them as they go by and so forth. Maybe like a sense of entitlement in that case? But then I realize the risk of women attracting the wrong attention by being in those states of dress, or lack thereof, not that most men think or will do that.

Please keep in mind that I wasn’t saying that women should walk around naked or dress with barely any clothes on and not consider that they could attract the wrong attention, or that it’s ok for them to do so in settings like you described or parties in general. I guess when I made that statement, I was thinking of guys doing that to a random woman they hadn’t talked to, flirted with, etc. I don’t know…..I can’t but feel that I messed up that part.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
zed November 6, 2009 at 11:31

To me, I think of if a person willingly gives their money or belongings away when being threatened or held at gun point. I think that there are times in which they’re just scared. But the problem is, the guy just doesn’t know if she herself doesn’t say or do anything.

Her being a woman should have nothing to do with it. My first instinct was to say that yours take precedence because of how you presented the events, but looking back on what you posted, I think the answer is that none should take precedence over the other. But here’s my question, if you were to tell this story to loved ones,friends, even people here, how can you expect them to do the same?

Unfortunately, Renee, sometimes you are very poor at expressing yourself, which undoubtely leads to a lot of the miscommunication which has occurred.

In both of the bolded parts above, I have absolutely no idea what you are saying or what you are getting at.

So, let me summarize the points I have been trying to hammer on –
1) The bitch was using me to gratify her own ego.
2) I found it quite obnxious.
3) At least some of “women acting seductive when they have no intention of having sex” is to gratify their own narcissistic egos
4) most men find that obnoxious
5) women should not have the right to charge a man with a crime for a misunderstanding.
6) if she “changes her mind” she has an obligation to notify him of that, and give him a reasonable time to react.
7) anyone who does not accept the points above, and continues to accept femisting’s definition of “rayyype” is scum of the earth to me, and if something bad happens to one of those people, I will simply yawn.
8 ) If your goal is make men so sick of women, and so sick of the whole discussion of sex, and so sick of the whole discussion of rape, that they will never bother to go on another date in their entire lives – you are succeeding admirably.
9) it is not even close to being worth all the trouble and the risk involved.

Renee November 6, 2009 at 12:26

Unfortunately, Renee, sometimes you are very poor at expressing yourself, which undoubtely leads to a lot of the miscommunication which has occurred.

Yep, I pretty much agree lol, especially if my comment is really long. I even admitted this flaw myself in one post.

To me, I think of if a person willingly gives their money or belongings away when being threatened or held at gun point.

First of all, I should have taken the “if” out. Anyway, I should have elaborated more on that. I was trying to say that the scenerio I described above is similar to a woman not fighting back in some cases of rape, in that both were too scared to fight back. I was reminded of situations in which women have claimed to have “froze” during rape instead of fighting back.

But here’s my question, if you were to tell this story to loved ones,friends, even people here, how can you expect them to do the same?

You talked about precedence when it came to Jane and your POVs of what happened at the party. From what you said, I came to the conclusion that in cases of he said/she said, when people have different ideas and views as to what happened, one person’s story shouldn’t take precedence over the other. What I didn’t understand was that if you were to tell this story to loved ones, friends, and even people on here, how can you not expect them to take more precedence to your POV than Jane’s.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 6, 2009 at 12:53

From what you said, I came to the conclusion that in cases of he said/she said, when people have different ideas and views as to what happened, one person’s story shouldn’t take precedence over the other. What I didn’t understand was that if you were to tell this story to loved ones, friends, and even people on here, how can you not expect them to take more precedence to your POV than Jane’s.

Aha!!! The issue is not my friends or family, it is what happens in the court of law. In court, one person’s story should not take precedence over the other, particularly when one of them stands to go to prison over it. Thus the “always believe the woman” principle fails.

To me, I think of if a person willingly gives their money or belongings away when being threatened or held at gun point.

First of all, I should have taken the “if” out. Anyway, I should have elaborated more on that. I was trying to say that the scenerio I described above is similar to a woman not fighting back in some cases of rape, in that both were too scared to fight back. I was reminded of situations in which women have claimed to have “froze” during rape instead of fighting back.

We continue to talk about totally different things because the definition of “rayyyyyype” has become so muddied by feminists. If indeed someone pointed a gun at a woman, then a rape did occur. That was exactly the point I was making when I said that IF the woman had pointed a gun at me, then it would have been a clearcut crime of kidnapping.

However, social pressure and pointing a gun at someone are two completely different things. Calling them both by the same name dilutes the seriousness of one while at the same time causing concern to those who might have engaged in the other.

To use your example above, it would be like saying there is no distinction between simple pandhandling (“hey, got a spare quarter”), and “armed robbery” and punishing them both the same. Thus, when a man envisions what might have happened, he thinks of panhandling, and does not consider it worthy of all the hysteria.

