A reader who asked not to be named describes how the military has come to define rape:
One of my fellow company commanders in Afghanistan invited a CID agent to give a lecture on sexual assault. I had my Soldiers attend and I attended as well. The agent told a story about a female Soldier who had sex with a male Soldier, admitted she was on top most of the time, texted her friend while he was in the shower, then had sex with him again. When her boyfriend found out, she cried rape. The accused was convicted.
I asked the CID agent if that meant that if someone regrets having sex, that means it’s rape. He said yes. I was shocked.
The key thing to remember is this is not the new policy on rape having unexpected results. This kind of outcome is entirely intentional. Accusations of rape have become a general purpose weapon for feminists to use against men. Whether a rape has occurred or not does not matter. The goal is to make men live in fear of accusations, as Ezra Klein explained in “Yes Means Yes” is a terrible law, and I completely support it (emphasis mine):
The Yes Means Yes law is a necessarily extreme solution to an extreme problem. Its overreach is precisely its value.
…
If the Yes Means Yes law is taken even remotely seriously it will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt and creating a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent. This is the case against it, and also the case for it. Because for one in five women to report an attempted or completed sexual assault means that everyday sexual practices on college campuses need to be upended, and men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.
…To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.
This is why regret equals rape, and why a college student can be expelled for rape even though the ostensible “victim” never claimed to have been assaulted, and in fact has consistently stated otherwise.
It seems it would be better to pay for a “professional” than to try to pick up a chick for a one nighter. It would be less expensive and the punishment would have far less impact if you got caught. Thanks, feminists!
The motivation? For women to control men. Sure, this has been in process. They will soon have the ultimate weapon: crying regret INSIDE marriage. The devil is destroying the knowledge of God by destroying men. But not for long. The tail of the whip is soon to crack. And a rattling and a noise will come. And His exceedingly great army stood on its feet.
Regretted sex is rape because *all* M/F sex is rape.
The following could be the course description for a women’s study course on your average state U. “All men are rapists, all hetero-sex is rape even if the women doesn’t know it, marriage is legalized rape, all husbands are abusers, and if you disagree you are a woman hating rapist abuser pig. “
Dalrock
http://invisiblewarmovie.com/
Our “don’t rape people” training last year read like it was written by a Gender Studies major. “Rape is male violence against women.” Stuff like that. Very disgusting. I actually have the whole training document saved to my desktop.
However, I don’t think “gray rape” (retroactive withdrawal of consent) would actually hold up in a court martial situation. There’s also the issue of commanders being able to throw out such convictions, which has happened. Feminists, of course, are quietly demanding another justice system independent of the official military system to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
Yikes!
Whatever we may think of this, the true lesson is to obey God’s law. While the left is busy trying to extend this yes means yes stuff into marriage, the fact is that if you only ever have sex with your wife whom you married in part because she also believed in and practiced God’s law, your risk of being victimized by this sort of thing will plummet to very low levels. Keep in mind, this soldier’s false conviction is the least of his worries. His actions also subject him to eternal perdition unless he turns to Christ in faith.
I have an update on my feminism in the church project. I sent my re-written red pill overview to my pastor and I got a reaction I’m very pleased with. He seems to completely get it and accept that the complementarian church has embraced feminism. He understands the red pill model of attraction, but isn’t yet sold on whether or not the Bible tells us to think about attraction that way. Deep Strength just did a great post on this, which I’m planning to send him. But so far, so good. BTW: I did not tell my pastor anything about the manosphere or origins of the material I sent him, which was rebuilt from the ground up to get rid of our in-group terminology (the term “red pill” doesn’t appear, for example). When I’m able to talk with him in person I feel I should tell him that. But for now things are going well. If you want to stay up to date on this, email me at newhack@yahoo.com.
Something about the Puritans became the archetype of the USA. A witch is always needed for there to be a witch hunt. The object of the hysteria changes but not the hysteria itself.
This is a good sign. Those guys don’t need to be serving a country that makes that kind of thing legal. For a serving soldier it is literally making the rope and keeping the people in power that are hanging you.
It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to turn the military in a civil war. At least a good chunk of them
In the old days there used to be separate schools for men and women. Maybe that was a good idea?
Chris Nystrom—there are still a few separate schools but it is Feminism which refuses to countenance them.The reasons are the syllabus and the ideology of feelings over facts.
If men cannot live,at least for a while,without glorifying women to the point where they face a lifetime in pokey,then perhaps they deserve everything they get.God knows,they are warned
enough times.Sex is a weakness,not a strength.
This is a good sign. Those guys don’t need to be serving a country that makes that kind of thing legal. For a serving soldier it is literally making the rope and keeping the people in power that are hanging you.
It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to turn the military in a civil war. At least a good chunk of them
Amen. For this and a whole host of other unrelated reasons, there is no excuse for any principled man (or woman, for that matter) to serve in the U.S. mililtary today.
I agree Ezra Klein. Women are to be treated as children, in the case of sex this means jailbait.
On another front, I was confronted today by someone questioning”Do you deny that women, over 50% of the population, are equal?” To which I replied: “Citation?”
I propose we go a few steps farther.
A) Written consent of the girl’s father.
B) Valid DNA proof that the consented is in fact the girl’s father.
If there is a record of the father’s death the next closest male in relation to him will suit.
OT, but still related to the military and feminism:
Dalrock, I would love to have your opinion on this feminist’s blog post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/preserving-the-mother-choice-why-you-should-oppose_us_576c246de4b0685ac3c15c63
[D: Hilarious!]
Christian
Interesting. It is when real agency of duty to society comes up all of the sudden Motherhood and stable families become important.
I know my way around the courtroom, so I’m not afraid of rape accusations. Countersuits can be a real bitch to deal with. Men need to learn their way around the courtroom. Go talk to lawyers/judges/bailiffs who are friends to learn what to do.
“I asked the CID agent if that meant that if someone regrets having sex, that means it’s rape. He said yes. I was shocked.”
Why shocked? Sex outside a socially sanctioned relationship is always ALWAYS risky.
Be the opposite of Nike. Just DON’T do it!
@Daily Llama
But it is our policy in the US to eliminate all risk for females and make men assume all the risk.
“On Oct. 25 the female student invited Neal to her apartment saying she was alone.”
His first mistake: NEVER be alone with a strange woman or any woman that is not your relative or committed partner.
“The next morning, Oct. 26, a friend of the woman’s noticed a hickey on the woman’s neck. When she learned the woman had sex with a prominent football player, she surmised her friend had been raped and reported that to university authorities.”
Jealous, much?
Rollo’s FI is the thread that draws all of this together — Mormon feminists against the draft are on the same thread as lesbian separatist feminists who say all sex is rape. It’s all on a continuum of the FI, and the concordant hate of men who do not march to its drum.
Yeah, there’s regret=rape, but there’s also rape=cash and prizes. All over the Veteran’s Administration these days is encouragement to claim any old micro aggression a woman in the military “experienced” to be PTSD. So, we have women having served less than a year claiming PTSD over the men looking at them, or merely feeling uncomfortable, claiming 100% disabities over this stuff and with unemployable status, bringing in $4500/month fr life. Lawyers, the counselors at the VA, everyone is in on getting these women their “due”. Of course, they move to the head of the claims hearing line merely for expressing their discomfort while Vets that actually DID suffer debilitating effects to their health wait YEARS and in the case of Nam Vets, DECADES, usually until they die.
But then, it’s the women. The trauma. Rape culture without the rape, because we have to be careful. Because feminism.