Lethargio November 7, 2009 at 10:22

@ Anon November 3, 2009 at 8:37 pm

In your comment you literally jump from the ‘jeans’ to the physical – “any man who might be bigger than you”, which can only imply a hetero guy is blatantly being physically overpowered. You leave out all the messy face-to-face flirting that happens between heterosexuals. You pose one, maybe two stages of human interaction. Your comment would fall into a more darkly defined rape category discussed many times above, where rape is basically black and white (all out domination, pinned down, violent, etc).

“Does that mean it’s okay for him to bend you over and shove his cock into you?” – er, hello? What about all the social interactions before, what happened to them in your scenario? Again, what you pose is a scenario with not much dialogue and an end result only alluding to force. It’s clear cut.

Many a guy fears himself being raped but guaranteed, they don’t think of it as them having led someone on with smiles and touches and silent moments gazing in each other’s eyes (the bits you leave out, which would mean a hetero guy bringing himself into this flirting antic with another guy would have to question his own sexuality and motives anyway). The reason why I’m also alluding to hetero and gay terms is because I get the sense you’re trying to emasculate and scare people on here by posing scenarios that veer towards gay sexual imagery and homophobia (?).

My imagination of male rape is brutal. As a hetero guy and in my defense, I wouldn’t do anything other than it to result in being so. There’s no lead-up. Me wearing jeans is not my fault. I don’t wear jeans to ‘knowingly’ evoke ‘big guy’s’ arousal, to ‘knowingly’ attract guys, or gays. Big guy can think what he wants, he will have to negotiate, not just ‘bend me over’ (negotiation meaning he alerts me to the fact he is gay and wants some ass). But, it has been argued many a time here that women KNOWINGLY wear ultra-revealing clothes to stimulate and attract to their own ends, to consciously draw in the crowds. With guys, the scenario you pose would more likely play out in a different way, to avert the dangers, to resist, unless it is brutal. Brutal is more well defined in rape, at least more clear. I have more a winning chance with my ‘brutal’ rape plea.

Hetero guys don’t expect gay advances and if they occur, it’s usually ‘straightforward’ what the deal is with the hetero guy. Now women EXPECT advances and it’s usually, cough, can’t get it out, ahem, scuse me…

I also wouldn’t flirt discreetly or overtly with another, any man. I don’t want his ass so the ‘big guy’ who likes my ‘jeans’ and likes my ass, can only get it one way – through brute force – now that would be rape, no?

Your comment kinda poses just this – that a guy is being overpowered, more than in the messy dating situations men and women find themselves in and regretting. It really is ‘one-stage rape’. I’d say your comment nearly proves this. You pose a more clear-cut example that when argued out, shows rape – in its most ‘purest’ form (not the best choice of words), sorry, clear-cut form.

If a ‘big guy’ is led on by jeans, even if an unsuspecting-dude come jean wearer goes back to this big guy’s flat, at the point of a sexual advance, most men are more physically tuned and it is more likely physical resistance will occur from such a suggestion (butt cheeks clenched too). No resistance? One would probably ask the guy to question his own sexuality and the events leading up to being rogered. And will he plead rape afterwards if he’s sore the next night and didn’t like it, and is questioning his sexuality even more? It could be a man’s defining moment in questioning his own sexuality (!), but if he does plead grey-area rape, I doubt he would receive the same sympathy as women, or from women. He would probably have his weak display of ‘manliness and responsibility’ questioned rigorously, shoved down his throat.

And it’s strange at how at certain times, when it suits society most, ‘men are supposed to be men’, no grey areas allowed. Yet I wonder if sympathy would be given for a more weaker, feminine looking hetero guy, evoking the feminine sympathies?

It is difficult (kind of unimaginable) to throw grey areas into a male rape scenario, it shows how ‘second thoughts, didn’t like it’ whims are even less favourable if men were to plead it. You didn’t consider this idea. You just posed a ‘wham bam’. And in the scenario you pose Anon, it can only highlight how rape cases should be more clearly defined.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anon November 11, 2009 at 14:55

“Great example of misrepresenting the argument, creating a straw-man, avoiding honest debate even about the misrepresented argument or straw-man, and finishing off with an implied ad hominen attack. Intellectual cowardice and dishonesty. She is a classic raving harpy, too emotionally involved to take a honest look at the debate and maybe add some actual insight. Instead she distorts, distracts, and dismisses. I find the word “pathetic” is too often used as a throw away insult, but I can’t help but find no other word more appropriate in describing her attempt at debate in this circumstance. She annoys me like a fly annoys a lion. I’m sorry I even have to waste my time swatting at her.”
-Jabherwochie

The truly hysterical thing here is that you actually made an “ad hominen” (point of information: that last “n” should be an “m”) dismissal while making an accusation of an Ad Hominem dismissal. An Ad Hominem argument is simply the use of a personal attack to declare an argument invalid.

“Intellectual cowardice and dishonesty.”
” She is a classic raving harpy, too emotionally involved…”
“I can’t help but find no other word more appropriate [than pathetic] in describing her…”

These are personal attacks. You used these personal attacks in place of responding to the argument submitted. So allow me to make this easier for you by making the argument simpler.

This article argues that women, by virtue of modern dress, are inviting sexual attention. The article goes on to claim that this stimulus ensures response.