From Dalrock’s link, “a friend of the woman’s noticed a hickey on the woman’s neck. When she learned the woman had sex with a prominent football player, she surmised her friend had been raped and reported that to university authorities.”
And how much you wanna bet that “friend” is white racist against and simultaneously jealous of “miscegenation”. Another young black man goes down because of a white woman and her white knight incel “friend”.
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/04/19/csu-pueblo-grant-neal-suspension-consensual-sex/
Something about the Puritans became the archetype of the USA. A witch is always needed for there to be a witch hunt. The object of the hysteria changes but not the hysteria itself.
It’s not endemic to the USA. Witch hunts were common in Europe at that time, and this ridiculous rape stuff is taking hold throughout the West.
Pingback: A woman’s prerogative. | Reaction Times
Why shocked? Sex outside a socially sanctioned relationship is always ALWAYS risky.
It’s risky INSIDE of such relationships too (ever heard of “marital rape” laws?).
@SnapperTrx
“It seems it would be better to pay for a “professional” than to try to pick up a chick for a one nighter. ”
That won’t work for long. It will come to be considered a form of rape, with the method of “coercion” being the offer and payment of money. Don’t laugh, I’ve seen arguments to that effect put forth.
Sexbots! get your sexbots here! “no retro rape charge with these fellas” “Artificial wombs for the family men types are in the back” .
“I asked the CID agent if that meant that if someone regrets having sex, that means it’s rape. He said yes. I was shocked.”
Is there anyone here who still honestly thinks our situation in the West is going to get resolved peacefully? If feminists get their way, they’ll abolish due process in rape cases and assume guilt merely by accusation. What are men going to do, then?
@ Novaseeker June 29, 2016 at 3:22 pm:
There’s something that needs to be pointed out about this (“separatist feminists”, esp. lesbian ones), which I never see pointed out: there are actually two quite distinct kinds.
The first kind consists of women who have been badly damaged by sexual trauma (e.g. genuine rape by an uncle, or by male best friend of father — I am not making that up, I personally know of an actual story along those lines), and who have “politicized” it, as a way to keep distance from their personal pain.
The second consists of women who — well, it’s like this: they don’t so much want to have a separate “society” from men, for themselves; they want all other women to separate from men. It’s just sexual jealousy (in two distinct ways, which I am sure you all can figure out for yourselves, being a pretty insightful bunch on the whole).
So, next time you read about (or, something written by alleged) “lesbian separatist feminists”, do take the efferot to try to ascertain which of the two kinds you are dealing with. It will make an intelligent parsing of what you read, easier for you.
YMMV.
Pax Christi Vobiscum
@ASDGamer: “I know my way around the courtroom, so I’m not afraid of rape accusations. ”
Dude, that may be the most spergy thing you have ever said and that is saying a lot. I am a lawyer and I am terrified to be alone in a classroom with a coed female.
When a mangina is in favor of such a law, he is very openly admitting that he gets zero action, and merely wants to cause trouble for the men who *are* getting action. It is nothing more than a scorched earth “I can’t have any, so no one can” mentality.
Ezra Klein has advertised his celibacy from the raftertops.
In related news, first-time users of VR Sex are surprised at how good it is, even at this very early stage of development :
http://www.antifeministtech.info/2016/05/the-missing-uncanny-valley-in-vr-sex/
Except: where did the human eggs come from, for those artificial wombs?
Just you wait: [Consensual human egg donation = rape]; [payment for egg donation = use of violent force to achieve vaginal penetration]; because 9 assorted [womyn and manginas] on the USSC will say so, in their famous AD 2027 ruling in the case of The United States of America (Attorney General) vs. Common Sense [amicus curiae: Dafe’em Al’Imperiyatiff, J.D.].
So, no: this will end in violent social collapse, with or without the sexbots.
If SJWs want to get out of that violent social collapse alive, they’d better weapon up. Oops, they won’t. Wouldn’t matter if they did. We’ll win: control of the battlefield has always trumped that ultimate SJW objective, “control of the narrative”, because only the survivors of lethal combat get to tell any stories.
What that means, though (alas) is merely we’ll win sovereignty over the cold, scattered ashes of what was once
a greatcivilization. Not much of a prize, but there it is.Which means that what we’re looking at here is either The Great Reset, or, as some here in this forum argue, distressingly plausibly, The Great Tribulation.
But, it’s going to be one or the other, and nothing less.
Yay!
Gentlemen, Enjoy The Decline. (ツ)
Pax Christi Vobiscum
“men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.”
Anyone notice this? The idea isn’t to stop people from having sex. The idea is to change the experience during sex. These are people who can only enjoy sex if it is forbidden. The entire world is telling them that the non-marital sex that they are having is a good thing. So they no longer enjoy it. Now they are trying to get the rush back.
ASDGamer, much as I disagree with the Bloop Ill Perfesser about all kinza things, and even though IANAL, I am in total agreement with him here: “the process is the punishment”, is an actual known SJW tactic. The
willing hot babewoman in question isn’t really much more than wallpaper, here, if some SJW D.A. has you in his/her harpoon sights: you will be made to pay, and in a world where there are still rather more than zero sane judges, they will make you pay via the process if that’s all they can get.Pax Christi Vobiscum
Jeremy VanGelder says:
June 29, 2016 at 5:29 pm
But the “forbidden” part only seems to be on the behalf of men. Women can slut it up all they want without consequences (temporal ones).
An egg can be made from male cells
The sexbots and artificial womb thing is just being nice. There is no peaceful solution. Too bad it will be groups fighting other groups with the elites remaining in place.
Keep it in your pants, and let syphilis and zika do the rest.
I smell a whiff of BS. I know the world is insane but I bet these “agents” are told to instill fear to avoid complications among soldiers. Sort of creating urban myths to make soldiers behave less stupidly.
I would say name names with find-able cases and prove it before giving this “agent” too much credibility.
In the novel 1984, the government agent was saying that they are trying ways to eliminate the orgasm. If you are an employer, never hire anyone who took gender studies or liberal arts.
Cops arrest women with hatchet after attacking boyfriend for not having sex with her.
http://thesmokinggun.com/buster/assault/florida-hatchet-arrest-628903
If she was able to harm him, he would more than likely be charged. Fortunately he didn’t get hurt and the woman surprisingly was charged. This was in Florida.
And this is why and how philosophies like MGTOW are given oxygen, water and plenty of fertilizer.
“Mary, Mary, quite contrary, how does your garden grow?
With living hell and a soul to sell, and petty convictions all in a row”
Every story of the social, legal, financial, etc., destruction of a man at the hands of a lying female and/or a corrupt and bias system, is one more nail in the coffin of traditionalism. It’s unfortunate that this is what is required, but the rot is deep and the skulls of blue pill men are thick. What was once chivalry and deference becomes mistrust and contempt.
“…To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.”
~ douchebag
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”
~ Yoda
Seems like a sexual arms race to me and this is simply the latest incarnation.
Marriage 1.0 was a cooperative truce but since then each sex is playing the game of oneupmanship with women getting the first roll of the dice and men slowly but surely following suit.
With each spin the game of tit for tat continues with women initially establishing an advantage but having it eroded by the next spin.
I’m sure ‘gamers’ will eventually find a work around, after all men excel at war.
Very soon men will be marrying women who in no uncertain terms understand they Will Not be having sex in this marriage. Beta men should crumble the marriage market, but appear to be holding it up for the whiff of a female.
Marital rape is the ultimate end game. Is it possible that many women will always feel like they were raped for having sex with their husband? Yes, because he was never a sexual being in the first place to her, just last man in the CC line to foot the bill.
We are told that rape laws apply equally to men and women, no? The Constitution guarantees Equal Protection under the law, no?
So, if the male solider had said, You know, I too now regret having sex with that woman — would she also have been convicted of rape?
Every time a woman says she regrets having had sex, the man should reply, Me too!
Perhaps MGTOW websites should be making a “Yes Means Yes” consent form, with a Stat Dec for every part of the encounter that has to be jointly signed before sex proceeds to the next step. If any girl complains how it kills the mood, then they can take up the irritation with the feminists who made the stupid law.
And people keep asking me why I’m a MGTOW?
YAC YAC: Bloop Ill Perfesser
Come on, even the first version of my book that was released wasn’t that bad.
https://bluepillprofessor.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/hello-world/
You should check it out and read it this time. Even though you are below average intelligence you can make up for it by reading it twice, and slowly, perhaps pausing to take notes and pay attention.
The way things are going, fornication laws will be back and it will again be illegal to have sex outside of marriage.
The Constitution guarantees Equal Protection under the law, no?
Who the hell pays any attention to the Constitution (except as a rhetorical prop during swearing-in ceremonies for public officials, when they perjure themselves during oath recitation by swearing to uphold and defend it)?
A thought experiment: An obviously crazy skank accuses V. Putin of rape…
The whole witch-hunting madness of the 16th – 17th century never quite featured anyone trying to trying to prosecute the beloved daughters of Sheriffs, much less that of Dukes.
Think this thru.
Teach them to be terrified.
Whether a rape has occurred or not does not matter. The goal is to make men live in fear of accusations.
I’m unclear as to what the end game is? It is not like these policies are being championed by Godly people who in a misguided but sincere way are trying to increase modesty and chastity among young people. These people don’t believe in God. Sounds more like the “Junior Anti Sex League” from the book “1984”.
From the linked article:
“Then there’s the true nightmare scenario: completely false accusations of rape by someone who did offer consent, but now wants to take it back. I don’t want to say these kinds of false accusations never happen, because they do happen, and they’re awful. But they happen very, very rarely. Sexual assault on college campuses, by contrast, happens constantly. This is, in a way, the definition of what it means to be entitled: the rules are designed to protect you from dangers that barely exist at the expense of exposing others to constant threat.”
Well, there it is. Men are entitled because we’re protected by laws from badly behaved women (who barely exist at all) and that entitlement lets us get away with constantly raping innocent college chicks. Pure goddess worship.
…
Robert What? @ 10:51 pm:
“I’m unclear as to what the end game is?”
Turning men into women. Women get aroused by fear and helplessness but men don’t, and while it’s easy to convince women to seize the power and status of men, it’s not so easy to convince men to be weak and emotionally attentive. It’s not enough to just turn women into men because then who is the submissive part of the equation?
Some men feminize themselves voluntarily; for the rest of us, there’s YMY and other reeducation tricks.
GunnerQ,
Pure goddess worship.
It is even worse than that. Some ‘men’ who conduct goddess worship still don’t have it out for other men. But manginas like Ezra Klein are entirely of a “If I can’t have it, no one should!” mentality.
That a man can be this excited about more false rape accusations tells us everything one can possibly know about Ezra.
He gets overly dramatic about the One in Five stat, like it is some humanitarian crisis. As we know, ‘1 in 5’ is merely because they put a random ass-grope at a Frat party or fudged kino escalation in the same category as real rape. I can believe that 1 in 5 college women has experienced an unwelcome ass pinch (that too at the frat parties they chose to go to). So what? Move on.
@ bluepillprofessor.
“Dude, that may be the most spergy thing you have ever said and that is saying a lot. I am a lawyer and I am terrified to be alone in a classroom with a coed female.”
So why do lawyers need other lawyers to defend them in court?
Try out the box thinking.
God’s law (jurisdiction) – man’s law (jurisdiction); Offer – counter offer; Public trust – private trust; law (contract) -legislation (statutes and acts); honour (acceptance, conditional acceptance)– dishonour (argue, silence); Accused – accommodating party; Proper filing of papers – not having your ducks in a row.
In short do you know who you are and how to handle your own affairs as taught by Scripture without having to use a lawyer? If you do then you don’t have to be terrified of a little girl. If you don’t then I would also suggest avoiding it.
But knowing ones way around a courtroom is not spery. On the contrary it is savvy.
A Catholic Woman, Wounded by Divorce, Speaks of the Way of Bringing Healing in Herself and in the Others
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1016097
Unwed mother – need encouragement, prayer, etc.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1016075
When a mangina is in favor of such a law, he is very openly admitting that he gets zero action, and merely wants to cause trouble for the men who *are* getting action. It is nothing more than a scorched earth “I can’t have any, so no one can” mentality.
Isn’t this what drives the whole of feminism? Discontent. With self. With others. With life generally. If the feminist cannot be a man, she must make men miserable in every way possible. Isn’t it what makes the feminist to pursue men and infiltrate men’s space wherever she finds it?
When a woman tells a man that he has “a small dick”, isn’t she saying “I don’t have a dick, so I will make you feel bad for having one”?
The feminist is full of self-hatred; she spreads her misery wherever she goes.
I’m always amazed how quickly male-dominated and created institutions such as the military cave into any feminist demand. The beauticians convention is now way less anti-male than the army!
@Jeremy Vangelder:
…These are people who can only enjoy sex if it is forbidden.
I think there is a world of difference between a man who enjoys having forbidden sex, and a man who is terrified of having sex because his lovers can ruin his life at any time after the sexual act.
This is a prime example of “framing mischief by a law”, and “making a man an offender for a word, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought”.
Psalm 94:20:
Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?
Isaiah 29:21
…That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought….
I’m reminded of the adage “Whatever cannot go on forever will not go on forever.”
It will not end well.
It is what it is. This is the law. And it will get far worse before it gets better.
Let’s move on to the practical. What can a man do to protect himself when a women jumps in his bed, then later regrets it and cries rape? I’m not lawyer, but off the top of my head:
– Consent form
– Consent app (yes, it’s already a thing) http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/we-consent-is-the-new-app-that-lets-you-say-yes-to-sex-is-it-useful-or-just-plain-creepy-10409525.html
– Video recording of encounter (secret or open, depending on local law)
– Consent text — as in, text her “Do you consent to sexual intercourse?” and she replies yes
Any lawyers here?
How about a senior naval officer named Sid, a best friend of mine. After cheating on his frigid wife she colluded with NCIS to trap him into confessing that he molested her and the children 15 years ago. The court record includes a transcript of the phonecall in which the agent tells him “basically, in these things, you’re guilty until proven innocent.” Two years of his life, $50,000 in legal fees and a court martial later, he escaped last week (finally) exonerated from all charges. His Navy career will finish honorably, but well short of what he could have accomplished. It’s not B.S. Not by a long shot.
@Moses
All that consent filing will not keep feminists from their goals. There will be all kinds of ways that the consent will be deemed as ‘coerced’ or some such thing. Rape culture activists are insane and you’re trying to corral them. You won’t corral them. The victim can always claim that ‘He whispered death threats in my ear if I didn’t consent’. Done.