This assertion is flawed inherently. Not all men have sex with all women they find attractive. Not all men have sex with a woman they find attractive every time they find her attractive. Therefore, the stimulus does not guarantee a response. While there is a correlation between men being aroused by women and men having sex with women, there are other factors at play as well and so the correlation is not, in this case, also a direct causal link. In most situations, one of the other variables that is in play in the determination of whether or not sexual intercourse occurs is the desire or lack thereof on the part of the potential female participant. Not all females wish to have sex with all males. As such, “just because she wants it does NOT mean she wants it from YOU.” And if a particular female does not want to have sex with a particular male, that male is obligated (legally and morally) to allow her decision to be a determining variable in whether or not they have sex.

Additionally, the article presents that humans have sex even when there is no chance to reproduce. This makes homosexual sex viable according to the author of this article. As such, if it is acceptable for men to have sex with any woman who dresses in a way that arouses him, it is by necessity acceptable for men to have sex with any man who dresses in a way that arouses him.

However, the assertion that attraction (whether by manner of dress or by other mitigating factors) allows for a stimulus-response situation that ensures (or even excuses) sexual intercourse is inherently flawed as well.

There are men who have school girl uniform fetishes. They become aroused by girls in bobby socks and plaid skirts. There are girls who attend schools that mandate uniforms. Are those girls (who are underaged and legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse) fair game by virtue of the fetish of the man who sees them? There are also men who are attracted to prepubescent individuals. Are 10 year old girls and boys tacitly consenting to sexual intercourse by virtue of having not yet developed secondary sexual characteristics?

The problem with claiming that any argument against this essay is Ad Hominem is that the article is absurd. (Not the person who posted it, the article itself. That is a key distinction in claiming that an argument is Ad Hominem.) It is pseudo-science. It is not peer reviewed. And it is apologist.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how a female of the species is dressed. Male humans are capable of -not- having sex even if they are sexually aroused. As such, the perception on the part of the male participant of tacit agreement on the part of the female participant is irrelevant. If the female participant does not wish to participate, is unable to legally wish to participate, or ceases to wish to participate, should the male participant continue to participate it is rape.

An aside to possibly give you some perspective: Your wife is expecting you home in 30 minutes and has dolled herself up to attract your attention and facilitate sexual activity. Is the cable guy who comes to your home before you arrive allowed to have sex with your wife? She doesn’t want to attract his attention. She wants to attract your attention. But he is aroused. If he forces her to have sex with him, is his behavior acceptable? If it is not, then this article is incorrect at its core.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Welmer November 11, 2009 at 15:15

An aside to possibly give you some perspective: Your wife is expecting you home in 30 minutes and has dolled herself up to attract your attention and facilitate sexual activity. Is the cable guy who comes to your home before you arrive allowed to have sex with your wife? She doesn’t want to attract his attention. She wants to attract your attention. But he is aroused. If he forces her to have sex with him, is his behavior acceptable? If it is not, then this article is incorrect at its core.

-Anon

But she knew the cable guy was coming. In that case, should she answer the door in lingerie, soaked with perfume? How about she just doesn’t answer the damn door for a strange man? What is she, a blithering idiot?

Just sounds like an excuse for fucking the cable guy to me. And if she’s afraid she’ll get caught, she screams “RAEP!”

Take away the default rape card, and female promiscuity starts to be seen for what it is, i.e. sluttiness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee November 11, 2009 at 15:25

Zed at November 6, 2009 at 12:53 pm

I meant to respond much earlier but anyway.

I basically agree with your last response. I’m just wondering about something. So if a female said that the reason she froze and didn’t fight back was because of fear, whether it be fear of bodily harm or from trauma of earlier an rape or molestation, would that be equivalent to “panhandling” in its severity? In this instance there is no weapon. On one hand I agree if the guy just didn’t know or for some reason couldn’t tell that the girl under him froze out of fear. On the other hand, I think that it could be considered rape if before the act she clearly made it known that she didn’t want to have sex and he overpowered her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
zed November 11, 2009 at 15:26

An aside to possibly give you some perspective: Your wife is expecting you home in 30 minutes and has dolled herself up to attract your attention and facilitate sexual activity. Is the cable guy who comes to your home before you arrive allowed to have sex with your wife? She doesn’t want to attract his attention. She wants to attract your attention. But he is aroused. If he forces her to have sex with him, is his behavior acceptable? If it is not, then this article is incorrect at its core.

Strawman all the way around. As Welmer already pointed out, she doesn’t have to open the door wearing nothing but lingerie.

Second, the situation in her own home is entirely different from being in a bar trolling for attention from whoever is present. In this case, no woman can control whose attention she attracts. The fact that she might get some from the “wrong” kind of fellow simply means that A) if she didn’t want to attract a variety of attention, then she would have been better off to not advertise for it, and B) the moment a woman starts to broadcast her sexuality in order to attract male attention she loses control of the situation.

It can be a dangerous power game for women to play, and if it goes wrong blaming ALL men for that is still not going to prevent women from getting hurt if they demand to play the dangerous game.