@Anon,
The 1 in 5 number (often 1 in 4) isn’t tallied from things even as harmless as a pinch at a frat party. The original study was by Valenzi/Marcotte/Lindy West/Mattress Girl caliber nutbag feminist. If a girl ever jumped her fiance after a glass of wine….chalk one up for rape. If a couple had gone out for 5 years and the boyfriend kissed without verbal consent…..chalk one up for sexual assault. The ‘rapes’ and ‘assault’ numbers are based on things even far more innocuous then a drunken stumbling half-grope at a frat party.
Second point: Navy Victim Advocacy Programs.
See: http://tinyurl.com/zqxu3jj
“The Navy’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program is designed to meet the needs of victims. Services are available to victims regardless of whether the victim knows the offender, and regardless of where and when the assault took place.”
Read the list of “red flag” behaviors. How is “Inappropriate intimacy” defined? Answer: Any way she wants. Also notice that by regulation the program AUTOMATICALLY categorizes any rape accuser as a “victim.” This victim status AUTOMATICALLY grants accusers the right to advocacy programs, investigative and legal assistance, medical care, community assistance referrals, and military lawyers. Despite the Navy’s on statistics on false reports*, there is still no policy to prosecute those who falsely report rape. Nor will there be, since it is feared that such policies would make potential victims reluctant to come forward. Try accusing somebody of theft or some other crime, and see what happens to that accuser.
The only rights the accused have is to a defense attorney. Usually a junior officer with very little experience, facing a trained SAPRO attorney prosecuting the case. Having spoken with the latter, I can tell you that most are true believers. They want their victim vindicated and the accused incarcerated, not the truth told. Their reputation as a prosecutor rests on it.
There is no denying the sexual assault happens every day. There is also no denying that women, knowing there is zero risk of false rape reporting, use it as a weapon. And it’s a very effective one.
____________
In 2014, of 910 reports, the court dismissed 149 (20%) and an additional 137 (28%) of those were acquitted on all charges.
See: http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY14_POTUS/FY14_DoD_Report_to_POTUS_Appendix_A.pdf
@Jim Christian,
I’ve heard those kinds of stories before. Females claiming a vague sense of harassment/discomfort and then retiring in full. This after refusing to board a ship (after joining the Navy), being handed a cushy desk job (that most guys only get after 6-10 years aboard a ship, you know, NAVY stuff). The females get those coveted jobs right off the bat then claim harassment. It was my understanding that there didn’t even need to be an accused individual committing an individual act—Just a sense of discomfort. The stats behind how many women retire with the full 20 year benefits without having served 20 years are likely mind-boggling. I never served so this is all info that I read but it was really shocking, though not shocking on second thought. Totally disgusting.
(Also “more innocuous than” instead of ‘then’ in my previous post)
It’s not just “female empowerment”, the revocation of due process and use of terror to intimidate the population is classic consolidation of state power. You can see how shamelessly they used a rape fabrication to neutralize Julien Assange
The CSU-Pueblo case linked in the original post by Dalrock seems like it was probably due to the quota pressures placed on colleges by our wonderful savior in office. Title IX spending is all-important to colleges and it will be withdrawn as punishment if colleges and uni’s don’t keep their rape numbers up….CSU-Pueblo needed a rape to stay in the good graces of our insane leadership. So keep the rape numbers up, is the message. You’ll be punished financially for a lack of rape. Rape numbers must be kept up.
UP that is. Not down.
Communist quotas are in place.
I’m unclear as to what the end game is?
The endgame is to completely undo the prevailing sexual “script”, whereby the man is the one who pursues and makes advances, because this is seen as a “rape script”. It is to be replaced with a new script of sex whereby men are frightened to make advances, which are all rape unless proven otherwise, and instead are to wait passively until women initiate, because this is the only “safe” and “acceptable” way to do sex without it being “rapey”.
That’s the agenda. They aren’t exactly hiding it when they are openly pushing for affirmative consent and YMY, because that’s exactly where YMY leads. It isn’t going to a place where people actually inquire of each other at each step of physical escalation, which is what the YMY policies on their face envision, because everyone knows that’s too clunky to be workable, but rather it will mean that sex is only acceptable where women clearly consent, and the clearest case of that is where women are the initiators and men are the responders.
“When a mangina is in favor of such a law, he is very openly admitting that he gets zero action, and merely wants to cause trouble for the men who *are* getting action. It is nothing more than a scorched earth “I can’t have any, so no one can” mentality.”
As economic Socialism is the vain attempt at the redistribution of prosperity by means of political grift as opposed to merit, Feminism is the vain attempt at the redistribution of sex by means of crybullying instead of being desirable.
Liberalism is a terrible word to describe modern American Leftist politics that can be more accurately described as politicized diabolical narcissism. To call American Liberalism Marxist/Communist is to give the “Left” too much credit. In fact, the Left/Right paradigm no longer applies because the conflict in American politics has shifted from 2 competing ideologies (Capitalism and Communism) to primitive society savagery filled with malice at the world itself (Democrats) vs the remnants of Modern Western Civilization (Everyone else).
@Moses: The problem with your ideas is that “consent” must be present all the way through the encounter. So, if the man is inside the woman and the woman suddenly doesn’t want to finish (or, retroactively, if she decides later that she didn’t want to complete the encounter), then it’s rape, even if he’s got paperwork to back up the woman’s initial consent. Disgusting.
@bpp
@ASDGamer: “I know my way around the courtroom, so I’m not afraid of rape accusations. ”
Dude, that may be the most spergy thing you have ever said and that is saying a lot. I am a lawyer and I am terrified to be alone in a classroom with a coed female.
I had a lawyer involved in a case once and I had to tell him the plan and do most of the legwork. He was mostly a mouthpiece, but he also did some work on precedents.
I eventually won the case.
In two other cases I didn’t retain an attorney and I won both. Once the judge even scolded the DA and the arresting officer, lecturing the officer for five minutes.
@yac-yac
if some SJW D.A. has you in his/her harpoon sights: you will be made to pay
Frame is the name of the game. Frame the case properly as non-SJW, then the DA will lose fervor and you can persuade the judge.
Any lawyers here?
Yeah — the problem is that consent can be withdrawn at any time. So if she consents in an app or in an agreement, she can still revoke that consent, and if the guy the does not comply, he’s committed rape. So those kinds of apps don’t really protect you — consent can be withdrawn at any time, and, in reality, also after the act, in practice.
YMY and “affirmative consent” are endemic of our society’s current schizophrenia regarding sex. At bottom, it is all about power, and redistributing power to women in sex and relationships.
On the one hand, we have women telling us sex doesn’t mean anything at all. It’s not important. A woman can have 100 prior sex partners and (theoretically) she’s still able to be just as loving, kind and giving as she would had she had no prior partners or a very low N. She can be a fantastic wife even if she’s had more partners than a football team and the baggage of a department store. That’s because her prior sexual history Isn’t Important. Men are called shitlords and the lowest of the low for suggesting that maybe being a prior slut might just have some effect on a woman, based on observation. No no no, we’re told, a woman can do whatever she wants anytime, and she has not been devalued at all. Because her prior sexual history isn’t relevant to anything that’s going on NOW.
And yet on the other hand, we have these same women telling us that sex is The Most Important Thing Ever. If a woman has had sex she doesn’t like, regretted, didn’t orgasm, wasn’t a positive experience, that is Bad Bad Bad and must be rectified immediately. Because sex is important. Rape is a sex crime and is The Worst Crime That Can Be Committed Ever In The History of Humankind. Because sex, and a woman’s bodily integrity, are important. If a woman gives up sex to an attractive man and she feels she has not received something back, something she deems valuable, then she has Been Cheated and Wronged And The Man Must Be Made To Pay. Because she gave up something of value (sex) and wasn’t “recompensed” for it. Because… sex is important and valuable.
So on the one hand, we’re being told that sex doesn’t mean anything unless and until the woman decides it means something, and then, it means whatever she wants it to mean. And our society is actually going along with this.
It is plain, raw, redistribution of sexual (and therefore social and relational) power. Because the power to decide who gets sex, and the importance level to be assigned to sex, in large part determines whether relationships happen and, once made, the course of the relationship. The point is to leave the man completely and totally powerless over his relationships, and ultimately, over himself in a relationship.
I’m not a lawyer, but I realized the consent form thing was a trap the first time I heard about it. If drunk-sex is rape because she didn’t know what she was doing when she stuck her hand down his pants, then she can just as easily say she was too drunk to consent when she signed the form. She can say he tricked her, causing her to expect something (orgasm, phone call the next day, a ring, who knows what) that she didn’t receive, breaking the “contract” she was signing. She can say she consented to normal, pleasurable sex, but that he was too rough and caused pain.
Anything is possible, especially since a lot of these cases are being adjudicated by college kangaroo courts. If a guy’s lucky, they might take the time to read his consent form and laugh at it before throwing it out. I’d expect having a signed consent form will get a man a harsher punishment, because it identifies him as the kind of scoundrel who’s trying to get around their traps. They’ll think to themselves, “Aha, he knew he was going to ‘rape’ her, so he tried to cover his ass with this! Throw the book at him!”
If consent can be withdrawn after the fact, then it is impossible for the man to acquire consent under any circumstance at all. That is madness. There can be no sex under such a system. It is endemic of a collapsing society making what is normal into a crime.
MGTOW is literally the only way forward.
I spoke to some lawyer friends over this ‘yes means yes’ law; and the overriding idea, not that it would work in practice of course, is for the man to get consent. After that point, the woman would have to, either verbally or physically, opt out of continuing the encounter. Once the man has fulfilled his duty on getting consent, the onus was on the woman and she would have to prove rape as per normal.
Of course, it still becomes a ‘he said, she said’ argument at the end of the day. What definitely does change is that a man MUST now prove that he gained consent instead of the previous ideal, where the legal onus was on the prosecution to prove that rape happened beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words, if a woman cries rape… In the old system, the prosecution would have to prove that the man overcame her physically, that she said ‘no’ or that she was drunk or drugged to the point she could not consent at all. The change now means that when a woman cries rape, all the burden, at least initially, shifts to the man and his defense to prove he gained consent.
It’s obvious how this can be abused. For most consent will either be given verbally or through body language, which are both impossible to prove without some other form of corroborative evidence. So yes, it has essentially made all sex a ‘contract first, sex later’ type of deal.
Fuck it!
If consent can be withdrawn after the fact, then it is impossible for the man to acquire consent under any circumstance at all. That is madness. There can be no sex under such a system. It is endemic of a collapsing society making what is normal into a crime.
I agree that it is criminalizing the normal, because that is the intent — the idea is that the normal is a “rape script”, which needs to be replaced with a new script that is centered around avoiding rape as the paramount concern.
Technically the advocates would argue that it is not withdrawal of consent after the fact but rather that the woman never really believed she consented and that, upon further reflection later, realized that she didn’t actually consent at the time, and therefore the act was rape. A woman can always recollect differently — and not just in a “he said, she said” way, but in a way where not much was said at all, and she later says that she didn’t affirmatively consent, so it’s rape. This is all intentional — the intention is, as Klein points out in his piece, to make men passive sexually and responsive to women’s initiation, in order to avoid unwanted initiation by men which can lead to rape. It’s basically 100% FI, serving female sexual interests by handing women 100% of the power in all sexual situations.
After that point, the woman would have to, either verbally or physically, opt out of continuing the encounter. Once the man has fulfilled his duty on getting consent, the onus was on the woman and she would have to prove rape as per normal.
Sure, but even under the current rules she can always say she withdrew consent during sex, and he continued, so it was rape.
I see this as feminists trying to put the genie they let out back in the bottle with some mafia-type vengeance thrown in.
@Deti: “The point is to leave the man completely and totally powerless over his relationships, and ultimately, over himself in a relationship.”
—So…marriage vows for all. Basically they want to extend the laws of marriage in which men have no power, and little hope, to the unmarried so they also have no power and little hope.
MGTOW is sounding better and better.
The discussion was hypothetical and we all concluded that it would be horrible in practice as it is always a ‘he said, she said’ type argument with all the brownie points given to the ‘she said’ side.
However, the big plus was the consensus on the fact that after the man proves consent was given, the evidentiary burden would shift back to the prosecution, and they would then be required to prove that she withdrew consent either physically, by pulling away, or through verbal commands to ‘stop’. Therefore, if the woman cannot prove that she did the above, the man would walk free, however, and here’s the pitfall, if a man cannot prove that he acquired consent, even if she gave zero physical or verbal resistance for him to stop, the man can be guilty of rape.. madness.
It was all in good, dreary fun for it is not the law of the land…. yet, but merely American university campus insanity.
This post explains why you should only f*ck prostitutes. Payment implies consent.
One might come to the conclusion, given such complex consent dynamics for sexual congress to ensue or even complete, and given the society-endorsed “female prerogative”, no valid consent for sex is feasible or even possible.
What would make sense under the assumptions of a “yes means yes” world is for adult females to be effectively placed in the “under 18” category, much like a minor or child, lacking any and all capacity to contract.
This of course would contradict certain insistence that females really do have agency and must receive equality, both equal opportunity and equal protection. But what’s actually being called for is unequal, special protection and unequal, special opportunity for women, as they have no agency.
The notion that the special considerations and protections society correctly reserves for children, the elderly, the disabled, and persons with special needs, would also need to be extended to adult females (taxpayers with voting rights) is an embarrassing slap in the face to every supposedly “strong and independent” adult woman everywhere.
For men young and old, the modern day advice is this: Avoid social and romantic interactions with women to the greatest extent that you possible can, or else.
Proverbs 1:10: “My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.”
The real part I found completely mad was how this would involve married couples. In my mind, marriage is an affirmative consent to having sex but the legal system doesn’t see it that way. There is essentially no difference for a single man having sex with a random woman than a married man having sex with his wife. Both men would have to get an affirmative consent from the wife or stranger before initiating sex, thus creating a minefield for a married man to walk over when wanting sex whereas the single man just goes to find another more open woman.
Has MGTOW written all over it.
Another point was how this would affect normal men who have not studied the law and are thus not ready for how to circumvent this law by knowing how to prove consent was achieved. They would go about sex in the normal fashion, thinking that the woman is providing zero resistance and thus continue thinking they have gained consent. It would create a whole substrata of uneducated men ripe for the pickings of law enforcement and the legal system to feed off of, even when they are completely innocent. And that is the real tragedy.
Exactly. All the consent stuff takes the fun out of sex, especially for women. A woman (unless she’s a dominatrix) is not going to enjoy sex if the man has to beg permission at every step, or if she has to initiate everything out loud. But that’s okay, because they’re leaving it up to the woman to decide when she wants to enforce these rules and when she doesn’t. She can still let herself be swept away and treated like a dirty girl by the Bad Boy who doesn’t play by the rules, while using the rules to keep betas at bay, to give her a nuclear option to control relationships, and to soothe her guilty conscience by turning any one-night-stand that doesn’t go well into rape after the fact.