Anon November 11, 2009 at 15:42

Lethargio – First let me explain why I used the homosexual example. It is safe to assume that the majority of posters that I wanted to paint a picture for are heterosexual men. As such, by providing the example of a homosexual interaction I can safely (more likely than not) ensure that the situation I present is unambiguous. It makes it clear that I am talking about unwanted sexual attention. And it does to in one of the few ways that gives the other posters a chance (should they be willing to take it) to put themselves in the victim’s shoes. Being raped by another man takes men out of the role of the insertive partner and instead places men in the role of the partner who is being penetrated and violated on both a physical and deeply psychological level. Most men have never stopped to think what it would be like to have someone else force something inside of their bodies. I used rough language to make the experience of the victim as clear as I could.

That said, this article’s arguments have all been made before. In the late 60′s and again in the early 80′s they were used as the groundwork of defense attorneys’ cases to protect the perpetrators of the most brutal and clear cut of rapes. If a woman was brutally raped and murdered by a stranger, had she been wearing a mini skirt (in fashion during both of those time periods) the defense attorney would argue that her manner of dress absolved her assailant from guilt. There have been laws passed specifically to avoid that sort of information from being admissible in rape cases because it reached epidemic proportions. Additionally, it is the grounds for the monologue “My Short Skirt.” (I don’t know if you’re familiar with it. It’s a fairly widely read and preformed piece and is well worth giving a look if you have the time.)

Moreover, do you contend that you never dress in clothes that you believe look good on you? If you wear clothing that you believe women will find attractive on you, then you are also wearing clothing that you believe gay men will find attractive on you. The qualifier is that, since you are heterosexual and uninterested in the opinions of gay men, you are unlikely to consider their response to you when you are making your choice of dress. The same is true for women. When a woman dresses in such a way as to make herself appealing, more often than not she has a particular demographic* in mind. Why would you believe that a woman would take into account a demographic she is uninterested in when you yourself have already expressed that you do not?

*Please note that the demographic a woman is targeting is not necessarily a sexual interest. Women dress for other women on a fairly regular basis. It plays into a wide variety of interactions both among friends and between friends and acquaintances. Alternatively, a woman may dress in an intentionally sexually provocative manner with the express intention of appealing to a specific man. And again, as that she is uninterested in others around her, she is no more likely to consider their reactions than you are to consider the reactions of a homosexual man. (There are very few women who believe that all men find them attractive.) As that she is uninterested in other men, she has no reason to believe that another man will break the law simply to force her to have sex with him. It is an expectation of safety and it is not unreasonable one. Similarly, you have no reason to believe that a strange man will break the law to force you to have sex with him. You have the same expectation of safety.

I understand that this article is geared (mostly) towards less black and white situations. But the arguments are the same. The application is just slightly more narrow than it has been in the past. So I don’t think it’s incorrect at all to object to the argument with an extreme example. Immanuel Kant (one of the most respected moral philosophers) argued that an act is only moral if it meets three criteria*:
The act must be universally moral.
The act must be unchangingly moral.
The act must not use a human being as a means to achieve an end.

So if, in any case, it is immoral to question what a victim was wearing when (s)he was raped it is in all cases immoral to question what a victim was wearing when (s)he was raped.

*The argument I’m referring to is called the Categorical Imperative. It is alluded to in much of modern philosophy and is still used as one of the primary indicators of the morality of an action. One is unlikely to be able to take a college philosophy course without coming across it at least once (barring classes that are geared to particular fields such as existentialism).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Anon November 11, 2009 at 15:48

“Strawman all the way around. As Welmer already pointed out, she doesn’t have to open the door wearing nothing but lingerie.”
-zed

You guys keep making me laugh with these claimed fallacies. A “strawman” fallacy is a case of substitution. And, I can only hope in the interest of extreme irony, you just substituted “dressing attractively” for “wearing nothing but lingerie.” Since the original article argued that wearing lipstick and cute clothes was a cause that leads to the effect of a woman being raped, that is what I was referring to when I said that the woman was dressing for her husband. I was referring to a woman opening the door wearing lipstick and cute clothes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 11, 2009 at 16:09

I was referring to a woman opening the door wearing lipstick and cute clothes.

-Anon

That’s how young married women go to work. I think it would take a little more than that to get husband excited.

But either way, what’s she doing opening the door all painted up with a push-up bra for the cable guy? Kind of slutty trash, I’d think, if I were the cable guy. I’d think the same if I were her husband and I knew she did that, and that would be a big turn-off. Knowing what I know now, I’d plan for a divorce if my wife were dressing up that way during the day — it would be obvious that she’s thinking about fucking around.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
kis November 11, 2009 at 16:16

The problem from a female standpoint arises when men must be inured to the kind of blatant sexual signals they’re bombarded with both in daily life and when they go out. That is, if they weren’t inured to it to some degree, they’d be walking around in a state of priapism all the time.

This means women have to “up” their game in order to attract attention from the men they want, which inevitably draws attention from those they don’t want. The attitude of many women to that unwanted attention is to treat those males with hostility, as if they’re beneath her and should know it and ought to courteously cease to exist so she can go about her business of attracting the attention she wants without the irritation of having to deal with them.

And it also means women like me–women who dress modestly (at least by today’s standards), and who don’t flash “fuck me eyes” all over god’s green acre–end up playing pool all night instead of meeting men. The alphas are all skanking it up with the hotties, and the betas are too terrified of my possible scorn to even approach me–if they even realize I’m receptive to men’s advances. Because I’m not wearing a micro-mini and sporting so much cleavage that even light cannot escape its gravity well, I am assumed to be not interested in flirtation, getting to know anyone, or even getting down to an enthusiastic, no strings attached humping.

Another problem is in that I’m not interested in giving verbal consent for each escalation of sexual activity with a man. I’m not interested in giving verbal consent at all. If I’m conscious enough to walk straight and speak without slurring, and I’ve gone with a man to someplace private, and I haven’t firmly told him “no” or “stop” or “rape” or some other variation of these, my consent should be implied by my lack of protest. If, in the middle of a vigorous mauling, he timidly asked “may I remove your blouse?” the answer would be “Fuck, no! Jesus, way to ruin the mood! See you later.”

In many ways, feminism–and women’s determination to ride its wave to the furthest possible extreme of sexual freedom–has decimated my sex life. Thanks a bunch, ladies.

As to Renee’s scenario of a woman freezing up due to past traumas, it’s unfortunate and potentially devastating for both people involved. I can only imagine what a man might feel after he, deceived by her compliance and possibly even her body’s involuntary sexual responses, finds a woman curled into the fetal position crying. But I’d call that a misunderstanding rather than a crime on his part. And if the only way to protect such women from this kind of situation is to set male sexuality at a default position of criminality, I’m sorry, but that isn’t just, either.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella November 11, 2009 at 16:20

As such, “just because she wants it does NOT mean she wants it from YOU.” And if a particular female does not want to have sex with a particular male, that male is obligated (legally and morally) to allow her decision to be a determining variable in whether or not they have sex.

First of all the point of the article was that women are sending out clear sexual signals not only when they intend to have sex, but as a matter of course. Plunging necklines, visible thong straps, low-rise jeans…men notice sexual signals, and respond. This results in conversations of the ‘Eeeeew, I can’t believe that creep hit on me’. In this sense modern women are extremely stupid and have no sense of cause and effect. They have not been taught the arts of either flirting or seduction by their mothers, nor have they been instilled with any sense of modesty or decorum. So, lacking any skills they take the sledgehammer approach and show everything they have. This is ‘freedumb’, emancipation of the female, supposedly. ‘I can dress anyway I want and you can’t stop me’. However, no one has thought to unprogram millennia of sexual signal awareness.

Now back to your comments. Yes, the female should be able to decide if sex will take place, no one here (despite what you wish to insinuate) advocates rape. BUT- in order to make that ‘No’ or refusal make sense, women need to stop calling every man within 500 yards by their dress and demeanor. Disregard what I just said if alcohol’s involved. Drunk people make poor decisions. ‘He had sex with a drunk woman’ said as if he was the devil incarnate…..many times guys are just as drunk….is it fair to expect him to control himself drunk but to claim that the woman is a victim when she exhibits an equal lack of control?

“just because she wants it does NOT mean she wants it from YOU.”

Then why show breasts and butt crack to 200 men in a bar?

Male humans are capable of -not- having sex even if they are sexually aroused.

Yes, and the vast majority do just that.

An aside to possibly give you some perspective: Your wife is expecting you home in 30 minutes and has dolled herself up to attract your attention and facilitate sexual activity. Is the cable guy who comes to your home before you arrive allowed to have sex with your wife? She doesn’t want to attract his attention. She wants to attract your attention.

Well cable guys usually come by appointment. And it’s up to the woman either to open or not open the door. If she is really in lingerie or just an apron, she has no business opening the door. If she is just dressed nicely (husband’s favorite dress for example), then there is no reason for the cable guy to think she’s available for a quickie unless her demeanor clearly suggests it. Demeanor, the other half of the equation. Why will the cable guy expect sex from a woman if she is just dressed nicely, and handles the interaction in a businesslike manner? You evidently assume that men have no common sense whatsoever.

I think that everyone would agree that girls in bobby socks and plaid skirts are not fair game….no one says that objects of fetishes are fair game, you are bringing up unusual situations to try and ram home your point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anon November 11, 2009 at 17:04

Welmer – Young, married women who have careers do not wear glossy lipstick and tight jeans to work. That would be unprofessional and would cause the women they work with to talk. And while they may wear high heels (depending on their profession) they are unlikely to wear anything too much higher than a kitten heel in the office simply for the sake of comfort. There are degrees of “well dressed.” It is entirely possible to wear clothes that are too sexy for the office but are still a long way from trashy. The same goes for makeup. Choice in colors makes more of a difference than being “all painted up.” That isn’t attractive. That makes a girl look like a clown. And if your wife has to dress in such a way that a cable guy would think she’s a $2 whore just to get your attention, then I pity her. That says a lot more about -you- than you probably realize.