If she’s entirely in control of the situation, she doesn’t have to control herself. She can follow her impulses at will, and change reality after the fact to make herself feel good about whatever she’s done.
@Damn Crackers
Make sure you ask Trixie for a receipt.
A receipt might come in handy (no pun intended) in terms of proving that the transaction was a commercial contractual exchange.
The judge might ask you to pay a certain “tax” or “late fee” on those services rendered, however.
DaddyGov wants his cut.
This post explains why you should only f*ck prostitutes. Payment implies consent.
Your evil, hateful, misogynistic, patriarchal, oppressive male social construct forced her into that profession anyway, so it’s still your fault.
I left a comment on the Muffington Compost article that Christian cited above.
Not sure if you guys heard about this – and if you frequent Left-leaning news sites, you didn’t – but apparently even brushing up against a woman is rape:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3435317/Tried-sex-crime-brushed-past-film-star-rush-hour.html
honordads says:
June 30, 2016 at 3:30 am
During my years of active duty in the Navy I knew half a dozen “Sids” personally, two of whom didn’t get off so easily as your friend did. And this was in the “old days” (mid 1980s through mid 1990s) before misandry became institutionalized and the JAG at least made a thin pretense of due process.
To repeat endlessly: any man of any integrity, principle, Christian faith, and a sincere belief in liberty who believes in freedom and justice and who is still serving on active duty needs to GET OUT as soon as possible. I did at 17 years, not even entertaining the thought of staying the extra three years needed to draw a pension. It had reached the point where I couldn’t stand another day of the decay I was witnessing all around me (and this was in the mid 1990s, during the Clinton regime, before things went completely down hill).
You couldn’t force me back onto active duty if you held a loaded double-barreled shotgun to my head.
Don’t do it, guys. The Powers That Be HATE YOU and will destroy you. Don’t sacrifice yourself for a country that allows this abomination to continue!
@PokeSalad – Ha! Still, it’s better getting labeled a John than a rapist. I’ll take the fine and goofy forced class time taught by hookers crying about how bad guys like me ruined their life. It’s still better than facing 15-20 in the state pen.
Feminist Hater @ 10:09 am:
“If consent can be withdrawn after the fact, then it is impossible for the man to acquire consent under any circumstance at all. That is madness. There can be no sex under such a system.”
This is why I was initially glad to see YMY. Deny sex to all young men and surely there’ll be major pushback… except it didn’t happen. I keep expecting pushback and it just never happens.
…
Damn Crackers @ 11:54 am:
@PokeSalad – Ha! Still, it’s better getting labeled a John than a rapist. … It’s still better than facing 15-20 in the state pen.”
Until the whore fingers you for paternity because as your ‘business partner’, she knows you can afford it. Hello 15-20. DNA tests are great for criminal court but The Child Needs A Daddy.
Charlie Sheen said it best: “You don’t pay hookers for sex, you pay them to go away afterwards.”
Saeed Abedini, on his facebook page, just linked to this article where he was interviewed on women’s roles. I think this may mean he is not going in for that counseling with his wife yet.
http://m.christianpost.com/news/pastor-saeed-abedini-bible-bars-women-from-having-authority-over-men-because-it-would-lead-to-chaos-165886/?m=1
This is why I was initially glad to see YMY. Deny sex to all young men and surely there’ll be major pushback… except it didn’t happen.
That’s partly because it doesn’t deny sex to all young men. The attractive, alpha men get more sex than ever, without paying any attention to this consent silliness, and they rarely get accused of wrongdoing because women want to have sex with them. Not consent-form-sex, but the kind of “he grabbed my ass and later I was sucking him off in the closet god I don’t know what came over me” sex they really want.
Once in a great-great while, a guy like that might get accused of rape, but not often enough for alphas to see it as a real risk and do something about it.
On the other hand, the kind of men who are truly at risk of being accused are the ones who can’t/won’t push back: the Nice Guys and Christians who can’t believe a woman would unjustly destroy a man’s life; the desperate incels who don’t think they can afford to do anything that would offend women and reduce their chance of sex even further; the momma’s boys who always bow to female authority. These men will never push back against the FI, especially without the leadership of the alphas. They’ll just be confused, try to find a man to blame, and resort to porn.
So this doesn’t turn around on its own. It will continue as-is, but more so, until the overall society hits bottom and is rebuilt (or replaced) by people with a moral foundation that includes a realistic understanding of women.
@Gunner Q – They have condoms now.
I keep expecting pushback and it just never happens.
Pansies don’t push back unless there is no other option.
The basic presumptions described in the OP for military ‘justice’ long ago percolated through U.S. civil and criminal law, typically for non-sexual accusations. Rape is the ‘summa’ of empowerment and threat-manipulation, and so they’re moving towards criminalization of all male behavior on this issue more gradually and incrementally. Hell wasn’t built in a day.
In America, you can (and will) be arrested and criminalized for displeasing a female, any female really, certainly including non-sexual situations. Nupe even celibacy is no protection. They’ll find a way! If you’re defrauded or attacked or abused by a female, she will dial 911 and YOU will become the target of the police, lawyers, courts, and other instruments of the bi-partisan gynarchy, while the cucked-out masses of Ezra Kleins nod approvingly and check their IRAs. It’s very profitable of course, but the primary purpose of the accuse-o-thon is to maintain American masculinity in a state of constant terror and emasculation. It’s been going on for decades along with the gleeful destruction of fatherhood and authentic Christianity.
We would have healed Babylon but she will not be healed, merely turns up the volume on the lie machine and goes shopping. It’ll take Jacob’s Trouble to dislodge and displace them, so Jacob’s Trouble it is. Kinda ironic, ain’t it Ezra?
asdgamer — “Men need to learn their way around the courtroom. Go talk to lawyers/judges/bailiffs who are friends to learn what to do.”
Great advice. If only men learn to crawl around on their knees a little better, and ask counsel of the very persons who are preying on them (our judge and lawyer ‘friends’!) why then the constant beatdown would stop . . . or at least we could shift the attention of our helpful ‘friends’ to some other sucker, who has not yet learned his way around the courtroom.
Sweden changed the law a year or two back such that men who solicit prostitutes can be arrested while the women are not. Do not think that the FI will leave such an outlet available to men.
Cail Corishev, Novaseeker, and others have pointed out the obvious (in a Red Pill way) objective: to restrict the 80% of men that are not attractive to women in order to make it easier for women to get with the 20% they want. This may be shifting to a 90/10 status, if some trends continue.
Rollo has amply documented the shift to open hypergamy that is going on, this is a part of it – a way to screen out beta men both pro-actively and retroactively. Married men should not pretend “Wull, that only affects young doodz who can’t keep their zipper up”, once “Yes means Yes Unitl It Doesn’t” is normalized, mainstreamed, it will work its way into domestic dispute law. Marital rape laws are already on the books since, what, the 80’s? It’s trivial to crank up the implementation to 11, and “marital rape” will be a nice addition to the DV toolset that the divorce industry already uses. Married churchgoing men, don’t pretend this won’t affect you – the divorce rate in the churches is high enough (30% to 40%) to ttell us what’s coming down the road.
It’s like gay marriage in a sense; once it is mainstreamed, normalized, it will be forced into smaller and smaller subgroups, like conservative church denominations.
So this doesn’t turn around on its own. It will continue as-is, but more so, until the overall society hits bottom and is rebuilt (or replaced) by people with a moral foundation that includes a realistic understanding of women.