That said, my mother-in-law is a conservative, classy lady. She’s very June Cleaver in her style of dress: attractive and tasteful. She is an elementary school teacher in a private, Christian academy. She was nearly raped by a plumber in her home in front of her infant and her four year old. But she must have signaled that she wanted it, right? Nothing turns a woman on like an ugly, sweaty, fat man in coke bottle glasses who tries to rip her clothes off in front of her children. That’s why there are so many romance novels about that sort of thing. ;)

Oh, and you still haven’t come up with a real response to the arguments I’ve made. So far you’re still just lobbing misogynistic insults, this time at a hypothetical that was designed to try to make you feel a bit of empathy for rape victims. But judging from your characterizations of women (both real and imaginary) as harpies and slutty trash, I believe that is unlikely in your case.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Kimski November 11, 2009 at 17:13

Anon

Tight jeans are basically the overall working uniform for women in Skandinavia today. Throw in some cleavage, push-up´s and you´re there. In the summertime it´s really crazy. The average girl is wearing more naked skin than clothes, and sometimes I´m compelled to think back at a visit in the red-light district in Amsterdam, when I was in the Marine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 11, 2009 at 17:34

Let’s invert this passage so that it makes more sense:

Choice in colors makes more of a difference than being “all painted up.” That isn’t attractive. That makes a girl look like a clown. And if your wife has to dress in such a way that a cable guy would think she’s a $2 whore just to get your attention, then I pity her. That says a lot more about -you- than you probably realize.

Now let’s take the top part and put it on the bottom:

And if your wife has to dress in such a way that a cable guy would think she’s a $2 whore. [...] Choice in colors makes more of a difference than being “all painted up.” That isn’t attractive. That makes a girl look like a clown.

I totally agree with you — a girl painted up like a clown looks like a $2 whore, and not very attractive. Why would I want that from a wife? But that’s what a guy’s got to expect if he gets married these days: a $2 whore that gets hundreds of thousands of $$$ for fucking around. And don’t tell me that isn’t typical. Young women mostly look like cheap tramps these days. I had one at the bar spreading her legs for me to check out the goods to signal her interest the other day. Might as well be she-chimps in heat, bedecked with overpriced clothes, if you ask me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anon November 11, 2009 at 18:01

“no one here (despite what you wish to insinuate) advocates rape”
-crella

“14) Regardless of all this, there still ain’t nothin’ happening unless the female is receptive (except maybe a rape charge when the male reacts in the way nature intended to the cues which are being sent dishonestly).”
-ZED (OP)

This statement does not advocate rape. It does, however, excuse it.

“I think that everyone would agree that girls in bobby socks and plaid skirts are not fair game…”
-crella

“And in all cultures these [sexually desirable] characteristics corresponded to the physical attributes of a woman in her peak child bearing years, 15 – 25. These are the women that men will respond to from a purely biological perspective.”
-ZED (op)

Fifteen year old girls are still in bobby socks and plaid skirts. The OP places them firmly within the “fair game” category.

“If she is just dressed nicely (husband’s favorite dress for example), then there is no reason for the cable guy to think she’s available for a quickie”
-crella

Unless he happens to be sexually aroused by the dress as well. In which case, “It’s pure Stimulus -> Response of the type studied by Pavlov.” – ZED (OP)

“Then why show breasts and butt crack to 200 men in a bar?”
-crella

“…Second, the female, having signaled her receptivity through a variety of cues: scent, sound, visual, and behavioral, lets her potential mates pursue her until the biggest, strongest, smartest (i.e. most survival potential) prevails.”
ZED (OP)

She signals to attempt to attract the biggest, strongest, smartest male, according to the post we are discussing. Or, in human terms, she might be showing her breasts and butt crack at the bar to 200 people to get the attention of a specific male rather than all of the males. The post we are discussing already established that not every male (in nature) gets every female he wants.

However, for the sake of breaking down his own argument, the OP went on to explain that “If [an undesirable male] responds and the woman decides he is not what she is looking for in a mate and shuts him down, he is confused, hurt and more than a little bit angry.” And OP goes on to add “I hope you bitches are having fun playing with these emotionally deformed children.”

Because you see, although in nature the undesirable males will likely never get the chance to breed with the females who are sending out a variety of signals, in the human world no one here will blame him if he just makes her so he can get what he wants. Once again, the OP does not advocate rape. But it does excuse it.

The simple fact of the matter is that I agree that in our society it is stupid for women (and girls) to fail to take precautions. And I agree that it’s distasteful for girls to dress in a manner that is excessively provocative (as relative as that may be.) But the victim of a rape is still the victim. It doesn’t matter if the aggressor -really- wanted to have sex with her. And by excusing it, as a society we DO encourage it. Rape is one of the most under-reported crimes in the country. And any rape we excuse makes violent, brutal rape by a stranger harder to prosecute.