There’s been a notion floating around to the effect that the colonization of Europe by Middle Eastern Moslems and Africans is in part what European women want because European men have become so beaten down by the FI that they are as a group no longer attractive, no longer making the tingles flow. If Feminism is a giant fitness test, then importing men from somewhere else would be the fitntess test par excellance.
Another wild card that’s about to be turned over is Virtual Reality porn, which if connected (heh) with the already existing online camgirl-for-money subculture could pretty much take a whole swath of young men out of the sexual market place and thus also out of the marriage market place.
One final thought: doubling down and tripling down in the legal system with the old 1970’s Feminist lie “All Men Are Rapists And That’s All They Are” is going to put men into a situation where they are cornered. If any contact with a woman is “raype”, if there’s no way to even go MGTOW without a false rape accusation hanging over head the way divorce hangs over married men, some young men are going to decide that they have no hope for any change. They’ll go rogue in some way. That’s a pretty good way to tear down what’s left of civilization; push men out of any useful role, condemn them to involuntary celibacy, continue to condemn them just for existing.
A man who has literally nothing to lose, whose life is so miserable that dying isn’t a thing to fear, that man could be exceedingly dangerous. A whole generation of young men like that? Not gonna work out well.
I too, had a thought recently about how to deal with the growing “post-regret rape” phenomena. Perhaps men, who take random women home with them, on a regular basis, now, need a “female relative” to “drop-in” to their place of residence, “post-event”.
Here is an example scenario, a man meets a women (via night club, Tinder, OkCupid, day-game, etc.) and takes her back to his place. Before the “event”, the man notifies the participating female relative that an event may take place and to be on stand-by, for an unannounced drop-in at his home. Post “event” the “stand-by female relative”, has a key, lets themselves into the mans homes and “accidentally” pokes their head into the room where the “event” has taken place. During that pop-in the female relative acts surprised and says something like “I’m so sorry, I’m so-and-so’s sister/mother/cousin, I usually walk his dog at this time”. After that, the female relative then BLUNTLY asks the “female guest” about consent and presses the matter until an “affirmative” is achieved.
Is this a HUGE hassle, YES. Is it also weird for the “female guest”, YES. Is it embarrassing for the male PUA, YES. However, it may have a chance of saving someone’s butt in court and increases the odds of proving “legally” that the “female guest” has no grounds for criminal charges.
Note, under this plan, men can never go to the females home, nor hook up in spontaneous locations. I know people have said previously that video cameras with sound need to be installed in PUA homes (which depending on how used, is illegal in some states), but are there any established legal cases where this has worked?
@Anon Reader
I think the more proximate risk is men partially withdrawing and finding a happy medium on the progressive income tax curve. We already see a small amount of this, and a large amount of wailing about it. But it does strike me that as we have gone to such lengths to avoid conferring respect on the respectable, that over time we should expect more men (on the margins) to seek respect in unrespectable ways. Given that Christians have more respect for the sexy badboy biker than the married father, it stands to reason that more young men will choose to be respected rather than a punch line. After decades of concerted efforts to destabilize nuclear families, we shouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing more men seeking out replacement family structures. This of course happened some time ago in the inner cities, but White middle class families have proven somewhat more resilient, and therefore required a much more concerted effort to disrupt.
When I was a very young lawyer I was told that should the occasion ever arrive (as it did) where I had the need to interview a witness or the like and in the home of that person and that person was a single female I should take along another person preferably a female to act as witness should any false allegation subsequently be made. One always then has to come up with some utterly implausible story as to why one is accompanied by that other person. False allegations are thus not an entirely new idea, and these days one is just as likely to be falsely accused by a woman with whom one works.
I am certainly no Alpha but have more than once been asked out by a woman. Naturally, I accept – but then flake. There is something, to my mind, repulsive – even as one is flattered – about being come-onto by a woman (or a man). I would like to think that the shock of being stood-up might teach such a woman a valuable lesson. The last time it happened I found myself, some months later, waiting for the elevator – or as we would say, Lift, in the Royal Courts of Justice in The Strand when the same young lady who I had not seen since she asked me out was also waiting for the same Elevator. Had she forgotten? Not at all and she was barely holding back her tears. She was good looking and slim too.
Dalrock
I think the more proximate risk is men partially withdrawing and finding a happy medium on the progressive income tax curve. We already see a small amount of this, and a large amount of wailing about it.
That is a likely course. Couple it with VR porn of some sort as “soma[*]” and those men will totally check out of the market. But those men are in the 80% so who cares, eh? Further berating of the Peter Pan Manboys won’t change anything, although I’m certain that women and their White Knights will double down on that.
But it does strike me that as we have gone to such lengths to avoid conferring respect on the respectable, that over time we should expect more men (on the margins) to seek respect in unrespectable ways. Given that Christians have more respect for the sexy badboy biker than the married father, it stands to reason that more young men will choose to be respected rather than a punch line.
Some churches already give more respect to single mothers, especially babymommas, than they do to dutiful married men. I don’t see that trend reversing anytime soon. An argument can be made that a man could Game an entire church by constantly being almost, but not quite, within reach of some of the women. Most men won’t bother, though.
After decades of concerted efforts to destabilize nuclear families, we shouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing more men seeking out replacement family structures. This of course happened some time ago in the inner cities, but White middle class families have proven somewhat more resilient, and therefore required a much more concerted effort to disrupt.
When women can become their own Betas, i.e. their own “husband”, then they can contract out many of the jobs (lawn care, plumbing, pest control, etc.) and all they need is “lover”. This is another facet of open hypergamy. A “bad boy” could have girls in multiple churches in an urban area…a soft harem, in fact. And he’d be welcomed as a potential “returning prodigal” over and over.
Meanwhile, the average betas will live with the sword of a false accusation over their head, with the approval of many preachers and most women.
I’m sure this will totally improve church attendance…
[*] It’s not a good sign that parts of the modern world really are looking more and more like Brave New World, and this should be pointed out early and often to people who claim to care about marriage as an institution.
Klein is nefarious but does draw the obvious conclusion because he is an ultra feminist – the law will stop working and disappear when WOMEN live in fear. This law is the worlds invitation for black knighting. After every sexual encounter a man decides regret and claims rape. Make them live by their completely retarded rules. That is the only way to stop this type of madness.
Kevin, that form of black knighting won’t work for obvious reasons. The precedent has been set for decades.
HINT: If a man is physically attacked by his wife, say, with kitchen utensils or even a knife, and he calls the police, who is going to be arrested per the Duluth protocols that most PD’s use as guidelines?
Anonymous Reader
Those guys on the outside are where your suicide bombers and such come from. Western men are pretty civil so who knows when the shooting starts.
Personally I think the VR sex and artificial wombs are the way to go. Beats a civil war
Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
The Female of the Species
WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
‘Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
Man’s timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn’t his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other’s tale—
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.
Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.
Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger—Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!
But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.
She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells—
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.
She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.
She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.
Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!
So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.
And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.
[*] It’s not a good sign that parts of the modern world really are looking more and more like Brave New World, and this should be pointed out early and often to people who claim to care about marriage as an institution.
That might work with secular Tradcucks, to the extent that they’d recognize the reference. That still probably wouldn’t induce them to get upset about the status quo, as they don’t believe that women gain anything by traditional marriage and return to the nuclear family. Such an institution detracts from women’s ability to become strong, independent, and free of slacker men, who are of course the source of all problems plaguing society today.
As for churchian Tradcucks, they wouldn’t even understand the reference to Brave New World at all. It doesn’t matter, though, as they clearly don’t care about marriage and family as institutions, given their overt apathy and/or hostility to the formation and maintenance of both.
@ray
Great advice. If only men learn to crawl around on their knees a little better, and ask counsel of the very persons who are preying on them (our judge and lawyer ‘friends’!) why then the constant beatdown would stop . . . or at least we could shift the attention of our helpful ‘friends’ to some other sucker, who has not yet learned his way around the courtroom.
You misunderstand. Talk to lawyers, judges, and bailiffs about their experience…what they have seen and heard in courtroom…I didn’t say to ask their advice.
@Feminist Hater:
MGTOW is literally the only way forward.
Not by a long shot. The crazies constitute less than 5% of women in the world. Plenty of fish everywhere, including the bucket in my kitchen. You don’t need to deal with crazy.
Dave, if a woman can retroactively take back consent, then you can never actually gain consent from her. The act itself becomes null and void and thus pointless. You keep on hammering on about most women not wanting to use the power given to them by the government, whilst completely missing that these same women seem incapable of giving up these powers, or it is simply because they don’t want to. A sort of back up, if their hubby doesn’t live up to their ideals.
Women don’t deserve such power and because it has been given to them without thought to the problems of men and they haven’t declined such power, they don’t deserve good men. Till women stop using these powers and sign them away, they are best avoided. That is a simple truth.
Feminist Hater is right last comment. [But I don’t think MGTOW is only way to go]
We have vastly underestimated that even the nicest, most godly women have accepted the illicit authority given them. They have all accepted the stolen goods. Even the likes of Elisabeth Elliott, writing a book about how men should behave. My own Mom, a pastor’s wife, embraced it, yet all would say “NOoooooo.” I saw it on the inside.
BTW: FH’s name may be offensive to some but he has named himself [presumably a him] well. When scripture says God hates, He hates righteously and it simply means He opposes anything that is not of Him, that is not true. So, yes, we all utter hate speech. The Fems actually get this right.
Women don’t deserve such power and because it has been given to them without thought to the problems of men and they haven’t declined such power, they don’t deserve good men. Till women stop using these powers and sign them away, they are best avoided. That is a simple truth.
As I’ve mentioned before, if the “bat shit-crazy” brigade was really as small as guys like Dave claim that it is, and if the antics of said brigade were really hurting the “normal, non-feminist majority” to any significant degree, we would have seen –and would continue to see– very visible pushback ahainst feminism from such women. Whether as an organized movement or simply as a prevailing sentiment, there would be visible and palpable anti-feminist sentiment among a majority of women.
That no such strong sentiment has ever existed simply confirms my oft-repeated assertion that ALL women, whether or not they consider themselves feminists, enjoy too many spillover benefits from what feminism has wrought to want to see the goose that lays the golden eggs killed. That men suffer because of this isn’t even remotely a concern.
Kevin @ June 30, 2016 at 6:43 pm:
“This law is the worlds invitation for black knighting. After every sexual encounter a man decides regret and claims rape.”
This is very dangerous advice. Making a false accusation is itself a punishable crime. Civil court for slander/libel, criminal court for false police report and God only knows with VAWA. The legal machine is dangerous and expensive for non-members even when it isn’t furiously misandric. Don’t sign yourself up for unnecessary trips and absolutely don’t make a pattern of claiming rape.
Alright I get it. A woman can withdraw consent at any time. So paper consent, or text, or app consent are worthless.
It seems to me the best shot for a man can protect himself is a full video and audio recording. Check laws in your state for whether this can be done without her consent or knowledge.
I recall reading about a case where a woman cried rape after her boyfriend found out she’d had (consensual) sex with two men. The DA dropped charges after the men produced a phone video showing her, ahem, “enthusiastic participation” before and during intercourse.
Women claim rape all the time to weasel out of consequences of infidelity. Where there is motive and opportunity there is always corruption.
theasdgamer — “You misunderstand. Talk to lawyers, judges, and bailiffs about their experience…what they have seen and heard in courtroom…I didn’t say to ask their advice.”
OK. Thanks for the clarification; I didn’t mean to suggest you said something that you didn’t.
However, having some background in court administration and, shall we say, instant operations, my advice is not to talk to lawyers, judges and etc. Do not fraternize with your oppressors, with those who prey upon you and your families . . . for those of you that still have one that is.
Want to learn about what really happens in America’s civil and criminal courtrooms? Go and sit in the gallery and observe what takes place, to whom, and by whom. Don’t ask the opinions of the very people who profit from the Sistem. Evaluate it for yourself. Because it damn sure speaks for itself.
It used to be standard advice on androsphere sites such as Spearhead that every man contemplating marriage should spend a day or three watching anti-Family Court sessions under different judges, just for the knowledge. Seems like we forgot that, and ray’s reminder in the more general sense is good.
It’s axiomatic in the firearms community that asking a police officer about gun laws is pointless, because they often don’t really know all that much and they ain’t gonna go to court on your side. In some jurisdictions (NYC, for example) paying an attorney for knowledge that he/she will bring to court is worth the moola. Texas, not so much.
Which brings me full circle: people I know who have some overlap with the courts agree on a few things, and one of them is that the US doesn’t have a justice system, it has a legal system. Legal systems administer laws, justice is at best a byproduct.
Moses: for now, I suppose that full audio/video records, maybe on a bodycam or some other device, would be good. There was the case in NY where a teenaged girl claimed gang rape but the actual video of the event showed clearly she was basically pulling a train. So don’t be surprised if feminists and “anti rape advocates” start working to make recording sexual encounters a crime in and of itself as a result.
To protect teh wimmenz, of course.
Dal- your story is missing key details. If the man was convicted in a court- martial, there had to be other pertinent facts that aren’t presented, and while a CID agent knows his stuff, he’s not a legal expert or senior commander who actually makes the decision to prosecute a case like this. A court marital panel (jury) or court martial convening authority (usually a 2-Star General) take their duties extremely seriously, and wouldn’t proceed or convict without being thoroughly convinced that it was rape/sexual assault.
Any decent defense lawyer could get the guy off if those are all the facts. I’d suspect that alcohol (or drugs) was a factor if the story is everything else is true. The Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) says that an incapacitated person can not by definition consent to sexual contact. Therefore sex with anyone who is drunk / under the influence of any drug = rape/sexual assault, EVEN if the person consents. I suspect this was written this way to prevent “blackout drunk” sex, but its been stretched to the other extreme. Basically CID only has to get the accused to admit that he knew the other person was drunk / incapacitated, and he’s hung himself. (recorded cold calls from the victim work really well on this). Or they get enough eyewitness statements to confirm that a reasonable person would have known that the “victim” was under the influence and now you have the elements of sexual assault, even if they consented fully at the time. Even if the court marital panel thinks the victim consented their hands are tied and they basically have to convict.
I think this clause needs to be revised because it completely excuses responsibility for personal choices after the fact. There is no way to distinguish between 1)had a few drinks, has sex, regrets it later and 2) a predator who either gets someone extremely drunk or targets an extremely drunk person to assault them.
@YAC YAC, women aren’t the only jealous ones out here. White men are jealous when white women get with black men and are perfectly ok with accusing their fellow man of “rape”, as evidenced by the last url link in Dalrock’s piece above. We call them “white-vagina worshipping knights”.
Vaseline has made a way through all of this. MGTOW.
Pingback: A Bridge Too Far | Spawny's Space
Pingback: madness – wisdom4dummies