I would have a much different opinion of this article (and the people who have posted in response to it) if not for the agenda that is suggested by the tones taken. Word choices like “bitch” and “harpy” and “slutty trash” are not often used by intelligent, thinking individuals who wish to discuss the pitfalls of sexuality and sexual interactions. Instead, those types of words suggest individuals who bring to the table a desire to punish anything with a vagina. And I find that objectionable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Arbitrary November 11, 2009 at 18:35

“Rape is one of the most under-reported crimes in the country.”

This claim is not particularly supported by the data. The National Crime Victimization Survey, for example, suggests fairly consistently a reporting rate of around 40% (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv07.htm for 2007 data). This is significantly less than the reporting rate of around two thirds for violent robbery, but is comparable to the reporting rate for non-sexual assaults (a category representing the majority of violent crime) and is significantly greater than the 30% reporting rate for household thefts.

As a side note, if you want a sense of why some people are inclined to excuse some cases of rape, you should look at my earlier comments on this thread.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anon November 11, 2009 at 18:41

Kimski – I’d think they’d freeze their tail feathers off. x_x’ It’s fairly cold there, isn’t it? But if I recall correctly, Scandinavia actually has a fairly low percentage of rapes (particularly as compared to the United States) so if the women dress (and act ?) as provocatively as you suggest, it supports that there is not a causal link between hyper-sexual dress and behavioral cues in women and the likelihood of a woman being raped. In fact, sociological studies have found that one of the most telling factor (in terms of a country’s rate of rapes) is how masculine or feminine a culture is. (That is also a good indicator of the rate of violent crime in a country.)

Welmer – Dress among young people is actually taking a swing towards the conservative right now. Girls in colleges are more likely to attend class in flannel pajama pants and a sweat shirt with no makeup than they are to show up in “fuck me” pumps, a micro mini skirt, and a shirt that shows cleavage or under cleavage. The same is true for high school students to a degree (although they still tend to wear way too much makeup – my guess is that they haven’t been wearing it long enough to really understand that moderation is a good thing). Girls wear clothes that are fairly conservative rather than provocative. In fact, after Miley Cyrus’s recent “pole dance” (dunno if you caught it but she danced next to the pole rather than actually pole dancing – it was still fairly sexual, though) there were a few surveys conducted to determine if young girls (the demographic her show targets) thought she was a good role model. They didn’t.

I suspect the degree of slutty dress in clubs varies a lot depending on where you live and what kinds of clubs you go to. My friends and I rarely see girls dressed like sluts in our establishments of choice. But when I was younger I went to a few places where it wasn’t uncommon. In our case, as a general rule, if two girls were dancing with each other, a strange guy would attempt to join in. No interaction with him on the part of the girls was necessary. In our case one of the guys in the group would just move between the stranger and the girls. It mostly worked pretty well because it was effectively territory marking. (Oddly enough, that’s even the case in gay clubs where a lot of women go to dance because they expect it to be a safe environment where they can relax and have fun without getting hit on. Straight men go in hopes of picking up drunk girls who think they’re in a safe environment.)

What I’ve noticed about sexuality in our culture, though, is that it’s a vicious cycle. Girls are taught (by music, television, the internet, and their peers) that their worth is primarily determined by how attractive men find them. They learn that if men ignore them, they aren’t pretty and so they have less value than the girls who get attention. Simultaneously, they are told that having sex before they are married is slutty and wearing provocative clothes is whoreish.

As such, girls go to great lengths to ensure that men validate them (read: want to sleep with them.) And, inevitably, they have sex. However, from what I have seen, they do not then immediately make a false accusation against their partner. Instead, they hate themselves for what they have done. And so they need to be validated as good and worthwhile people. Which causes them to behave and dress in such a manner as to attract the attention of the only people society dictates are able to validate their worth as human beings: men.

Rinse, repeat, headdesk. That’s why blaming the girls for this mess (and calling them bitches, slutty trash, etc.) isn’t terribly effective. It would be much more beneficial for men (especially older men) to encourage the girls to tuck their boobs back into their shirts and pull their pants up over their ass. If society started telling girls that they looked pretty in knee length skirts and fitted turtle neck sweaters, that’s what girls would wear.

Tangential rant: who the hell thought butt cleavage was a good idea? I mean, seriously? What group of fashion execs sat around the table discussing stuff women could wear to make them sexually appealing and came to the conclusion “You know what’s hot? Plumbers. Ass cracks are so sexy. We should totally make pants for girls that show their ass cracks.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Kimski November 11, 2009 at 19:03

Anon

If you think 25-35 degress celcius is cold in the summers, then…
Why is it, that everytime I bring up Scandinavia as an example of a trend that´s widespread throughout the western world, I´m dismissed with the same-old-same-old: “Oh, but that´s not US!” We´ve just been through a wave of false-rape accusations in both Sweden and Denmark, and while the numbers may not be anywhere near the US numbers, they are fairly high for countries with this much smaller an amount of citizens. And I promise you that the women DO dress as provocatively as I mentioned earlier. As a matter of fact, I even toned it down a little…And I´m no prude, -should you wonder!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary November 11, 2009 at 19:07

“Girls in colleges are more likely to attend class in flannel pajama pants and a sweat shirt with no makeup than they are to show up in “fuck me” pumps, a micro mini skirt, and a shirt that shows cleavage or under cleavage.”

This is accurate, but misleading. They do this because it makes it appear that they just rolled out of bed to go to class (which is sometimes but not always true), and not as an effort to dress more conservatively.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimski November 11, 2009 at 19:09

number of rape reports, that is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anon November 11, 2009 at 19:29

Kimski – We get summer temperatures of upwards of 45 C here so 25c in the summer does seem pretty chilly to me, yes. I was not implying that I didn’t believe that they dress in skimpy attire. I’m sure they do. Heck, I went to college in Oregon and on occasion we’d have girls in class in very short shorts in the middle of winter. I commented on your weather because it always strikes me as a bit funny when people wear clothes that are not temperature appropriate.

That said, I think I might not have been clear enough in my post so allow me to try again.

- Scandinavia has fewer rapes per capita than the United States.
- The women in Scandinavia dress more provocatively than the women in the United States.

The conclusion I drew from this is that style of dress is not the biggest indicator of rapes. That’s all my post was really saying.

Arbitrary – I am aware that it is not always true that girls have just rolled out of bed when they show up to morning classes in their jammies. However, that supports my point more than it supports yours. If they have actively decided on wearing pajamas to class it indicates that they think that “pjs” are cuter than “sexy skimpy outfit.” It suggests a trend towards more conservative dress being in style. I was not suggesting that the girls were breaking with fashion in order to be more conservative. I was instead stating that fashion itself is more conservative right now than it has been in the past.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Kimski November 11, 2009 at 19:36

Anon

The degree numbers says nothing in themselves without the humidity factor.
Just an afterthought…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anon November 11, 2009 at 19:43

Kimski – 35C and humid is indeed more miserable than 40C and dry. But 25C and humid is nowhere near as miserable as 45C and dry. At least that’s my opinion after having lived in Oregon (25C and Humid), southern Texas (35C and as humid as the wet sauna at my gym) and Oklahoma (45C and bone dry). To each his own, though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Arbitrary November 11, 2009 at 19:46

I’m afraid I have to disagree here. It is much more a reflection of the fact that class is a place where fashion has deemed the appropriate behavior is “signal to other girls that you don’t need to put in effort to succeed” not “pick up guys”. You still see states of undress as the standard in, for example, college bars.

It should also be noted that, under warmer circumstances, the standard top with the flannel pjs is the semi-transparent spaghetti strap cloth tube, typically only partly concealing the bra underneath.

As regards your earlier complaint about the visibility of ass cracks, it comes from the still dominant paradigm that any effort to reveal more skin increases desirability. And, while there is some resistance to this school of fashion, it is not enough to grow a mainstream trend in the opposite direction.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crella November 11, 2009 at 20:58

Anon, you quoted Zed quite dishonestly, in fact your entire post is dishonest, or completely clueless.

You yourself talked about a cable guy who comes to a house and sees a woman dressed so that he is instantly aroused, and that she’s dressed that way to entice her husband to have sex. Of course people here thought ‘sexy’ and ‘revealing’. Men are not such animals that they attack at the sight of a dress, it’s now dishonest of you to backtrack and say you meant a dress, and say that you feel sorry for Welmer’s wife if ‘dressing like a $2 whore what it takes to get his attention’. Not too smart to cast aspersions because your own vague description was misunderstood.

Zed did not put 15-year-olds in bobby sox in any ‘fair game’ category. I addressed girls in bobby sox as you brought up fetishes. Nice out-of-context quote of Zed’s paragraph btw…

before what you wrote:

““And in all cultures these [sexually desirable] characteristics corresponded to the physical attributes of a woman in her peak child bearing years, 15 – 25. These are the women that men will respond to from a purely biological perspective.””

Zed wrote:

Despite the many and huge variations between cultures in almost every aspect imaginable, there is a remarkable agreement on what constitutes female beauty, which has become a polite euphemism for sexual attractiveness. In a study of 1159 cultures, the physical characteristics deemed beautiful were more consistent than any other characteristic.

Unless you believe that all men are like those who fetishize schoolgirls, then I fail to see how the above passage, which was quoting a study, equates zed putting 15-year-olds in bobby sox in the ‘fair game’ category. Decent men don’t chase underage girls, regardless of what you might think.

You do realize that the first part of the post was about mammals in general, and then humans were discussed? The passage you quote was talking about animals…I suggest you reread the article.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kimski November 11, 2009 at 21:25

Anon

Here are the numbers for Sweden; 46 rapes per 100.000 citizens, which makes it twice the amount in Great Britain, 4 times the amount of other Scandinavian countries, including Germany and France. And an estimate of southern and eastern European countries are believed to be 4 times the numbers from Sweden.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kimski November 11, 2009 at 21:31

Correction!!!
The swedish numbers are estimated to be 20 times the numbers from southern and eastern European countries.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: