696,979 posts

All Women Lie About Rape - Part Three

Reddit View
December 21, 2016
254 upvotes

This is a continuation of my series:

All Women Lie About Rape - Part Three

By now, most of you probably see where I’m going with this series. At the very least, you understand that my title is facetious, and that I understand rape is a real crime, and there are real victims. For those who had a knee-jerk reaction during the first installments, I suggest you take a moment to consider why you had such a reaction, and calibrate future reactions accordingly.

When determining whether something requires a second look, I ask myself a few questions.

The first question, which we already answered, was: does it give me a gut feeling something is wrong. You can perform the quick mental logic that we did in our second part of this saga to determine that the statistics on rape and our observations do not match.

Now, some of you very kindly pointed out that my logic was faulty, and you wouldn’t be wrong. There are a number of reasons for these numbers. For instance, a small number of rapists may account for disproportionate amounts of rape. The changing definition of rape or assault may account for larger numbers than what one might consider. Perhaps there’s a motivation behind false accusations that benefit women. Or perhaps the number of accusations is accurate for the crime, and it is simply the statistics that are incorrect. At the very least, putting rape and assault stats together to equal roughly half of women is disingenuous. Or is it? (We’ll touch on this in a bit)

In the first installment of this series I put a lot of emphasis on the fact that no worldview is going to be correct. There will be some that are more correct than others, and there will be some that are entirely wrong but they might still be effective at bringing you closer to your goals.

My point in this thought experiment is that the exercise in the first two installments can be done completely in one’s head with no research and very little amount of thought. It’s not a replacement for research or knowledge, but rather a starting point for thinking outside of the box.

So how do you determine if you need to think outside the box?

Disagreement

First: Am I allowed to question this?

For example, watching a movie with friends, I fear very little in starting a lively debate on the merits of the movie. Maybe my friends like the movie and I think it’s awful. There’s little risk in asking, to see if perhaps there’s a reason for the discord. Certainly there will be little to no backlash for making the claim that it is a bad movie, even if it is objectively not.

In the case of rape, however, it’s a very hot button topic. Politicians and celebrities are hung out to dry the minute they might suggest an accusation is false. All rape stories must be believed is our culture’s refrain. Even when you suspect there is strong evidence against an allegation being true, simply suggesting it can ruin your life and career.

This is evidenced most commonly by our culture’s reporting of rapes. Take the Rolling Stone article about the rape on the UVA campus. They reported on it with no proof but the word of a girl, and it turned out to be a hoax. It was quickly retracted by Rolling Stone, and then followed-up by Huffington Post with “Rolling Stone Got Jackie’s Story Wrong, But That Doesn’t Make It A Hoax,” pleading with us to take a lesson from the story because it sounded true enough despite there being nothing true about it.

There are other similar topics that cannot be questioned. Of course, that doesn’t mean they’re inherently false. But it does mean there’s a pressure keeping the status quo that isn’t directly related to facts. Consider whether you’re allowed to have a public discussion on these topics and take the position of devil’s advocate without personal sacrifice:

  • Rape

  • The existence of god in the context of a religious circle

  • Global Warming

  • Evolution

  • Racism

  • Islam

All of these topics have strong emotional components to them, and evoke very real visceral reactions in those who hear them. Questioning them will be met with resistance regardless of logic or reason.

Red Flag Number One: there’s a pressure keeping the status quo that isn’t directly related to facts.

Motivation

The next step is to follow the money. Is there a potential motivation or beneficiary of this fact or belief being false?

If I own a vitamin company, it’s in my best interest to convince everybody that they need vitamins. This is not a hugely contested point, though there is a plethora of conflicting information about some of the lesser known vitamins. I would say there’s significant reason to believe at least some information is intentionally misinformation for the supplement industry, though luckily, there doesn’t seem to be a negative stigma attached to questioning it.

If I am a woman, do I benefit from a direct false accusation of sexual assault? Perhaps so. The largest risk I can identify is that a false accusation could be discovered. Most would consider this risk to be prohibitive. But the legal risk for women to make such an accusation is actually very low, as they’re not likely to be charged with anything for doing so. The social risk may be higher, but even then, there’s a push in our culture to assume that they weren’t lying. Rather, we must assume that the system failed them.

What’s the benefit, though?

Victim status increases an individual or group’s access to proxy power.

I’m going to quote another article here on power mechanisms:

Proxy power is the ability to negotiate the use of another person's power. A woman uses her looks (social value) to get a man to move furniture (Direct power). A child uses his mother's love (Social value) to request food. A man uses his rank (social value) to command troops.

Direct power is the ability to enact one's will without aid. Direct power can be physical or financial or otherwise. The key is that no permission is needed to wield this power, nor is another person's complicity required for it to take effect. It is the individual acting on their environment.

The apparent weakness of our other halves, our ying to our yang, has been artificially increased and bastardized. This is best illustrated through feminism.

Feminists boast high direct power while in the same breath looking to co-opt men for the use of proxy power. The disconnect between their claims and their reality makes them repugnant. Remember, normally proxy power is a transaction, trading social value for use of power. A woman who believes she has direct power doesn't engage in that transaction. She gives up little or no social value for the use of a man's power. She is a leach. The man is left feeling duped when he hands over use of his power for nothing in return.

Most leaches will suck their host dry if left for too long. This is where the victim status comes into play. Feminism created the victim status to generate extra social value for women. Men have this sort of instinctual urge to protect weak things. When a woman claims victimhood, something in our brains kicks into high gear and wants to lend them the use of our direct power to fix the issue. Feminism is the process of making women strong through fostering greater weakness.

Instead of trading affection or sex for proxy power, now women can claim to deserve that access by default. She lives in a constant state of disaster that plays on a man's desire to lend power. It may seem baffling to him that no amount of power he lends seems to fix the endless string of calamity that is her life. What he's missing is that drama is her source of power. Discord is the dynamic that powers the weak. All weak people revel in their victimhood, it is the foundation of their identity.

Now, this access to proxy power through victimhood doesn’t need one to become a direct victim. While we’re sure there are some false accusations out there, the statistic lends cover to all women everywhere. The fact that almost every woman can conjure a rape/assault story on command is because they do want to ensure they can both give credibility to the statistic, but also withdraw their own amount of proxy power from it. No false accusation need take place for this transaction.

Making a claim that they are indeed directly affected by the statistic ensures their piece of the power pie is reserved; the repetition of these stories is a broadcast for social status.

There is no doubt that the definition of assault and rape has changed over the last few decades, broadening to include much more than most assume. Marital rape created to remove women’s responsibility in a relationship, but the man’s job to provide was left unmodified. It created a victimhood narrative that women were simply slaves to their husbands, and required freedom. Normal rape changed from an attack by a stranger hiding in the bushes to consensual sex that a woman regrets the next day. Sexual assault changed from a violent sexual attack to simply brushing up against a woman or going in for a kiss when she didn’t want it.

If we were to use these new definitions of the terms, it might stand to reason that the statistics are actually spot on. Perhaps 50% of women really have been in uncomfortable positions.

It doesn’t take much to convince a woman that if she feels discomfort, that perhaps she really was affected and possibly damaged by the experience. Her goal of heightening her victim status wouldn’t object to this minor modification of definition. Men are strong and women are weak.

The final nail in the coffin is that statistics themselves are very easy to fake. You can word surveys in such a way that you can get a result that you want, no matter what is true. Complex and leading questions can make points that even the survey subjects would object to.

If you asked every woman if she’s been in an uncomfortable position with a man, you’d be hard pressed to get a woman who said no. Likewise, most men could probably describe a scenario where they were uncomfortable with a woman, at some point.

If we asked every woman if she had been touched when she didn’t want to be or if she had any unwanted advances, there would be resounding yeses across the board, even though not every touch could be considered assault, and surely few would be actively violent. I can recall myself reading signals wrong on a date, leaning in for a kiss and getting a cheek. An unwanted advance it was, but no real threat or violence took place.

From this perspective, we see these possible motivations are quite compelling. We already know the definitions of rape and assault have changed dramatically. We know that the stats seem to overwhelmingly fail to align with our experiences. We know that stats can be misleading. And now we can see that there’s a possible motivation to say or do these things in a way that benefits women that isn’t consistent with actual rape or assault rates.

Red Flag Number Two: there is a plausible motivation or beneficiary of this false fact or belief.

Are the motivations to claim a falsehood more likely than the original belief being true?

It’s hard to say if our theory makes more sense than the possibility that maybe 1 in 5 women are just actually raped, and that ~45% of women are actually assaulted. If we believe the statistics, then we must assume the beneficiary of this crime would be the rapists. If we believe the statistics are false, the beneficiary would be the alleged victims.

It’s hard to measure the benefits of either. Presumably rapists who cannot control their evil actions are probably most relieved at being able to take action. Women who increase their access to proxy power are likely quite happy about their access to it. Is one happier than the other? Hard to say.

But we can measure the risks involved. To rape is a very large risk. Especially knowing how much a false rape accusation can ruin a man’s life, we know that simply having the allegation thrown at you can ruin one’s life and career. Even if we assume that rape convictions are hard to get due to lack of proof, the court of public opinion can still damage your life to a degree that would make some contemplate suicide.

On the other side of the coin, we have women who stand to benefit from false statistics and accusations. Their risk, individually, is very low. Every woman can claim victimhood from the statistic, regardless of her actual experiences. Even a woman who makes a direct false claim is protected from legal or social fallout. The balance of risk to reward is tilted in favor of reward for women, but heavily imbalanced towards risk for men.

Red Flag number three: The motivations for a belief to be false are more likely than for a belief to be true.

Are the actions of the victims consistent, coherent or logical for a victim?

If the statistics were correct, and the definitions of the words have not been sufficiently modified to meaninglessness, then we would have a large group of actual victims.

So we must ask, are their actions consistent with those of victims? If we had that many rapes or assaults, would we not see more accusations than we do today?

The initial response to this discrepancy is that rape or assault is an underreported crime. Victims are unsure that there will be a conviction, are worried about public appearance, or they just want to forget that it happens and pressing charges would remind them it did.

That makes some level of sense, if we assumed that rape was the one crime victims didn’t want to report. Victims of almost every other crime have no problem reporting it. But let’s be generous and say that rape is so traumatizing that anybody undergoing it would be physically incapable of reporting it. I think that’s very unlikely, but we can follow this logic to see if the rest holds to scrutiny.

What about sexual assault. We’re told that it happens everywhere. It happens on buses. It happens on the streets. It happens in public and private. Parties, work, bathrooms, gyms. Surely if the crime was assault, that is a physical, aggressive or violent attack, there would be an unlimited number of reports about it. If somebody assaulted me, I would report it.

Let’s say that women don’t report rape or sexual assault because they aren’t convinced there would be enough evidence for a conviction. Maybe they assume that it would be a waste of time and utterly embarrassing to do so. Surely these “survivors” would at the very least change their behaviors to stave off such attacks.

It’s commonly reported that frat parties are where college girls go to get raped. If the number of rapes were true, would it not stand to reason that women could easily avoid these dens of rape? It would seem, then, that even women don’t believe their own statistics.

If getting blackout drunk caused a large risk of being raped by a stranger at the bar, would a potential victim not avoid such behavior? A very simple step to take that would avoid what is almost statistically inevitable. One who believes that this crime happens at such a rate would simply not take such risks.

If going home or being alone with somebody increases your odds of rape, would you not avoid such behavior? In a group of five friends, one of you is certain to be raped. Would you not take standard precautions against such an awful reality?

When I am standing on a train, or riding a crowded bus, I move my wallet to my front pocket. I’m not sure how common pick-pocketing is, but I know it’s a real risk and I take measures to avoid it. I know that dark alleys in the big city are unsafe at night, and I avoid them accordingly. I wear a seat belt when driving my car, and I don’t smoke cigarettes due to the risk. Is avoiding common rape scenarios that impossible for women?

There is an alternative option. Women do not believe the rape statistics, even though they all seem to agree with them. People do not act contrary to what they believe. They may speak contrary to how they believe, but they will not act accordingly.

If you were sitting on train tracks, and saw a train coming towards you, you would act, and move out of the way according to your belief of the reality of the train. Belief is not a choice in this matter, but rather a result of your brain calculating what it understands about the world around you. Some beliefs may be more squarely based in reality than others, while some may be colored by bias and bad information. But all beliefs share the same quality: they are not questionable without different information.

If I explained to you that the train was a mirage, you probably wouldn’t believe me. You’d get up off the tracks anyhow until you’ve tested my hypothesis a few times. You may gradually change your belief about this train. But one thing’s for sure: you wouldn’t accidentally get run over by a train because you doubted your beliefs.

So if a woman describes having been assaulted or raped, and she believes the rape statistics, why would she then engage in a behavior that invalidates the belief? The answer: She does not believe the statistics, and likely doesn’t believe her own story. Her actions are inconsistent with a real victim.

Worse yet, offering these solutions to a victim or potential victim is considered victim blaming. In fact, it serves no purpose but to make their emotional problems worse. Instead of seeing a helping hand as a positive thing, they see it as undermining or invalidating their victim status. It would be clear that the motivations behind this victimhood aren’t to prevent or be healed of being a victim, but rather to preserve and prolong it.

Red Flag number four: The actions of those who purport to believe something are not consistent with somebody who actually believes it.

Obviously not every belief you analyze will be cut and dry on every point discussed here, but if it raises enough red flags, you’ve definitely found yourself room to improve, and it might bring you to a more effective worldview.

What do we do with this information? That I’ll discuss in my next installment.


Post Information
Title All Women Lie About Rape - Part Three
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 254
Comments 172
Date 21 December 2016 05:02 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/65576
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/5jl0bx/all_women_lie_about_rape_part_three/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
false rape accusationdramathe red pillfeministfeminism
Comments

[–][deleted] 56 points56 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 39 points40 points  (26 children) | Copy

Control over language is power. Orwells 1984 illustrated that exceptionally well. Feminists have broadened the definition of "rape" to include reproductive coercion and sexual contact that she regrets the next day. The beauty of it is that in both cases, the sex was consensual. So rape no longer means non consensual sex, but also consensual sex.

The definition becomes meaningless because any sex can be considered rape by any person who wants to be victimized. Weaponizing language is how feminists can fabricate victims.

[–]PhucCheet 18 points18 points [recovered] | Copy

broadened the definition of "rape" to include sexual contact that she regrets the next day

No, the official definition still does not include that. It's strictly rooted in consent, which can only be withdrawn before or during but not after.

For this "day after regret" stuff, you're conflating two issues: when consent did or did not ACTUALLY occur (i.e. the objective truth) and our inability to know what truly happened because we're only hearing people's stories (i.e. subjectivity, possible lies on both sides).

When feminists treat "day after regret" as rape, what they're really saying is:

TRUE EVENT -- she never consented in the first place, rape

HER STORY -- I never consented (she's not lying)

HIS STORY -- she consented. bitch just changed her mind later (he's lying)

When MRAs are saying "day after regret" is not rape, what they are really saying is

TRUE EVENT -- consensual sex happened. next day she felt bad and decided to call it rape

HER STORY -- I never consented. (she's lying)

HIS STORY -- she consented. bitch just changed her mind later (he's not lying)

The first situation is clearly rape. The second is clearly not rape. The problem is that both sound the same from the stories that are told, so what you label it depends on who you believe more. It's in the liar's best interests to act as much as possible as someone who is not lying would, which makes it hard to differentiate which case really happened unless there is hard corroborating evidence (e.g. video, witness).

If you've ever encountered people lying about anything other than rape (something less contentious, e.g. school gossip, work performance, sexual exploits), you should know that the person whose story sounds more complete or plausible isn't always the one telling the truth. Lie detection is an imperfect art.

But no one (sane) is defining it as "rape" if she ACTUALLY DID just withdraw consent the next day. The problem is either of them could be lying. Both have strong incentives to lie.

[–]OneWonder 12 points12 points [recovered] | Copy

You're focusing too much on the legality of rape rather than the societal pressures of the "rape happens all the time" mindset we live in today.

It's not like Men are being told that rape is happening on the same levels of other violent crimes. We are being told every man is a rapist. That all men and young boys should watch out because they could unknowingly be next.

I do not see seminars at universities about not becoming a murderer or the next big serial killer. Clearly the message is you too could be a rapist! All men are rapists on the inside.

We all know a woman who's rape story sounds a bit misconstrued, especially when she mentions she never reported it. Shit I even knew a girl who married her convicted "rapist" and even had his baby. A little weird in hindsight? No?

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 8 points9 points  (8 children) | Copy

It's insane- I've sat through it. There was a student orientation for one of my exes that I decided to go to with her to see what the hubbub was about. A hypnotist. Did a few tricks, and then, as it turns out, the message was about date rape. As though all the guys in the audience needed to learn not to do it.

[–]kraken991112 points13 points  (1 child) | Copy

I'm over 30 now and I'm so glad my generation never had these idiotic rape seminars because I would have been unable to stop myself from cracking jokes the entire time inbetween chuckles. I can easily picture my bros back then just completely making a wreck of such nonsense.

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

You would be beaten down viciously. The girls would gang up followed by the vast majority of the men. You would be reported to academic affairs. There is no way you could get away with this today. I can't even imagine the shit storm if anybody were to stand up to the tattooed lesbian harpies who run these seminars. They would freak out so much! I believe the police would be called and you would be arrested or escorted out of the building. Then you would be removed from campus housing. You probably wouldn't be kicked out of school- if you agreed to intensive counseling.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (5 children) | Copy

http://www.safs.ca/issuescases/lynched.html

Yes, academia has been totally taken over by this insanity. I reluctantly came to the conclusion about a year ago that giving women the vote was a huge mistake, inspite of the good intentions. After that, spiralling government debt, ever more left-wing governments, and ever more government interference in people's lives became inevitable. More recently, reading about what is happening in universities now, I came to the conclusion that letting women into men's universities was also a huge mistake. They should have been kept in women-only colleges and let the men get on with concentrating on knowledge and truth, not feelz.

[–]SetConsumes1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yes, that's what rather unfortunate, it is based on good intentions.

The academia part is incredibly unfortunate. It's made college change to passing exams by memorization instead of fostering critical thinking and intellectual discourse.

Idk what's popped up instead to give men a place to improve their critical thinking ability and engage in intellectual conversation on the normal. The internet doesn't really solve this need on its own although it's certainly better than nothing.

[–]1grubek2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Its not based on good intentions. Its a power trip with good intentions as the excuse.

[–]redderThanIUsedToBe0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

After that, spiralling government debt, ever more left-wing governments, and ever more government interference in people's lives became inevitable.

The progressive movement started long before the 19th amendment was adopted. Those changes would have likely happened anyway.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy

There would be changes, nothing stays the same, but given the known psychological differences between men and women, I think we can be confident that socialism and the degree of government interference in people's lives would be nowhere near the power it has now in society without the support of women. An example recently is that Trump would have won by a landslide if only men voted.

It is a problem that afflicts societies as they become prosperous for too long that men become weak and women gain excess power as they start to think they no longer need men. However, universal suffrage, which means that people who are net benefactors of the state get to vote on what happens with other people's money, is a one-way street.

Socialism/Marxism is a perfect fit for women's psychology, as we can see when Lenin declared just four years after the October Revolution he had achieved a feminist utopia. He had destroyed families and put spades and pitchforks in women's hands. The State took care of children in creches. But then the rest of the World didn't fall into Socialism so Stalin had to reverse many of these things to prevent the USSR from collapsing. He succeeded in delaying it, but the damage was done, as it has now been done to us.

[–]redderThanIUsedToBe0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I think we can be confident that socialism and the degree of government interference in people's lives would be nowhere near the power it has now is society

I'm not that confident. I do agree the involvement, to what ever degree it would be, would likely have a different character to it though.

would have won by a landslide if only men voted.

While I do agree such a landslide would have occurred if the right to vote were confined to men immediately after the Democratic convention, for analysis purposes, however, it is hard to know if this fact would even be relevant in the alternate 2016 where the franchise is never extended. For example, let us rewind the tape of history a bit further back to before the start of the Democratic primaries, constraint the right to vote only to men, and press "play". Would Hillary have won the nomination? I doubt it very much. As a result, we simply have no idea how the outcome of the election would have been where either Sanders or O'Malley is the nominee. Rewind that tape further to before the 2012 election and we likely have Romney seeking his second term.

My guess for that alternate timeline where only men ever get to vote: Men must contend with answering to every female in their lives to continuously demonstrate their views and/or political choices are correct. Over time, men are influenced by the experiences of those closest to them to adopt some of the more liberal policies we know of today; academics continue researching alternative socioeconomic relationships/ideas (much as is done in our timeline) and those which appeal more to men's self-interest, family interest, and/or sense of honor/righteousness get adopted. How much that alternate reality looks like today, however, I have no idea.

[–]madethewrongmistake3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

The 'you could be next' message is accurate, but not for the reason given. It is only practical for universities to warn men about predatory women by showing that proof of consent is basically impossible, and even invalid in many common scenarios. But they can't do that directly; they have to wrap it in feminism.

[–]sepelion2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

Next, having a visible erection in your pants is akin to brandishing a pistol in public. Maybe we're already there. No problem though if her nipples get hard; no, it's just "ohhh my turkey poppers popped I can't help it!"

[–]madethewrongmistake4 points5 points  (3 children) | Copy

I had an erection at least 75% of the time in high school. I also routinely slapped girls' asses and required titty shows in exchange for car rides. Sorry guys, feminism is my fault.

[–]Nay20031 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Me in a nutshell with the girls that liked me

[–]madethewrongmistake2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Not me anymore. Went to one of those elite liberals schools and got arrested for slapping a girl on the ass. The only thing that saved me was that she was stalking me, posting my pictures all over Facebook as her new boyfriend, and then claimed I raped her, but I had an alibi: was in bed with another girl, proof by security camera.

[–]PhucCheet 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

I do not see seminars at universities about not becoming a murderer or the next big serial killer.

Universities introduced these courses not because they believe all male students are rapists, but because they want to avoid any legal liability and bad PR for rapes on campus that could be blamed on "campus rape culture" given all the recent media attention. If they give a mandatory course on consent, then the school is seen as taking appropriate measures to fight rape culture and can't be deemed liable for future rapes that may happen. It's just about covering their ass and saving face. If you guys weren't so sensitive and defensive about this stuff, it'd be fucking obvious.

Businesses do the same thing when they face bad press. Since the 2008 financial crisis, investment bankers have mandatory ethics courses. It's a way for the companies to say they're taking proactive measures. Covering their asses, saving face.

We are being told every man is a rapist. Clearly the message is you too could be a rapist! All men are rapists on the inside.

Laughable strawman. Most feminists aren't saying that. The typical line is that "all men are potential rapists," which is completely different. It's a way for women to tell each other that they can't tell a rapist apart from a decent man because predators camouflage well. It's not an accusation that all men would go out and rape if no one was educating and rehabilitating them. Please.

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Many feminists are saying that, however.

[–]redderThanIUsedToBe4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

No, the official definition still does not include that. It's strictly rooted in consent, which can only be withdrawn before or during but not after.

The California "yes means yes" laws say otherwise. According to the higher education regulations in California consent can be revoked "at any time" and do not exclude revocation after the fact.

[–]madethewrongmistake2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy

Actually this is wrong for the most common scenario, which involves highly-intoxicated sex. In this case, legal consent is 100% decided after the fact. This is not by design, but by practicality, because intoxicated sexual activity is so common. Until the next morning, there is no factual difference between the girl that has blackout drunk sex and becomes Chad's girlfriend, and the girl that has blackout drunk sex and claims rape the next morning or months and years later. Consent cannot legally be given at the time of the act in either case, but the 'victim' may give it retroactively once sober. The only defense to intoxicated sex (for the man, regardless of his state) is that he did not know she was drunk. Unfortunately, it is not possible to prove that you don't know something, so he's pretty much fucked. The law is actually written in such a way that it is not required that the prosecution proves that you did know. Guilty until proven innocent, which is impossible.

What did we learn today kids? Do not have sex with a drunk girl. I repeat, do not have sex with a drunk girl. Do not even touch a drunk girl. The physical definitions of sexual assault stretch far and wide.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

This is not by design, but by practicality, because intoxicated sexual activity is so common.

It's not that she has the right to withdraw consent after. She can't consent drunk, period. In either case there was never consent. Technically, Chad's gf couldn't consent to sex with Chad either. It's just that Chad's gf is unlikely to press charges, but someone might press charges if you fuck some random drunk girl.

Technically an old woman with dementia can't consent to sex either, but the state won't charge her husband for fucking her. Same idea.

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

state won't charge her husband for fucking her.

There was a case not long ago where an old man prayed the Rosary at his wife's bedside and then had sex with her. She had dementia and was conscious. I don't recall if he was convicted.

[–]madethewrongmistake0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

It's not that the state won't convict; it's that the 'victim' hasn't yet decided to press charges. They may never, but they can at any time. Turns out Chad was spinning? Put him in jail. Get called a slut? Nope; rape victim. Want a huge divorce settlement? Easy; husband raped you.

No other crime works this way.

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

The problem is either of them could be lying.

No, the problem as RPS states is that SHE is encouraged to lie by this society in order to increase female power and expand the rape stats. The only crime where the victim is incentivized to lie more is insurance fraud.

Do you define rape as a violent assault or not?

If so, then there MUST be more than just 'he said/she said' to score a conviction.

[–]filitantmeminist8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy

That whole paragraph is why modern liberalism and cultural marxism exist at all.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's not just women though, it's also men. Weak men to be precise.

It doesn't work nearly as well for men. They try it, but it's generally ineffective. Men are told to buck up their ideas and accept reality. Women are given support, comfort, improvement to their lives, the problem fixed AND told they aren't to be held responsible for anything they say or do.

[–]redpillschool 14 points14 points [recovered] | Copy

It's not just women though, it's also men. Weak men to be precise.

Ironically, this post I quote is from a gay friend of mine, and he was writing it specifically in reference to Women, Weak/Gay men, and children on our lesser known /r/altTRP.

Thank you very much for putting in the effort to think and type all this up.

You're most welcome. Cheers!

[–]Rufferto_n_Groo9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

That quote about lending power applies to far more than just women.

Public education, for one. Schools beg for money, and no increasing amount solves the issue. It can't; without the drama there's no money for raises.

Any industry or government agency converged with women will work the same way.

[–]madethewrongmistake1 point2 points  (11 children) | Copy

I'd like to hear his insight on gayness itself. I see two types of gay man. First is the stereotypical weak man that demands affection and gets none from women. The second is the strong no-bullshit high-sex-drive type that is immune to female manipulation and either leads them or hates them. In both cases I see gayness as a rational short-term strategy to get what they want, or rather, it's probably more constructive to see straightness as a brutally-demanding long-term strategy for reproduction. The common belief is that sexual preference is innate, but then we have no problems accepting that a rape victim can become a lesbian from the experience, and gay bars are full of 40-year-old men with nightmarish stories of bitch wives. So I don't totally buy it. There may be a certain balance of natural hormone levels that pushes in one direction, but I seriously doubt the existence of a gay gene or something.

Perhaps he can be honest about this too.

[–]SetConsumes2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy

Women are generally demisexual. How the other person makes them feel and what they offer them can illicit love.

Biologically gay men have a smaller hypothalamus than straight men, but still larger then women's. http://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20080616/gay-brain-shows-gender-atypical-traits

However, people can also become gay based on their beliefs too.

[–]madethewrongmistake0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

How does a relationship work between two demisexuals? Logic and experience tells me that there has to be a 'man' and a 'woman' in the relationship, so they can't both have the same hypothalamus/amygdala aberration.

[–]SetConsumes5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy

The masculine and feminine roles are split between the members of the relationship. Think of how many men in feminist relationships make their woman lead for example. It's different, but similar to this too.

[–]madethewrongmistake1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Ummm.... Feminist relationships? Do you mean their sexless raging bitch marriages, or their submissive sex-toy ONSs? Same game of indirect power manipulation at different stages. I can just imagine the immediate implosion of a relationship between two manipulative cunts. No way. One has to be the woman, and one has to be the man. Two men would never want to get married, and two women would just fucking kill each other.

[–]SetConsumes2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Ummm.... Feminist relationships? Do you mean their sexless raging bitch marriages, or their submissive sex-toy ONSs? Same game of indirect power manipulation at different stages.

Sexless raging bitch is an extreme end result of a relationship.

Thats not really indicative of a "happy" feminist relationship.

In most feminist relationships, the man and woman are both highly masculine in some ways, and highly feminine in some ways. Usually.

The man will typically need some emotional support or need her to lead and make decisions about some important things.

The interesting part is that the women believe they want this. Taking turns playing leader, an emotionally open guy, are things feminist women tend to say they want.

I can just imagine the immediate implosion of a relationship between two manipulative cunts. No way. One has to be the woman, and one has to be the man. Two men would never want to get married, and two women would just fucking kill each other.

So lesbians are somewhat similar in that sense, they take turns leading, take turns supporting each other emotionally, typically.

It is fascinating to watch lesbian relationships, you essentially have feelings trying to manage the other's feelings while demanding their own feelings be addressed too.

Madness.

Which is why such relationships escalate really quickly, and implode grossly often enough. The feelings can pump each other up incredibly well, but also lead to relationship disaster incredibly well.

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Sexless raging bitch is an extreme end result of a relationship.

Actually it is extremely common in lesbian relationships. Yes, it is also common in "cis" hetero relationships but as I recall the numbers on sex frequency and long term relationship satisfaction for denizens of island of Lezbos are laughable.

[–]red6onit0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

This is bullshit studies, no difference between gay and straight, no genetic, no inner, just peoples fucking.

[–]SetConsumes1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

So the hypothalamus region being different is what, being faked by scientists?

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

It is more complicated than that. Next you will be telling us there is no difference between males and females. The brain imaging studies beg to differ.

[–]red6onit0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Neuronal plasticity is a thing, we don't know if these brain differences are innate or taken. This still don't prove anything

[–]madethewrongmistake1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Somebody please give me just one example of a competent and well-adjusted tranny that is happy with their life. Just one. Maybe just one example of a tranny that was fully successful and satisfied with their relationships before the transformation. It's not an identity crisis; it's a last-ditch hail-Mary attempt to feel relevant in a world that worships only women and denigrates all men.

[–]SetConsumes0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

They can't be happy as society defines happiness. The closest trans people can get to happiness imo is by staying in their bubble with other trans and truly trans accepting people and avoiding the rest of society as much as possible.

[–]redderThanIUsedToBe0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I work with one. He/she is quite happy with the choice. Most of his/her family took his/her transition well; a few did not. Not something I would want to go thru, though.

[–]newName5434561 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

That's core of marxist modus operandi: find a group, tell them they're oppressed, point out the "enemy", tell everyone "enemy" needs to be defeated and "oppressed" ones are entitled to more stuff.

[–]PhucCheet 14 points14 points [recovered] | Copy

I liked where you went with this post.

I don't think proxy power is inherently a bad thing. Children use it too. It's the only way for people who are physically and mentally weaker to get a fair shot at having their needs met over people. It's only bad when a society doles out proxy power to such extremes that it incentivizes exaggerations of victimhood. Ayn Rand nailed the consequences of such extremes in Atlas Shrugged.

Still, I'm troubled by this:

My point in this thought experiment is that the exercise in the first two installments can be done completely in one’s head with no research and very little amount of thought.

Encouraging people to think outside the box and take "taboo" devil's advocate positions is a good thing, an overall win for reason over "consensus science". Too often certain realms of thought are not allowed to be explored.

The problem with staying ENTIRELY in one's head with little thought or research is that it leaves a person biased by only his own experiences and going down the rabbit hole without checking things along the way. Solipsism results.

People should strive to both think originally and also break free of solipsism by considering recounted experiences of others and conducting experiments.

Politicians and celebrities are hung out to dry the minute they might suggest an accusation is false. All rape stories must be believed is our culture’s refrain.

Here's another way to view it: society shouldn't guess before a court has made an official ruling, for rape or any crime. Especially since rape is such a hot media topic and public figures have so much influence, all the publicity has an influence on the jury and witnesses, potentially changing a trial's outcome and corrupting the effectiveness of the justice system.

What's wrong with telling people to stay silent and not accuse someone of lying until all it's all settled in court, based on actual evidence and questioning of witnesses instead of public speculation? We want trial by jury and evidence, not trial by mob.

There's also the risk of deterring real victims from coming forward. False accusers have a 100% chance of coming forward. Real rape victims have a lower chance. The same way male victims of prison rape and child molestation don't all come forward, some women choose not to come forward, due to fear of being retraumatized by sharing the story, fear of everyone finding out about their personal trauma, or fear of an unfair trial. (this was particularly a problem 8+ years ago, maybe less in the last 3 years). Police may tell them not to bother with charges, the state reluctant to take "he said she said" cases to trial. But a lack of witnesses and physical evidence doesn't mean a crime didn't really happen. For things that happen behind closed doors, how likely are there to be witnesses? And a medical exam can't always differentiate between tearing due to rape and tearing due to rough consensual sex.

For the sake of a thought experiment, try to put yourself in this victim's mindset for a second. Even if the rape did really happen, if there were no witnesses and the medical evidence could be spun either way, how could you prove it happened? You may be able to prove intercourse, but he can argue you consented. It's mostly on your word. Then, consider that a defense attorney will use any and everything to discredit your word, whether or not you are actually credible. They are not concerned with truth. They are concerned with discrediting you. If you have an insecure submissive personality, weak frame, it's easy for an attorney to trip you up in your words even if you're speaking truth (alphas must know this already - a strong frame can project a reality onto a weak frame). You lack the frame to assert the truth to someone trying to make you stumble. Then, if you had drinks or wore certain clothing, they might use it against you too. If you lied about anything personal you thought was unrelated to the case and they catch you on it, that also discredits you, even if you were telling the truth about the rape. This has been the reality for true victims for decades. These are rape victims, not professional defendants. It should be easy to understand why some true victims would not come forward and press charges.

False allegations are also a thing. But some true victims also do not come forward.

From a political perspective, politicians want to encourage true victims to come forward and have real offenders charged. Too much discussion about false allegations will make a real victim think the justice system is biased against her and not want to come forward. That said, men shouldn't be charged with crimes they didn't commit just so other victims will come forward with other crimes. There's a critical balance needed here.

Perhaps the best solution is for feminists to be willing to place some blame on women: for them to start shaming the false accusations, so that true rape victims feel safe to come forward, so that the justice system and public isn't so skeptical of real rape cases (allowing rapists to get justly charged), and so that society can better appreciate the true reach of rape and harm caused.

Unfortunately there are opportunists who will piggyback on any movement for personal gain. Proxy power from victimhood rewards some for fabricating claims. Men speaking out against them makes true victims feel attacked, as though they are discredited too. The problem is that neither side can easily distinguish the true ones from the false ones.

You might argue the tide has already swung in favor of rape accusations being taken too seriously. But that's not the whole truth. Consider Brock Turner, someone whom witnesses actually saw raping an unconscious drunk girl. Although he was charged and found guilty, consider how light his sentence was considering the crime he committed. If eyewitnesses actually watching a guy rape a drunk unconscious girl only gets that little jail time, what hope do other real rape victims have in coming forward?

So there needs to be work done, somehow, to more accurately identify which claims are false and which claims are true, and have both men and women weed out the false ones, disincentivizing them from gaming the system, while still making it easy for real victims to come forward and get actual rapists off the streets. But the kneejerk reaction to feminism, labelling most accusations as "false", clearly does not serve the greater purpose of justice.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (7 children) | Copy

Perhaps the best solution is for feminists to be willing to place some blame on women: for them to start shaming the false accusations, so that true rape victims feel safe to come forward, so that the justice system and public isn't so skeptical of real rape cases (allowing rapists to get justly charged), and so that society can better appreciate the true reach of rape and harm caused.

This is the crux of it, the fact that women are perfectly willing to lie about being raped, supported to the hilt by feminists and the press, and the fact that all too often they get away with it scot free even when it is known that they lied. I don't think we can reasonably expect women not to lie, but if feminists, the press, and the courts, came down hard on those found to be lying, and the accused kept anonymous unless and until they are found guilty (the same as the accuser), then I think we would all happily be willing to take accusers seriously again, and without the scepticism that is a valid response to the number of false accusations we see. That in turn helps actual victims.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (6 children) | Copy

That in turn helps actual victims.

Yes, in full agreement with you on this.

Perhaps the problem is that the rape victims are not the lead feminists or the press. The lead feminists and press have power, at least the power to sway public opinion and influence policy. Victims only have proxy power by appealing to these people to advocate for them.

The problem is that things achieved through proxy power come with strings attached, and can be warped. The feminist movement leaders themselves don't have the same interests. Their interest is getting more people to join the movement, getting media attention, influencing policy, getting their names out. They have a vested interest in pushing false claims, even though real victims don't. Similarly, the press makes money off controversy. So the parties with power have different interests than the victims, but the victims are forced to work through them.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

Yes, that is a problem. But you talk about rape victims, but the problem is all the women who are not victims but pretend to be. Once you have those, then the problem is society's response to them, which is basically to enable them, to the detriment of real victims. But yeah, feminists, looking to make political capital from rape cases, are a problem for actual rape victims

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy

Yes, that is a problem. But you talk about rape victims, but the problem is all the women who are not victims but pretend to be.

The point was that the real victims have to get proxy power through these third parties, but the third parties gain more power themselves by failing to weed out the pretend victims, thus the only way real victims can get support for now is by letting the feminists give credence to these false victims too. And so the falsehood spreads.

But it starts with the real victims, because there's no one giving them an alternate option. The legal system certainly doesn't. Prosecutors hate trying rape charges, since they're so hard to prove. If there was an alternative, they wouldn't have to work through feminist media, and they would have not grown so strong and had the ability to propagate the falsehoods too.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

I think I see what you are saying, but I would disagree that real victims get proxy power through third parties. At least, they may have done for a while, but because of high profile false rape cases, they are actively working against real victims now, since we legitimately are more sceptical of women who make accusations. Kanin found that over 40% of accusations brought to the police were false, but he had tight criteria - they actually had to admit that they lied. Most won't do that. Coupled with the fact that just about every high profile case that we come across turns out to be a hoax supports the idea that in fact most accusations are false.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbb03SnhHOM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa5kQbUl5_o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op4scME3Ym4

https://archive.is/dXAQe

etc

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Interesting.

Higher up in my post I stated that 100% of false accusers come forward but only some true victims come forward. This biases the numbers both ways. For example, if someone is claiming 10% of women are raped, 6/10 of them might be lying, but there might be another 6% of women who were really raped but didn't press charges. Or more than 6%. Or less. It's so hard to know. So on the one hand, we know false accusations are a real problem, but rape could also be a widespread problem too. The two don't negate each other.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

I agree that both are a problem, but also that false accusations are a problem for real rape. But I guess we agree on this and needn't belabor the point. Where we disagree is your statement that 100% of false accusers come forward. It depends on your definition, I guess, but I think that it is actually safer for accusers to not report to the police, but only to, eg college authorities or a peer group, or your manager. We have seen this many times, and the effect is pretty devasting even without the jail term, because we still tend to assume that 'we must believe victims'. What we are learning is that actually, no we do not. We believe evidence, and we know that women are prepared to lie about this. I also take RedPillSchool's argument that rape simply cannot be as common as feminists and the media would have us believe, because women's behaviour (even feminists' behaviour) gives a lie to it. So no, I don't think for a moment that the number of women that don't report real rape comes anywhere near the number of reported cases that are false.

And yes, I take your point that it tends to happen in private and thus be difficult to prove. Then again, assaults and robberies, burglaries, all tend not to take place in the middle of a crowd of witnesses, and rape leaves real DNA evidence.

It isn't an easy situation, I don't think anyone believes it is. We must give justice to those that are harmed, and we must protect the innocent. But this isn't as one-sided as feminists and the press would have us believe. If most rape accusations are false, as I believe they are (you may disagree), then the innocent victims here are not women. And the trouble is that there is bias in the system which I would have removed. Make false rape accusers take the punishment that would have been given to their victim, and I think things become much clearer. This is a response to the tendency for women to use a rape claim for multiple purposes, and is a better solution than the islamic one of requiring two male witnesses (which is a response to the same observed phenomenon, I think).

Anyway, even though we don't agree on all details, you make a reasoned case, and I thank you for a decent argument on what is all too often an emotive subject. There is no perfect answer.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

I also thank you for a well reasoned discussion, not always common.

Yeah, different definition of coming forward. I meant not to police but media, campus organizations, feminists, etc. False accusers are attention seekers. By definition their goal is to tell. Real victims don't always.

The reason rape is difficult to prove (and you can confirm this by speaking with any prosecutor) is twofold: it happens behind closed doors (lack of witnesses) AND it hinges on the issue of consent. The double whammy is the kicker. Consent is hard to prove or disprove without witnesses. It's "he said she said." That doesn't apply to burglaries, assaults, robberies. For those, the prosecution just has to prove the event physically took place. That part is not hard in rape either (DNA, rape kit, photos of injuries, etc, although there isn't always DNA if she delays in seeing a doctor or he wears a condom). However, they also have to prove lack of consent, that it wasn't just consensual rough sex or that she was unconscious at the time.

To convict of a robbery, you just have to show something was stolen. You don't also have to prove that the person didn't consent to the theft ahead of time. That part is taken for granted. Same with assault. You just have to show bruises and confirm the attacker was involved. You don't have to prove there wasn't prior consent to leave bruises. Proving the physical side is much easier, can be supported by hard physical evidence. The consent side is murkier, based on believing people's stories, which is incredibly subjective.

Due to the need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, you need an airtight victim who has perfect frame, 0 holes in her story, 0 sins that can be used for character assassination. Otherwise the defense can introduce reasonable doubt. And that's all that's required to get a rapist off. They dont have to prove consent or prove the event didn't happen. Just introduce the possibility of doubt. A conviction requires no doubt, and that's an extremely high burden on the prosecution for a crime committed behind closed doors and based on "he said she said". So no, there really is no comparable crime (courtroom wise) to rape, and any prosecutor will back that up. It's uniquely hard to prove.

That reality causes police and prosecutors to deter victims from filing charges unless there is nothing the defense could exploit for doubt, keeping a lot of true victims in silence.

I personally know of many who did not file charges for that reason, and I can confirm they were actually victims. I used to be much more skeptical about rape claims like you guys until I started meeting more true rape victims, listening to their stories, listening to witnesses who saw enough to convince me it was an assault and not regret sex, watching certain guys try to rape drunk girls who couldn't stand up straight. And these girls weren't attention seekers - none of them went public or filed charges. Then, my old beliefs no longer meshed with real life observations. But it's easy for male solipsism to prevent us from acknowledging these possibilities since we don't experience them ourselves or see other men doing it.

It's important to remember nothing RPS said empirically and objectively shows unreported rapes are rare. It's just theoretical speculation, assuming women respond rationally to threats, when every other part of RP teaches that women are not always rational. So I think men should keep an open mind about the possibility of unreported rapes until concrete evidence speaks either way.

Either way, thanks for the discussion.

[–]madethewrongmistake2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

You know what's worse than speaking from personal experience? Speaking from complete and utter ignorance. I don't even know how to begin to address your arguments because they are all either mendacious, irrelevant, or just plain stupid, but most of all, hackneyed. Seriously, do you have one original thought to contribute? I'm embarrassed that I have to write this in trp.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

You know what's even worse than speaking from personal experience or making an argument that might have holes? Not making a point at all, resorting to "that was too stupid to respond to." Personal attacks are the weapon of people who have no thoughts to contribute.

[–]madethewrongmistake0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

It wasn't so much of a personal attack as much as an unsubstantiated rejection. Clearly this is not good form, but seriously, this is a cacophony of your own unsubstantiated claims, and generally the burden of proof lays on the claimant, so I'm going to ignore those and try to go for the core premise of your argument.

You are saying that we should believe rape accusations because many real victims don't report. By your own admission:

False accusers have a 100% chance of coming forward. Real rape victims have a lower chance.

Okay, so, let's push this claim to the limit and see where it gets us. Pop quiz: If no real victims accuse, and all fake victims do, should we believe accusations or not?

I hope this begins to shed some light into the dark nether-regions of feminist bullshit.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

The problem with staying ENTIRELY in one's head with little thought or research is that it leaves a person biased by only his own experiences and going down the rabbit hole without checking things along the way. Solipism results.

I don't suggest staying in your head for the reasoning taking place in this third installment. I wanted to help boost people's ability to recognize and understand the confusion or cognitive dissonance with self-reliance.

[–]alternativeuniversek1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I don't suggest staying in your head for the reasoning taking place in this third installment. I wanted to help boost people's ability to recognize and understand the confusion or cognitive dissonance with self-reliance.

If this is true, why don't you edit your OP to clarify this so you don't have to make this point here - so deeply buried in the comments that solipsistic members won't get to reading it? You know that many members are unable to distinguish between hyperbole and truth.

[–]31t1me1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

The more extreme end of feminism aren't ever going to shame a "victim" just because she wasn't "actually" raped, they're still in her corner.

I am sorely tempted to say that actual proof of a false allegation should carry the same sentence the guy accused was facing, but my fear is that some fake victims who might otherwise recant would instead stick to their story and let the poor bastard rot in a cage. Ambivalent isn't a strong enough word.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I am sorely tempted to say that actual proof of a false allegation should carry the same sentence the guy accused was facing

False allegations of other crimes (e.g. murder) aren't met with the same sentence as the crime. However, the state can charge someone with perjury and obstruction of justice for wasting taxpayer money chasing lies. In the future, this may happen. Right now prosecutors are afraid to do this because they don't want to deter real victims from stepping forward (real victims are easily scared, probably more easily scared than the liars). But once the pendulum shifts more and the system works better for real victims, prosecutors may change their mind and start charging the liars.

[–]31t1me1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

My concern is that if we take a tougher stance on charging people who make false allegations, it may prevent the accuser from recanting a false claim for fear of prosecution if she does. I'm more concerned with letting the innocent go free than with jailing the guilty.

[–]conquerlifegroup9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

Who is John Galt? It's you. Thank you so much for these.

[–]Lice13817 points18 points  (32 children) | Copy

I believe the number of actual rapes are even lower than what is recorded. There is a difference between a "false" allegation and "unfounded". A false allegation is when the woman admits that she made up the whole thing while an unfounded one can be blatantly false (there is evidence to sugest that there was no way the rape could have taken place) but she sticks to her guns.

Women do this because they can, there is only one other crime that people will agree that we should just bypass a trial and head straight to torture, on an allegation alone.

It’s commonly reported that frat parties are where college girls go to get raped. If the number of rapes were true, would it not stand to reason that women could easily avoid these dens of rape?

Yes but feminists are retarded. Say you live in a bad neighborhood and you take a 100 dollar bill and leave it on your door step. What do you think the cops would do when you tell them you have been robbed, they would laugh in your face. Same thing if you are drunk, if you are smashed and give 10 dollars to a homeless guy, you cannot claim that you were too drunk and he in fact robbed you.

But this isn't the same with rape victims. If you ask a "rape" victim why she got black out drunk and naked in her "attackers" house then you are "blaming" the "victim".

[–]PhucCheet 8 points8 points [recovered] | Copy

It’s commonly reported that frat parties are where college girls go to get raped. If the number of rapes were true, would it not stand to reason that women could easily avoid these dens of rape? Yes but feminists are retarded.

Humans are retarded. Why does anyone still smoke? The evidence has been out there for years. People don't all avoid something just because they know there could be risks.

Say you live in a bad neighborhood and you take a 100 dollar bill and leave it on your door step. What do you think the cops would do when you tell them you have been robbed

If you walk into a dark alley and get stabbed, cops will take the assault seriously. The fact that you walked down the alley doesn't absolve the attacker. If a girl goes to a party and gets actually raped (not "regret sex" but rape), why should the attacker be absolved just because she went there?

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (14 children) | Copy

Nobody says the attacker should be absolved in cases of genuine, non-consensual, rape (how crazy has it become that we have to qualify that sentence now?). But that doesn't mean that the victim should not be publicly called out as a complete and utter eejit for putting themselves into a situation where it was bloody obvious to a brain-dead caterpiller that they should have simply avoided the situation. It is called 'acting responsibly', and god forbid that we should demand that women do that.

I'm not a woman, and yet I wouldn't dream of walking home through the streets of my nearest city at 3am blind drunk. If I got robbed or assaulted under those conditions then there was still a crime, and the crime was not perpetrated by me, but people would be correct for calling me out on my utter stupidity even so.

What feminists have done is tell women to be that stupid, because the whole world should change to accommodate their stupidity. That shows that feminism is more about power play and gaining any advantage they can over men, than it is about helping women. But as RedPillSchool astutely points out, it also shows that they themselves don't actually believe their own bullshit statistics.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy

but I don't see you going off on anyone for getting in cars.

I would have, if people involved in car accidents (which I have, and never in a case where I was at fault - two cases several years apart where someone rear-ended me while I was stationary) made out that all other car drivers were criminals by default. I would have, if they claimed that they need hardly even look at the road because it was the job of other people to avoid them. I would have, if they drove while drunk and still pretended to be the victim of other people. I would have, if they drove without a seat belt and sustained injuries which they would not have suffered if they had taken that simple precaution.

If someone runs a red light and runs into me, then they have broken the law and I have not, just as is the case with a real rapist (not feminist redefinition of rapist, and to be clear, if a woman gives consent then it is not rape, even if she was drunk at the time, just as with driving). That would not stop me from considering whether I had exercised proper defensive driving skills which may have protected me, and revised my driving practises as a result. This is called, 'being a responsible adult'. Something that feminists (and many non-feminist women, apparently) will never learn.

If you have been very drunk at many parties and have not learned that this is stupid behaviour, then you are stupid and irresponsible, there is no other way to put it (especially if you have done this even after the experience which should have made it blindingly obvious to you). You are putting responsibility for your own safety in the hands of strangers while deliberately making yourself vulnerable. In addition, if you have sex with someone while drunk, and you consented to it, then even if the idea horrifies you when you sober up you have no cause for complaint. You decided to get drunk, you know that this is designed to lower your inhibitions and mess up your judgement, so you cannot complain about doing things that you would not do while sober, nor blame others for going along with it.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

'all other car drivers were criminals by default', by analogy, is the feminist position, where 'all other car drivers' stands for men. Not too difficult, although the analogy is getting a bit tortuous at this point.

You claim to have been raped, which of course we are entitled to be skeptical about, given that most rape accusations are false. The question is, if getting blind drunk and falling asleep led to it, have you changed your behaviour? Do you still go out and get as drunk as that? If you do, then either you are denying any responsiblity for what happens to you in life (which is stupid) or, more likely, your story is not true. This is the point of RedPillSchool's post, that women's behaviour itself gives a lie to the claims.

If, on the other hand, you are more wary now about what circumstances you drink and how much, then you agree with me. For all the 'victim blaming' bullshit that feminazis come up with, if you were actually raped then you would look to see how you contributed to the situation and take steps to see it doesn't happen again. And if you thought it through, if you would take such steps now, why would it have been wrong to advocate taking the same steps before you had that experience?

That is accepting responsibility for your actions, which is what I advocate. It is bizarre to have to even make that point, but then feminists are batshit crazy hate-mongers who would throw anyone under the bus to achieve their political ends. If I walked in some shady neighbourhood in the early hours alone and got mugged, I would avoid doing the same in future, except that I'm not stupid enough to do it now, without having been mugged. Simple.

[–]PhucCheet 3 points3 points [recovered] | Copy

Nobody says the attacker should be absolved in cases of genuine, non-consensual, rape

I would have thought this would be obvious, without qualifying it. But then buddy here goes and overreacts to it, even when I qualify I'm not talking about regret sex.

for putting themselves into a situation where it was bloody obvious to a brain-dead caterpiller that they should have simply avoided the situation. It is called 'acting responsibly', and god forbid that we should demand that women do that.

That's an acceptable position only if it's consistent. If we demand that standard, ridiculing women for risk-taking behavior, we should be willing to put the same standards on men. After all, masculinity requires accountability. If a man goes mountain climbing or skydiving or bungee jumping or snowboarding and gets seriously injured, we should laugh at him for being a fucking tard and doing it in spite of the obvious risks, even though it was fun and thrilling. If a man drinks a lot and gets one of the known long-term diseases caused by drinking too much, we should call him a stupid degenerate for putting his body through that, telling him it's his own fault he got cancer. If you're willing to do that, at least it's consistent. But if you find such things extreme, maybe we should be more lenient to women who go to take the risk of going to parties and then get raped.

But as RedPillSchool astutely points out, it also shows that they themselves don't actually believe their own bullshit statistics.

Another very plausible interpretation (that RPS doesn't address) is that, like other risk-taking teenagers who feel invincible, they do fun hedonistic things IN SPITE of it being dangerous, not fully grasping how likely it is they could get hurt. And this isn't exclusive to women. Young men are notorious for taking stupid risks. We know this is human nature. So... even if the statistics were true and they believed them, they might still behave the same way. The behavior doesn't disprove anything.

Remember, it's not that 50% of time a woman goes to a party she gets assaulted. It's 50% through lifetime (and that's probably more "assault" than rape. Actual rape is probably 5% or less). And not all of that 50% may even come from frat parties. For a given instance going to a party, the risk of harm may only be 0.1%. But added up over time, from many parties and bars and dates and other encounters, the chance of any assault occuring somewhere in her lifetime would be much higher. At 0.1% risk per party, sounds pretty safe to go.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (7 children) | Copy

No, your argument doesn't hold. Because while it is certainly true that men do risky things like mountain climbing or skydiving, you will never hear a man who is injured doing these things claiming to be a victim whom society should protect by making mountains safer or the ground less hard. And we do think that he has nobody to blame but himself. If a man gets liver problems because of heavy drinking, again we don't think that it isn't his fault, that he is just a helpless victim. He brought it on himself, we can all agree.

So, if women were saying, 'yeah, I got raped because I was stupid and walked home blind drunk at 3AM' I think people would agree, yet also be sympathetic. But that is not what they do, and not what feminists demand.

So I am being entirely consistent.

[–]PhucCheet 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy

No, your argument doesn't hold. Because while it is certainly true that men do risky things like mountain climbing or skydiving, you will never hear a man who is injured doing these things claiming to be a victim whom society should protect by making mountains safer or the ground less hard. And we do think that he has nobody to blame but himself. If a man gets liver problems because of heavy drinking, again we don't think that it isn't his fault, that he is just a helpless victim. He brought it on himself, we can all agree.

It's fair to say that he doesn't play the victim card the way women do. RPS already went through the incentives to play that card. Still, the point is that if we view a woman with derision for making a risky choice, we should view the man with derision as well. You didn't just say to hold her accountable for making the choice. You used a level of condescending language to describe her that is NOT applied to risk-taking men. As men, we should be willing to eschew hypocrisy and carry the same burden of criticism if we want to dole it out. That was my point.

So, if women were saying, 'yeah, I got raped because I was stupid and walked home blind drunk at 3AM' I think

Wait, are you talking about real rape now instead of "regret sex"? There's so much back and forth.

If real rape, a key difference is that there is an aggressor, another man's actions and criminal intent involved. In the sports accidents, there isn't. What about drunken fights? Or when a group of guys jumps a single guy in the street? Are you saying men should say 'yeah, I got brutally beaten because I was stupid and walked home blind drunk at 3AM'?

If so, you're at least consistent. But most people would place the majority of blame on the group of guys who jumped him.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy

No no, I am not at any time saying that if someone actually commits rape that this is in any way excusable. I am not saying we should be soft on rapists, absolutely not. But because you put a rapist in jail and throw away the key does not mean that therefore you should just ignore the actions of the victim (and yes, we are talking about actual rape victims here, not regret rape). There is a difference between saying that someones actions are stupid, and that they are a criminal. A rape victim is obviously not a criminal (and therefore has no judicial punishment), but refusing to acknowledge that she made stupid decisions, and supporting her and other women making exactly the same stupid decisions going forward, is crazy. That seems to be what we are doing, though.

As for the condescending language, there is a difference between climbing a mountain for sport (and taking full advantage of training, safety procedures and equipment, etc), and just being an idiot who gets blind drunk in bad circumstances. At least, there is to me. I would take the same attitude towards a man who is that stupid, as I said about my not dreaming that I would stagger home blind drunk at 3am. Man or woman, that is just stupid. The group of men that jump out and beat me up? They are criminals, but I would be stupid for putting myself in that situation. This is not the same as being in a situation that I might reasonably expect was safe but turned out not to be, and it would be the same for a woman raped in that situation. I'm blaming women for being stupid when they actually are stupid, not for every situation where a rape occurs.

[–]PhucCheet 4 points4 points [recovered] | Copy

No no, I am not at any time saying that if someone actually commits rape that this is in any way excusable. A rape victim is obviously not a criminal (and therefore has no judicial punishment), but refusing to acknowledge that she made stupid decisions, and supporting her and other women making exactly the same stupid decisions going forward. That seems to be what we are doing, though.

Alright, this is an important distinction. And you'd think this would be obvious, not need qualifying.

The problem lies in the fact that we rarely know what really happened. For both true rape and false accusations, we have to make a judgment largely based on people's stories. There are incentives to lie in both directions. The most common legal defense for true rape is that it's a false accusation, that it was consensual and excusable. They only blame the girl for being unhappy with the outcome, claim the only fault was her stupid decision and the the guy did nothing wrong. Defense lawyers feed on all the documented false accusations because it just bolsters their defense strategy. They will do everything possible to paint their client's story just like stories of other false accusations to get him off. They may even employ PR agents to spread media messages confirming this story before a trial.

And in the end, the truth gets obscured. Sometimes people say the guy did nothing wrong, she was at fault for getting drunk and making a poor decision, even when it was true rape. Other times people blame the guy and label him a rapist even when it was actually consensual and she was lashing out for some personal gain. BOTH these falsehoods get in the way of justice.

Due to the legal defense strategy and the long history of difficulty prosecuting rape charges, society is reluctant to admit any fault on the woman's part. Because if any fault can be attributed to her at all, then her credibility is shot down in a court of law and a real rapist goes free. So I think it goes beyond being unwilling to hold a vulnerable group accountable. It's an attempt to help real victims get a fair trial. There are legal ramifications to judging the woman's decisions, biasing how jurors rule.

Criminal defense lawyers, and need to respond to their tactics, may largely be at fault for the PC guidelines around what can be said about the victim. It stems from a desire to not undermine the case before it's even tried.

At least, there is to me. I would take the same attitude towards a man who is that stupid, as I said about my not dreaming that I would stagger home blind drunk at 3am. Man or woman, that is just stupid. The group of men that jump out and beat me up? They are criminals, and I would be stupid for putting myself in that situation.

Alright, that's consistent and a reasonable position. I am less judgmental than that in my own personal life, but I accept your reasoning and alternate standards as fair.

[–]31t1me3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

Something very like that did happen to me when I was 21. Staggered out of a bar after last call and went stumbling through the alley toward my apartment.

A couple guys came outta nowhere and broke my nose, knocking me to the ground. I pulled my pocket knife and flailed it drunkenly at them saying I had no money. They circled for a while but I guess didn't think I had anything in my pockets worth maybe getting stabbed in the foot, so they muttered some racial slurs and moved on.

I got up, staggered home, had a neighbor help set my nose. It never occurred to me to call the cops, I absolutely considered the encounter a result of my stupidity and took it as a lesson. I altered my behavior thereafter and never tried to walk home that drunk again.

Edit- Not saying their actions weren't criminal, just that I think taking reasonable care of my own security is my responsibility, and I failed that night.

I'm also not trying to equate a broken nose with a rape, but having had it broken several times, and been through the TSA line, I think I prefer having my genitals groped by gross guys to having my beak busted.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

but you're willing to equate going through airport security with being raped. keep it classy bro

[–]Lice138-1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy

Humans are retarded. Why does anyone still smoke? The evidence has been out there for years. People don't all avoid something just because they know there could be risks.

No, but with smoking the risks are understood. It would be retarded in this day and age to blame the tobacco company for your lung cancer.

If you walk into a dark alley and get stabbed, cops will take the assault seriously. The fact that you walked down the alley doesn't absolve the attacker. If a girl goes to a party and gets actually raped (not "regret sex" but rape), why should the attacker be absolved just because she went there?

Where your logic fails is that "regret sex" is rape now. Then you went on to do what so many cucks and feminists try to do, you take an example of regret sex (which is rape these days) and try to warp it into actual rape, its a very unoriginal strawman argument. Do they teach that in feminist studies ?

[–]PhucCheet 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy

Angry much? You must have been quite a cuck before swallowing RP.

Then you went on to do what so many cucks and feminists try to do, you take an example of regret sex (which is rape these days) and try to warp it into actual rape, its a very unoriginal strawman argument. Do they teach that in feminist studies ?

You just used Strawman, Ad hominem,... Yawn.

No, I'm talking about actual rape, not warping regret sex into rape, lame attempt at a deflection. Do you believe 0 rapes happen at frat parties, it's 100% regret sex? I already said not regret sex. I'm talking about when the girl is UNCONSCIOUS, already passed out, and some frat boy fucks her in some bedroom or bathroom. Or when she gets roofied. That's not regret sex. If she's not conscious it's obviously rape, unless you're retarded.

[–]Lice138-3 points-2 points  (4 children) | Copy

ou just used Strawman, Ad hominem,... Yawn.

I don't think you know what those mean...

No, I'm talking about actual rape, not warping regret sex into rape,

Lets review...

But this isn't the same with rape victims. If you ask a "rape" victim why she got black out drunk and naked in her "attackers" house then you are "blaming" the "victim".

If a girl goes to a party and gets actually raped (not "regret sex" but rape), why should the attacker be absolved just because she went there?

I'm talking about when the girl is UNCONSCIOUS, already passed out, and some dude fucks her in some bedroom or bathroom. Or when she gets roofied. That's not regret sex. If she's not conscious it's obviously rape, unless you're retarded.

fuck them in the bathroom? Fuck that, i'll fuck them in the ass, but anyways... I put forth an example of what i was talking about and you went off like a jackass about actual rape, which nobody is confused about. You are retarded, that is not a logical fallacy. Your arguments are horrible and that makes you retarded, your arguments don't suck because you are retarded.

[–]PhucCheet 3 points3 points [recovered] | Copy

I don't think you know what those mean...

You accused me of warping regret sex into actual rape, which I didn't so, hence a Strawman. You made a lame attempt to discredit me based on background ("is that what they teach you in feminist school"), which is an Ad Hominem.

I put forth an example of what i was talking about and you went off like a jackass about actual rape, which nobody is confused about.

The other guy was able to redirect without acting like a jackass. Clearly you weren't. Says a lot about you.

If your metaphor was supposed to be about "regret sex" and not rape, you used a bad one. Leaving a bill out where someone can take it is not a metaphor for regret sex. It's a metaphor for rape. It's just leaving something in a dangerous situation, which still requires an aggressor to come up and take it (e.g. walking down a dark alley and getting stabbed, going to a party and getting drugged and raped). There is no consent or regretted decision. An accurate metaphor for regret sex is "buyers remorse", i.e. getting a tattoo when you're really drunk and then regretting it the next morning. Or giving that $100 to a homeless man when drunk and then sobering it up and wishing you hadn't. Just leaving it there in a dangerous place to be taken is a metaphor for rape, not regret sex, because there is nothing close to consent happening. Any idiot can see that.

[–]Lice138-2 points-1 points  (2 children) | Copy

You accused me of warping regret sex into actual rape, which I didn't so, hence a Strawman. You made a lame attempt to discredit me based on background ("is that what they teach you in feminist school"), which is an Ad Hominem.

you just bypassed full retard and went straight to potato

The other guy was able to redirect without acting like a jackass. Clearly you weren't. Says a lot about you.

lol cries feminist tears about adhominem, proceeds to do it himself.

I don't care what the other guy did and I don't care if you think I am an asshole.

f your metaphor was supposed to be about "regret sex" and not rape, you used a bad one.

Wow, do you have aspergers or something? "Regret sex" is rape now, don't you get that? You clearly don't

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

you just bypassed full retard and went straight to potato

Do you think throwing insults around makes you seem more alpha? Alpha men can stay calm and have a rational debate. Your feelings are flying around everywhere like a little bitch. Learn to control that shit.

Wow, do you have aspergers or something? "Regret sex" is rape now, don't you get that? You clearly don't

Some feminists call "regret sex" "rape", which is different from them being objectively the same thing.

If you prefer, let's divide rapes into 2 mutually exclusive categories: "regret sex" and "other rape". I was clearly talking about "other rape". Your metaphor applies to rapes in the "other rape" category, not in the "regret sex" category.

If you meant to talk about "regret sex" only, your own metaphor failed. I already showed how. Your own fault. And you didn't mean to do that, then I did not strawman you at all. Now calm yourself.

[–]alternativeuniversek4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Lice, like many others, is never going to understand you, unfortunately. His intellect and comprehension is much weaker than yours... and, as you correctly identified, his feelings are flying around everywhere like a little bitch. Not just him, but anyone responding to you here is reacting with highly emotional anger bordering on hysteria.

You're using logic and intelligent reason to demonstrate a concept that should be easy to grasp - that actual rape is something that happens and is different from "regret sex". However, Lice and others are determined to read this as "oh my God how dare you say that regret sex is rape!" with the same hysterical defensiveness. I don't think they're aware of the highly emotional anger evident in their posts.

Lice and others (hi, MGTOWers!) won't respond to logical arguments because narcissists only believe in their own narrative, disregarding logic or other opinions. I think that there are many men here who genuinely believe that rape is an illusion and that 100% of rape incidents are total lies. They are not over-generalizing, they literally believe it - it's their narrative, and narcissists cling to their own distorted narratives.

People here like to hang shit on asktrp, which is a shame because occasionally someone will come along with a genuine question that deserves a sensible answer. The belief among some members here that "all rape = bullshit" was obvious when a guy posted about his friend (male) who was passed out at a house party and was anally raped. The OP asked for suggestions to help his friend, who was suicidal and in a lot of pain - physical and emotional - after waking up and realizing what had happened. It was a pretty horrific story, actually.

Every single one of the eight or so respondents told OP that there's no such thing as rape. The "advice" he got for his friend were comments such as:

"lol your friend is a faggot who loved it"

"no such thing as rape, your friend would not have allowed dude to push through LMR if he didn't want to be fucked"

And more moronic comments in that vein. "Your friend had anal sex, therefore he's gay," was the general consensus. Because rape = bullshit.

That was about four or five months ago. I remember thinking: "Wow, it's reached THIS level." You heard it here first, folks. There is no such thing as men or women being raped, ever. Welcome to Redincelmgtow.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Lice1380 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy

Do you also blame victims of car accidents for getting in the car?

No, I would blame them for driving drunk on the wrong side of the road.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Lice1380 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

It's a simple analogy, let me break it down for you. Rape is bad and it does happen. In many cases it could have been avoided by thinking for two seconds, not saying that it is every okay to rape.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Lice1380 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

I'm confused, it was just drunken sex until some guy who wasn't actually there told you it wasn't? If he would have told you that you were all over him would it not have been rape?

Since you were both intoxicated, why is he 100% responsible for his actions and you are not? According to your story you don't remember the night, so it is a possibility that you could have given in to his advances? Do you know that you didn't get up and jump all over him in a drunken stupor?

I'm just trying to look at this logically without the constant appeal to emotion that is used when talking about rape.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Lice1380 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Your reading comprehension is poor. I was with two friends. I fell asleep before friend #1 left, and friend #2 raped me while I was passed out.

No yours is...

it was just drunken sex until some guy who wasn't actually there told you it wasn't?

I don't think you are smart enough for this conversation

[–]Malkard8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy

Another thing is the incentive for reporting rape. I dated one rape victim. She was more cautious to not put herself in dangerous situations, or at least showed worry when she did. Then when we started having sex, there were regular panic attacks, and also nightmares. Let's just say the evidence was compellinging enough for me to believe her.

She did not report it to the police and when you think about it, why would she?

  • She'd have to relive the traumatic event, have her credibility and character challenged publicly.

  • It would imply pissing someone who was capable of violent behaviour, someone who had threatened her life to keep her silent. Even if she got a conviction, that guy would be out in a few years and she'd have to look over her shoulder all the time.

  • Even if she does get justice, she still has to live with the psychological trauma. She doesn't get "reparations" like other crimes, there is no undoing what happened.

Reporting this crime, when you're a true victim, has two potential benefits that I see which, in my opinion, are dwarfed by the downfalls stated above:

  • You get a sense of "relief" from sending your attacker to jail, and having justice done. I can't speak as a true victim, but when I try to imagine some other major wrongdoing, punishing the wrongdoer doesn't seem like it's that big a boon for the victim. You're still stuck with the consequences.

  • You might get to save other potential victims.

On the other hand, if you're a false accuser, your morality is questionable at best. Your solipsism is high enough to withstand public challenge. Your "attacker" has not proven himself to be capable of violence (yet). She has no psychological trauma to live with. You get to have power over someone who, presumably, pissed you off, and you get to play the victim with all the pity and attention that comes with it.

This only takes care of the black and white cases (the true victim, and the malicious bitch). I can't even imagine all the gray areas in between, for example drunk (but not unconscious) sex where , legally, consent cannot be given.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

I had a similar experience with an ex. She had episodes of reliving the trauma. There's no way to fake PTSD so convincingly. She told me details that were simply too graphic for an imagination.

It breaks my heart because she couldn't get him prosecuted. He threatened her life of course too. Now there's some psychopath on the streets who is committing extremely violent rapes to others.

[–]madethewrongmistake0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Well, the gray areas are the vast majority of cases unfortunately. Read the Jameis Winston police report and then the Brock Turner police report, and you'll see how two cases on opposite ends of the spectrum of grays get vastly different treatment in the court and media. The issue is that the gray area is the political battleground, so the big fights happen in the 'light gray' areas, and the more clear-cut the crime, the less anybody cares.

[–]ransay327716 points17 points  (13 children) | Copy

First question to ask a woman who claims to have been raped... How many years did he get? If the answer is none: run.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (12 children) | Copy

So by your logic, if a man is not found guilty of rape in court and sentenced, no rape occurred?

You realize that's not even how the justice system works, right, and that judges will acknowledge this in their statements.

[–]nodoxsavefreespeech 7 points7 points [recovered] | Copy

The better question to ask is "did you report it to the police".

All public rape claims are false. Nobody that was REALLY raped brings it up casually.

[–]PhucCheet 8 points8 points [recovered] | Copy

Many people who are really raped don't report it to the police though, so how is that test useful?

Let's step back from the heated issue of men vs feminists and false rape accusations and refer to a different issue. What about men who are raped in prison or molested by priests as altar boys? Do 100% of them come forward to the police right away? Or ever? No. Why? Think about it.

Wouldn't the same reasons apply to some female rape victims? Or are women somehow supposed to be more rational than men?

[–]nodoxsavefreespeech 9 points9 points [recovered] | Copy

Ok... let's say you are a man and were raped in prison or by a priest. Do you bring it up casually?

All public rape accusations are false.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy

Ah, don't misunderstand me, I agree about the casual part making it suspicious. Some true victims will disclose to close friends in confidence. They're doubtful to go public about it without filing a police report though, absolutely. I just meant that not all true victims will file reports either.

But if they're all over the media and not filing reports, highly suspicious.

[–]2kevin324 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

You are well aware that men are held to a different standard of conduct than women. From childhood men are conditioned to "Be strong", "Boys don't cry", "Be a man". Women get no such conditioning and are treated as the "weaker sex", dependent on men to achieve her aims.

So men who don't report rape do so out of pride. They perceive they'll be called "pussies" for coming forward. Women who don't report legitimate rape do so out of fear, followed by depression, because real rape is violent and traumatic. The rape scene from the Irreversible film depicts this.

The point of saying "All women lie about rape" is to spotlight that when the average woman does come forward to make a rape accusation, the evidence and her behavior don't match the accusation. Police couldn't find sufficient evidence that a rape occurred when they sampled her body using a rape kit (no hair follicles, skin cells, bruises, scratchmarks, etc). And in those instances where the accused admits sex occurred, there is no evidence of a struggle, suggesting it was sex she later regretted. Then when you watch her actions after the accusation, she's out socializing and clubbing and jovial to say she was recently raped.

You want to hear that some rapes occur, but the emphasis being made is that false accusations greatly overshadow any legitimate rapes, which suggests ironically that in a culture where women are supposedly raped all the time, rape is the one crime where a man truly is innocent until proven guilty.

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]nodoxsavefreespeech 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

Did you report it to the police?

No

Then you weren't raped. Plain and simple.

[–][deleted] 2 points2 points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]ransay32770 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Actually no, I don't think that. But the question will elicit a lot more information. Rape is a serious matter. Those that truly commit it should "go away for awhile." A long while. But at the same time there are a rash of hoax's. I just don't want my fellow man's life ruined because she regrets that two nights ago she was tied face down and blindfolded while she cried "do me daddy!" as he's power slamming her back door that she begged him to do 5 minutes earlier. Fair enough?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Yeah, you don't want people's lives ruined from false accusations. The problem is a trial's outcome doesn't really tell you whether the accusation was false.

A trial isn't some focus group expert panel where they deliberate over evidence to decide whether or not rape happened. The purpose of the trial is to determine whether the state has presented a strong enough case to violate a person's individual rights and lock him up without public outcry of a totalitarian police state. If a jury of peers agrees with the state's case and doesn't see cause for reasonable doubt, then the state feels safe locking up a criminal for the public good, without much risk of upsetting the public.

With that context in mind, it's obvious why there's a presumption of innocence, a jury of peers (not experts), a state prosecutor (instead of a private attorney for the victim), and a bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt." The whole process is about having checks and balances of state power. If someone is found "not guilty", it doesn't even mean the evidence supports that no rape happened. Someone can be found "not guilty" even when the evidence suggests a real rape. It just means enough doubt was introduced that the state can't lock the guy up.

Due to the way the system works, it's much more likely that a real rapist is acquitted of charges than a falsely accused person is convicted. So by asking that question, you're going to discredit a lot of real rapes. It's not a good way to determine whether her story is credible.

"Did you go to the cops?" is better at least. The hoaxes are unlikely to.

[–]ransay32771 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Good point. I stand corrected.

[–]2kevin329 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy

For a lengthy list of false accusations in the media, check out the Men's Rights sub here.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

That makes some level of sense, if we assumed that rape was the one crime victims didn’t want to report.

It IS the one crime where whether a crime was committed relies entirely on credibility of the victim's testimony, due to the unique aspect of "consent" that is not present in other major crimes.

That makes it substantially harder to prove. It's easy to prove sex happened. It's harder to prove it was nonconsensual. But you don't have to prove a murder victim didn't consent to murder... Most other crimes can rely harder on physical evidence, not subjective testimony (which is prone to "reasonable doubt"). That makes rape uniquely hard to prosecute.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

"All weak people revel in their victimhood, it is the foundation of their identity." Fuck.Yes.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

[–]teeelo2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy

Okie doke.

Rps I hope you read this because I gotta ask you to ask yourself if you're not gerbiling like crazy.

We've often talked about a woman's superpower of being able to use her hamster to rationalize some bizarre conclusion to justify their actions.

Are you sure you're not creating 4 chapters of mental gymnastics yourself to try and get us to come to the same bizarre conclusion?

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Did you try reading it?

[–]teeelo1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I will and I trust you.

I swear I didn't have that knee jerk reaction to the concept either.

[–]Nergaal2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Case-in-point: everybody remembers the FBI looking into Jolie's allegation on Brad Pitt physically abusing their kids; but nobody mentioned the FBI closing the case recently with no findings

[–]goldnhorde1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Now I see why you liked my comments from the last two segments regarding fraternities, accountability, and risk management.

The statement of "Using YOUR numbers .... over 35% of our nations sexual assault cases would disappear ... if women didn't go to Frat Parties .... you're not there .. it doesn't happen .. 35% gone , just like that ... nationwide".

now you would think that if you knew any ONE ACTION that could eliminate 35% of any type of violent crime ... or fatal illness .... or any type of horrible event .... that this is a no brainer.

nope. why?

because women truly believe that they are due free drinks. that is the biggest response I get when putting the frat question line to a woman. they go there for free drinks. what's the problem .... give me free drinks. why are we going .... free drinks.

when I pressed a scenario on a woman I was speaking with, I said .... if I knew a heavy crime area where there was a 35%chance of me getting shot ... I would at a safe distance all the way around that area , safely, on my way home. Understanding the point that was made earlier .... and the paralleled I was making ... she began to go into a diatribe about how the police should have to go to that area and make it safe for me.

"Free Drinks"

this conversation that I have had multiple times with multiple women would lead me to believe the above ... all women know this statistic is complete and utter rubbish and act accordingly until it is time to dust off the party line and support the claims that they are profiting from.

[–]Katavasis1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Very insightful.Also,very 'dangerous' knowledge that can get you in real problem if discussed publically.

On another note,immigration and rapes are a very hot topic,highjacked by both left and right political parties. We hear every day about Europe getting raped but now it's coming from the more conservative brackets of political thoughr,in contrast with the American rape culture that comes from the other side.

Raises a lot of questions. Let's say that there is indeed a rape epidemic.Why the left does not report it?Do they sacrifice one of their narratives to support something bigger? Now let's say that there is not a rape epidemic.It would be obvious why the right would push that and i guess the left has nothing to gain to 'manufacture' a rape culture since they are minorities.But can you see the double standard?Many of these immigrants ARE coming from an actual rape culture.

My POV is that there are not THAT many rapes happening in Europe.And to connect the subject to the original post,the rapes that ARE happening are reported and although individual behaviour change,the behaviour of the respected countries don't.

[–]Senior EndorsedMattyAnon1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

One key aspect of our victim culture is power inversion where supposed victims are believed (and have precedence and superiority) over supposed perpetrators.

Even when there is no victimhood and where no abuse took place. Victims are still victims, perpetrators are still bad. Regardless of the facts.

Rape, sexual differences, race differences, racial history and to a certain extent god, global warming and evolution - all maintain a power structure through victim-status and shutting down of the discussion.

Question rape? You're clearly a misogynistic rapist, how dare you not believe this victim.

Question anything on race? Shut up racist.

Question the holocaust? Shut up holocaust denier.

The common thread is one of shutting down discourse through ad hominem attacks. You can't even discuss the possibility that The Narrative might not be true before being shot down in polite and even impolite company. "Shut up man, you can't say that about girls" - as men subconsciously suck up to the non-present females and try to hold onto their own blue pill unicorn fantasy.

The weak have been phenomenally effective in attacking the strong by co-opting the sense of fairness that winners (ie men) have and their need for female approval. Male fairness and egalitarianism is used against us. Men don't see this trap - they scramble to avoid female criticism and do everything possible to avoid being seen as unfair (sexist, racist, etc).

Women have been so effective in this, and have culturally absorbed this - without even remembering their own lies and history. In the female mind "I don't like it" and "sexist" are the same thing. She tries "I don't like that" and noone cares. She tries "sexist!" and everyone scrambles for her approval so guess which she uses next time?

Everything from male success to wages to porn to men wanting to fuck women is labelled "sexist" not because it's true but because it's effective. Of course her own relentless sexism (male obligations, female freedom from responsibility) isn't sexist because it's against men. And men are never the victims in her head, so that's just fine.

The "Sexist" label now just means "Didn't give me as much female privilege as I am entitled to".

In general in this victim formulation winners are labelled as undeserving oppressors. Work hard all your life and make lots of money? That's no longer an achievement, that's white male privilege. It wasn't you that did all those amazing things, it was the colour of your skin and your penis. Of course that not all whites and not all males achieved what you have is an uncomfortable fact that should be dismissed immediately without thought.

Power is maintained by attacking winners. Your country won all the wars in the last century? That's no longer winning, that's now defined as oppression. There are no losers any more, only victims. People would much rather be a victim than a loser.

How did we get here? What caused this power inversion? The roots of all this include:

  • Winner's guilt. "Oh my god maybe they're right, maybe being white or having penis is really why I have all this success!", which is of course co-opted by losers.

  • Democracy. Now I'm a firm believer in democracy, but it really is the ultimate power inversion. More power is handed to women every year in keeping with the male protectiveness of women coupled with the female protectiveness of themselves.

  • Feminism. Male protectiveness of the female is co-opted to increase female power at the expense of men. There is no male equivalent because men don't care about men. This ends with men holding up placards amounting to "I need feminism because I'm a little bitch".

  • Men believing all this shit. Let's face it, we've been duped for centuries. We have believed (because we wanted to!) that women will love us, care for us and be loyal to us. We genuinely believed women didn't like muscular jacked guys but really appreciated our generosity.

Rape is the epitomy of all this. Victims must be believed, or you are a rape-enabler or an actual rapist. Her power is maintained through criticism and victim-privilege. Proxy violence is enacted (either "beat him up he raped me" or simply calling the police with her made-up sob story).

The white knights at the police force are told to increase the rape conviction rates (and you can't question how many of the allegations are actually true, what are you a rapist?) - and the only way to do that is to lower the burden of proof.

There was a headline here about a girl who was sexually assaulted on a train. Oh my god, sexually assaulted? That means either rape or forced oral right?? Turns out she was TOUCHED. Just TOUCHED in a way that she said she didn't like - no proof offered. For all we know she made it up. She may even have been touched after flirting heavily with the guy and touching him first. That wouldn't even make her a liar.

But noone questions this. Because that would be sexist.

[–]butter_coffee1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Whoa, you gave the perfect explanation of what victim blaming is.

I made a long winded post on another website about how self-victimization is a mask for selfishness, helplessness, irresponsibility/excuses, and instant gratification (validation and attention); and that it would feel better to take action and admit your own faults.

Someone with depression was very angry at this (a risk I knew could happen), and said something along the lines of "This is victim blaming and making it worse!" And instead of getting angry or responding, I thought about what she said. Is this the exception to self-victimization?

How does "victim blaming" fit into my world view that almost all complaints are a form of self-victimization? And now I know, victim blaming protects the status of the self professed victim, to make them even more of a victim. Which is funny in a way.

[–]wub12344 points5 points  (34 children) | Copy

Another possible explanation for the number of rape accusations which don't even make it to court, let alone result in conviction, is that rape is extremely difficult to prove legally even when it has actually happened. For example, here is this issue being discussed in The Independent. Here are hundreds and hundreds of links discussing this on Google. This is a rather simpler explanation, which most people accept, that doesn't require thousands and thousands of words of pseudo-philosophy.

Of course, it is correct that in a case with doubts that there should be a not guilty verdict, and this should not change. But this is why it is so difficult to prosecute rape, and the conviction rate is extremely low, as far as I know lower than for any other crime.

Failing to acknowledge this does not represent swallowing a red pill, it represents ignoring the bleeding obvious.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 7 points8 points  (23 children) | Copy

I mean, you could've just written "I didn't read it, listen to me!"

[–]wub12346 points7 points  (22 children) | Copy

I can tell that you're a good writer, that is quite evident. But I don't think you can discuss rape without acknowledging that rape convictions are extremely difficult to get (which I largely agree with). In fact, this should be a primary point in any discussion of rape.

Instead, at one point you stated:

Even if we assume that rape convictions are hard to get due to lack of proof

Even if we assume? Suggesting that this somehow isn't the case! It definitely is the case for really obvious reasons.

The conviction rate for rape is entirely defined by the fact that it's difficult to get a conviction. Indeed, most accusations get nowhere near court because there is no usable evidence. Only cases where police and prosecutors believe that the woman has a strong case get to court.

Rape is not defined by women's attempts to gain some sort of cultural power. It is wrong that these laws are changing in the UK, I strongly oppose this. But you have to acknowledge, as a primary point, that rape is almost impossible to prove and that conviction rates are low precisely for this reason above all else.

I just wanted to point that out, I'm not a RPer, please go back to your discussions.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 4 points5 points  (18 children) | Copy

This isn't really a refutation of my point.

My point is that the number of actual rapes doesn't match the anonymous statistics.

There are many prongs to my point, some of which you have pulled out of context here.

[–]OneWonder 3 points3 points [recovered] | Copy

I don't know if u/wub1234 meant to emphasize and literally prove your point but it explains the hamstering that will exist when people are faced with logical fallacies surrounding rape. They're focusing on the legal repercussions of this horrific crime when that is not the reality. It's not even the point you're trying to get across.

The idea of a perpetual invisible threat that a man CAN rape a woman is enough to change the social stigma surrounding interactions between genders. If women as a whole can play victim, even if there's only 5-7% convictions of rapes sent to court, then what's the consequence for women to make false accusations. Coincidentally, I believe this user is furthering your point by using "facts" that show the amount of rape accusations do not match the amount of convictions from a legal perspective when you are listing the pros and cons surrounding rape from a societal perspective.

Also, it's worth mentioning that your Red Flag 2 was hard to understand at first as to what was benefiting whom. From what I understand, essentially you are saying that if the statistics were under represented rather than hypothetically over represented it would benefit rapists as they could then fly below the radar.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I agree, Red Flag two was a bit confusingly worded. I tried rewording it.

[–]wub12343 points4 points  (15 children) | Copy

My point is that the number of actual rapes doesn't match the anonymous statistics.

We don't know this. We just don't know because it's one person's word against another.

Anyway, good luck with your posts, you're a good writer.

[–]Lo-G1 point2 points  (14 children) | Copy

He provided actual proof in his post. Did you even read it or did you stop at the exact point when your cognitive dissonance made your feelings feel weird?

[–]wub12343 points4 points  (13 children) | Copy

I don't really want to get into a big discussion about this.

But there is no cognitive dissonance. It is just a fact that rape is extremely difficult to prove, it is also a fact that many cases never get to court because there is no usable evidence, and in fact police and prosecutors will only advance strong cases.

I didn't even mention the fact that women are often put through a pretty horrible ordeal when appearing in court, and yet at the end of it, even if they have been raped, their chances of prosecution are about 5-7% (in the UK, at least).

That isn't contentious in any way, I don't see how anyone can possibly object to those statements, most of which are factual.

[–]Lo-G0 points1 point  (12 children) | Copy

You're comparing apples to oranges. Even if you point were true. It's not relevant to the point of this post. The fact that you're not even willing to address that indicates to me that you stopped reading halfway through. The point of this post is not to diminish the struggle of women that have actually been raped. The point is that the likelihood of a woman saying she has been raped when no such thing happened, is much larger than you would've thought in advance.

(the second point of this post is to generate controversy so TRP gets more views, but that's irrelevant)

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

The point is that the likelihood of a woman saying she has been raped when no such thing happened, is much larger than you would've thought in advance.

Well, this depends on your reference point, what you believed in advance. I'd have assumed most RP guys would have already believed many accusations were false. This isn't the first thread about false rape accusations. Given the argument above, is the likelihood really greater than what those people believed before? There's only evidence and conjecture that SOME are, but no good way to quantify how many. It's enough to convince the likelihood is greater than what most feminists believe, but that's also not the audience it was written to.

[–]wub12341 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy

Even if you point were true.

My point is true. It's emphatically correct. It is not even open to debate.

The point is that the likelihood of a woman saying she has been raped when no such thing happened, is much larger than you would've thought in advance.

But we just don't know this. Even if a case goes to court and there is no conviction, we don't know that no rape took place. All we know is that there was insufficient evidence to convict. Because rape is hard to prove. Which is well known, and my whole point.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy

So you agree that 1/2 of women have been "sexually assaulted and 1/5 were raped"? Dont you think if these were true women would behave differently?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

rape is hard to prove. Which is well known, and my whole point.

Your point doesn't refute the overall point, which is false rape accusations happen more frequently than portrayed by the likes of people like you.

[–]2kevin320 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

most accusations get nowhere near court because there is no usable evidence...rape is almost impossible to prove and that conviction rates are low precisely for this reason above all else.

So there are these things called "rape kits" that the police use on the victim to find evidence of rape against the accused.

If a woman was really raped, then she would go straight to the police and have them gather evidence off her person that connects to her assailant.

The reason there is "no usable evidence" is because no rape occurred. They couldn't find a single hair follicle or skin cell of the accused on her person. And in those cases where the accused admits sex occurred, there is "no usable evidence" that he had sex with her against her will (i.e. struggle-fucking), which suggests she regretted sex that was consensual.

Real rapists don't make love to their victims in the comfort of home. They take them violently in outside environments and leave evidence of a struggle. Women can't fabricate a violent rape so they play the "he said she said" game.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Real rapists don't make love to their victims in the comfort of home. They take them violently in outside environments and leave evidence of a struggle.

Are you trolling or joking?

[–]wub12341 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Really. So there is a 5-7% conviction rate for rape (which is just strong cases that get to court). So we know that 93-95% of rape accusations are definitely false? And that even though it is widely acknowledged that rape is difficult to prove, by legal experts, we can completely ignore this and just assume that every single woman who fails to prove rape in court is lying?

This is why I don't want to get into a discussion. I won't post any more, you can believe whatever you want.

[–]OneWonder 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy

"It's hard to get a rape conviction"

Well no shit. No one believes the statistics. No one's actions represent the "facts" we are being told. Not the judges, not the jury, not the attorney, not even the woman. It's a power play drawn out to just be another way to put betas in their place and essentially neutering them. If it were true you wouldn't waste your time trying to refute the "obvious". You do not understand enough of TRP to try and divulge on this topic. Also this is part 3. Read the other parts first.

[–]wub12342 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy

Seems a bit aggressive and dismissive, my friend, considering I was simply pointing out an irrefutable fact.

[–]OneWonder 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy

It's simply not science. When someone gets shot by a murderer they go to the hospital. When someone gets robbed they call the police and normally they're roughed up. The bruises and wounds are evidence for the crime. Rape leaves evidence as well.

A reply above says rape kits are a thing, albeit this could be a new concept to you. Unless the victim is drugged (which can also be tested for) I don't understand the numbers you're using. It's just another BP "statistic" being thrown out with words like "irrefutable". In the first part of this post OP said, "What if you went to the moon and learned it's inhabited by moon men and you can breathe on it." You would be dismayed to the point of mental breakdown. This is the pill you cannot swallow as you have been conditioned to not even converse on the subject without questioning your own beliefs. All of us here were not born red pill. We live and have been conditioned in a blue pill world. We are the ones who ask the questions and provide hypotheses when things seem malignant while society, and pundits like you tell us the "answers".

[–]wub12342 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy

I don't really understand why you're getting annoyed with me, when I have been perfectly polite.

I'm just pointing out that rape is difficult to prove. This is nothing to do with BP or RP, it's just a fact.

[–]OneWonder 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy

I don't think you understand much to be honest. You need to spend more time on more educational subreddits before trying to hamster here.

TRP is stoic. Facts and time tested hypotheses are all that matters. You do not mention any facts other than a google search and a sad independent article that says the author struggles with facing the reality surrounding rape. Even with no details provided in the article I can guesstimate that the courts did their job as a jury needs to whole fully agree that someone is guilty. Obviously, there were not enough facts because the case they were a juror for found the defendant Not Guilty. Not enough evidence at the scene could be one reason, or the victims story had holes in it, or even the defendant had a trustworthy alibi. All of the what if's I listed are more "factual" than what you have provided.

[–]wub12342 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy

Go and ask any legal professional and they will tell you that rape is difficult to prove. Go and ask one now.

[–]OneWonder 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy

Why can't I just ask you? Why is rape hard to prove?

Because u/redpillschool just outlined how the statistics alone do not match other violent crimes or descartes principles of existence.

[–]wub12344 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

I would simply be repeating myself. And then you would say "well, you don't know what you're talking about anyway". So not really a worthwhile usage of my time.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

Rape is very difficult to prosecute. That's a fact jack.

[–]Thewelshpill0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

She lives in a constant state of disaster that plays on a man's desire to lend power. It may seem baffling to him that no amount of power he lends seems to fix the endless string of calamity that is her life. What he's missing is that drama is her source of power. Discord is the dynamic that powers the weak. All weak people revel in their victimhood, it is the foundation of their identity.

best thing i've read on this sub, reminds me of my exes story of how she was drugged and raped at a night club....

"i know i was drugged because i passed out in the club toilets..."

"...and why would someone drug me if they weren't going to rape me?"

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

This is at risk of saying nothing by saying too much and covering too many nuances (something which I am regularly guilty of). Are you an ENTP?

[–]2awalt_cupcake0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

victim-hood is romanticized

[–]butter_coffee0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Wanted to share an amusing story too: In the fall, on a Wednesday I invited a girl to go to a renaissance festival with me on Friday. She gladly agreed. On Friday, she said her work conflicted with the schedule. "It's just as well, I was raped at a ren fair anyways."

[–]Buchloe0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Another one you can't question scientifically in public: the Haulocaust

[–]DarkObby0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

These posts are a great gem.

It's funny because I was involved in a discussion with a woman that covered this the other day. Something else happened where someone we knew was injured by something that wasn't directly their fault, but could have been avoided by them if they were being a bit more responsible/careful (or really even just mindful in the slightest).

Myself and my father's perspective was that we felt very bad about what happned, but we said that the entirety of fault could not be put on the other entity and that she should have thought things through more and not done what she did. However, the woman we were discussing this with has an unwavering ideology that victims are the ultimate end point. That once someone becomes a victim, everything that transpired before from their actions is irrelevant. Needless to say I knew this was asinine insanity entering my ears but I attempted to more explicitly explain what we not, albeit to no avail in the end.

Of course, this eventually lead to rape as an example. She claims that if someone is raped, it is 100% the rapists fault, no exceptions, snd the victim should be spared no solace, sympathy, and assurance that they did nothing wrong period. My father and I however brought up the obvious example of, what if a girl plans horriblely. She dresses in revealing clothes, goes to a party in a bad part of town to a place she's never been by herself and only knows let's say, one person there. Then, she gets near black out drunk and attempts to leave home alone and is either raped by a stranger or some asshole at the party tries to take advantage of her. Keep in mind this is a legitimate example of the orignal and what should be the only definition of rape, don't even get me started on the "I had sex with him and now regret it so I'm gonna call rape" BS.

So our point was, if this happens, sure it sucks. Sure the guy shouldn't have raped them. Sure it would be nice if woman didn't have to worry about rapists. But isn't it very obviously true here that part of the act was not the woman's fault per se, but that she could have easily made much better decisions that could have heavily improved the odds of the rape not happening? That she showed a clear lack in judgment and paid the priceless partially at her own doing?

My father brought up the most sensible point that the world isn't filled with candy and unicorns and that people need to have responsibility for their own actions. That sure somethings are unfair or other people's fault, but sometimes the best way to avoid things is to take precautions younselfish, because you can never 100% rely on the behavior of others. I added to this saying: What if I went out partying in the same circumstances with poor judgment, and was mugged and stabbed. If I lived, sure I would be traumatised and pissed, but I can guarantee you that I would also be cursing myself from years saying "why didn't I just go home with friends", or "why did I have to get so drunk at that stupid shit". My point was that the moment I do something risky like that and then get so drunk that my judgment is significantly impaired, I am basically throwing my fate I to the hands of others and giving up most of my own control. Sure I'm not gonna say I deserved to get mugged. Sure my parents are going to be sympathetic, but I'm sure theyd even say "why did you go to that part of town?" or "Why didn't you arrange to have a ride home before hand".

Overall our points were that in the end the blame means nothing. What matters is the effect, and goal. What would I be trying to accomplish in that scenario? Not getting mugged. I shoutdoor have been with friends, called a taxi, done many other things differently overall. Or hell, I shoulda said I'll skip this one cause one party isn't worth such risk. The same should apply to potential rape. Sure it's not your fault, but in the end who cares? Once you get raped that's it, you cannot be unrated, so the logical conclusion should be to have some self responsibility and take precautions to improve your chances. Life is full of making sacrifices or doing things we find a drag that ultimately are for our own good. This is no different. Would it be easier to not have to do all that planning? Yes. Is it dangerous and stupid to not? YES. People are supposed to do what's best for them to take care of themselves.

I had felt that we were following logical reason to the letter and had gotten out point across. She was having none of it and kept rejecting our points with go-nowhere reasoning that none of what we said matters and that a women shouldn't have to worry constantly about being raped and should be able to enjoy herself at a party without the threat of it, that she should be able to walk down the street wearing whatever and not be afraid in ANY situation. Trying to dissolve our reasoning with nonsense like saying "well how do you exactly define a bad area? You can't. So by your reasoning women should never go outside ever".

Life is fully of instances where we wish it was simpler, easier, safer, etc, but it isn't and we have to act accordingly to reality not out ideals. So if some day there is never rape somehow, sure do whatever you want. She was trying to say that the victim doesn't need to learn or do anything and that the focus should be on "redjucating" the rapists and having better social upbringings. The problem is there's always going to be rapists or some similar group of "evil people". This is undeniable because good and evil are made up concepts. To rapists, sure they might know what they're doing is wrong, but it's what they do. Obviously if they're unable to restrain themselves from committing the act then it is very core to their being. It would be like a large group of people telling you not to eat or breathe because it's evil. Don't get me wrong I hate rapists, but I can empathize with them on a human level.

So again, sure the rape itself needs to be improved, but there equally needs to be better awareness and women need to take better precautions (that as the OP stated aren't even that difficult) to avoid the issue.

It was at this moment in the conversation I realized that we would never get through to her, that all this buzz about rape was just another weapon that many woman are trying to develop so that they have even less responsibility in life. To beleive what the woman we were talking to was saying, that women should be able to do all that risky stuff yet never have any issues occur due to their dehavior is equivalent to saying that no one should ever have to have responsibility and that we should all do whatever we want and not have to worry about the repercussion. I griningly pointed out that this would also extend to the rapists, and that they shouldn't be punished if this were true.

So end all be all this is just another instance of women pulling a fast one, trying to group together and push some collective BS just so their lives are easier and that they have more power over us, and they get get away with it because they're 50% of the population. The sad part is there are probably plenty of women that do beleive this despite the ones they heard it from knowing their exaggerations, and as stated before it makes the true victims seem less significant.

It's fucked up childish, selfish trash. The fact that people trying to give helpful advice on how to avoid rape get labeled assholes that are rape deniers, or that just being accused a rapist almost always screws up your life is to me, insanity. It's the endless loop of you can never win like many other SJW nonsense fallacies. You can't out reason them because they'll just keep throwing some BS on top of it to act like theyre victims and that you're an ignorant fool oppressing them. The sad part is that I took want a better more equal world where we can all be a little happier, but this insanity is not the way to go about it in the LEAST. I try very hard to have faith in humanity and trust women and other groups of people that unfortunately tend to practice these annoying games, but after having seen and personally delt with many instances of this I cannot help but be somewhat cynical. Largely I have come to the conclusion that it's best to ignore it. No need to stress over something thats near fruitless and will go nowhere. Something that would take well past my lifetime to have changed. Life is to short and I should focus and what matters and not let the fluffed up barrage of endless problems from the media bring me down. This post is an exception for me haha.

Forgive me for shitty grammar, typos, and not being as refined as the OP but it's 5am and I'm on my phone.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I wrote the start of a funny joke very similar in theme:

Did you know that women would literally rather die in agony than sleep with a man they judge as a loser?

I said that part in public earlier and a homeless woman yelled at me and told me to shut up. That was a funny fucking moment.

[–]Endorsed ContributorBluepillProfessor0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Let me weigh in because as a legal investigator I have interviewed more than 10 REAL rape victims. More about them in a second. First I want to rant about these bitches who cream the sheets, screaming and cumming all over the place, then when the guy doesn't call back the next day she hamsters it into "rape." These women should be publicly flogged to death. Just my opinion and you know how opinions are like assholes.

So let me tell you about REAL rape victims.

First, there is usually not a question. There is almost never an issue for a jury. There is NOT an issue about "are you sure it was rape" or "she consented" or "she was drunk." REAL rape victims behave like soldiers who have been to war. They have the "far stare" but even that is difficult to assess because they won't even make eye contact with a man. REAL rape victims almost always have marks, broken noses, black eyes, or at least severe bruises where the rapist held her down. The only way there would be no marks on the woman would be if she was threatened with a knife or gun to the head. If any woman tells a "rape" story that doesn't include a knife or gun and there are no marks on her body then you can be almost assured that was NOT rape.

This is the point that pisses me off so much. These selfish bitches are not just hurting the men they accuse, they are harming the REAL rape victims just so they can inject a little drama in their pathetic, worthless lives.

Second, REAL rape victims don't sit around and cry. The second the perp leaves she calls 911. They act like they are on auto pilot. They are shell shocked, not hysterical. They may cry during the examination but if that happens it can be so severe there is a good chance she will need to be sedated. Total break down. I have seen it and it is horrible.

Also, they don't wait for months or years to suddenly figure out it was "rape." Anybody seeks IMMEDIATE help after a serious and violent assault. The stories of "shame" and women "afraid to report her rape" are total and complete bullshit. Rape victims are applauded and cheered in this society and there is almost no stigma to it whatsoever. In fact it is quite the opposite. There are support groups and complete acceptance for ANY woman who claims "rape."

REAL rape victims seek help immediately because it is a serious and violent violation.

FAKE rape victims call their mom, their sister, their friends first. They sit around and whine and cry in the ultimate female circle jerk. Only after their girlfriends have validated them with sufficient sympathy will they call the police. REAL rape victims call the police first.

Third, the stories of "gang rape" are almost all total bullshit. The vast majority of men are total White Knights and a crying, struggling woman is NOT going to get them hard. In almost all of these gang rape stories, when the visual recording comes out it shows a passionate woman rolling around, rubbing herself and even actively guiding dick into pussy. Trying to call these "rape" is an outrage.

Yes, there are REAL rapes that constitute "gang rapes" and they usually involve...wait for it...GANGS. These rape gangs are composed of young thugs, criminals, racist gang bangers, and psychopaths who ALWAYS have an extensive juvenile record and often have a rap sheet that drops all the way to the floor. Also, the victims of these gang rapes are often beaten to death when it happens so they are not very hard to mistake for princess slut getting drunk, running a train, and then changing her mind the next day.

These stories of "trafficking" and men lining up to fuck a young girl chained to the bed assume that men are evil animals without an ounce of compassion. These prostitutes take on 70 and 80 guys in a day and we are told that she was "trafficked" and not one of the HUNDREDS of men she fucked every week stopped to ask: "Hey, are you OK." These stories are almost all lies and lies must be confronted.

Fourth, REAL rape victims do NOT talk about their assault. They don't use it to get attention or sympathy. They don't want anybody to know about it because it was a shameful violation. FAKE rape victims blab and whine. They cry and bitch. They put on a histrionic show for the girls and use it to Betify their boyfriends.

Rape is either a serious crime or it is not. If women don't treat it like a serious crime, then you can almost be assured that it was NOT rape. If they are not injured, and they have not made a police report then she is almost certainly lying to get attention.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Police report or it didn't happen

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Something that I've found useful is to point out the rate of rape where men are probably at their rapiest: in war zones. You can find links scattered through the internet like this one http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/PTSD-overview/women/rape-women-war-zone.asp that give some perspective on those rates for different conflicts. In Bosnia, the high estimate is that 6% of all refugee women (I.e. Women exposed to a high degree of conflict) experienced sexual assault. Yet feminists ask you to believe that an American college campus is 400% more risky than an extremely brutal war that involved things like ethnic cleansing and genocide.

This is useful, even with feminists, because it creates so much dissonance. They want men to be violent animals, and they want rape to be about power, so it's easy to get them to agree to that men are rapiest in war. Then you ambush them with the number, and ask them why they want to go to college anyway? Are they crazy? I've had a few good responses.

[–]teeelo0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Hey RPS, I'm having yet another existential crisis about the blue and red pill worlds thanks to this damn sub Reddit.

I swear I am addicted to them.

Earlier today as mind my wandered at work I had a similar epiphany about how one eventually gains an advantage over the other when being subject to persecution.

I however was brain storming about the LGBTQ community gaining all sorts of social leverage to the point where even questioning the validity of their lifestyle can be met with scorn.

So many people are quick to defend the 'persecuted' that they are in actuality enabling them and perpetuating a lie.

Another massive shit test.

That's enough red pill for one day.

[–]2kevin320 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

She gives up little or no social value for the use of a man's power. She is a leach. The man is left feeling duped when he hands over use of his power for nothing in return.

Men who have been friendzoned know this all too well, yet they're accused of being the manipulative ones.

Instead of trading affection or sex for proxy power, now women can claim to deserve that access by default.

This is what women mean when they say "You are not owed sex for anything."

Making a claim that they are indeed directly affected by the statistic ensures their piece of the power pie is reserved; the repetition of these stories is a broadcast for social status.

What happens when dozens of women come forward to claim "assault" by a celebrity; attention-whoring and gold-digging masked as "strength in numbers".

Normal rape changed from an attack by a stranger hiding in the bushes to consensual sex that a woman regrets the next day.

And when American women discuss rape situations among themselves, they find themselves needing to make the distinction by saying "rape" and "rape rape".

So if a woman describes having been assaulted or raped, and she believes the rape statistics, why would she then engage in a behavior that invalidates the belief? The answer: She does not believe the statistics, and likely doesn’t believe her own story. Her actions are inconsistent with a real victim.

A good way to determine if a woman was actually raped in the absence of physical evidence is to watch her actions. If she was raped on a Friday night - and by "rape" I mean forced to engage in penetrative sex against her will - then we can reasonably expect that she would behave in a way that is consistent with someone who experienced such a traumatic event.

What behaviors you ask? The most common are depression, conservative clothing with no makeup, and being anti-social. And these behaviors should span months or longer depending on the severity of violence involved in her rape.

But if only a week later she's still wearing the same slutty clothes, hanging out at the bars and clubs, and laughing and being a social media slut, it's a good chance her rape was a lie.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Women (and men) respond to rape differently. Some choose not to report even if they are raped because they were assaulted by a person who is violent/powerful, some choose not to because "I can get over it, it's fine". Some women report because they truly were raped and were educated to do rape kits ASAP aaaaaand the last is the manipulative bitches who can't even decide between regret and being a pillow queen.

[–]OneWonder 1 points1 points [recovered] | Copy

What men need to start doing is when a woman says they have been raped or sexually assaulted and follow up that they didn't report it to the police they should be instantly ghosted. Like modern day lepers. Don't give them any ammo once you've heard this as well. Just nod and ghost.

Soon enough they will learn that no alphas will take the risk of a prison sentence to fuck them when they spit out this crap. It's quite a contradiction that they can go to social media and post that men should be held accountable but then won't go to the authorities to report the real crime.

[–]twistedmac110 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

So men should automatically assume that every woman who says she's been raped is lying, and should avoid any future contact with her?

Also, have you just happened to miss all the reasons why real rape victims don't always report the crime to police? Or are you choosing to be that dense?

[–]OneWonder 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy

Nope just alphas who don't want to be sent to jail or face repercussions both socially and professionally by their peers.

Instead of using hyperbole such as "all of the reasons" you would be better off actually listing the reasons if you actually wanted your point to come across. The only reason I can think of is ASD but that is a result of the Female Imperative.

[–]twistedmac110 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

So, alpha men who don't want to be sent to jail or face repercussions should avoid women who say they have been raped? That sounds like you're implying that women who say they've been raped will cry rape when unhappy with their next beau as well.

To be honest, I have no idea what ASD is. A main reason of not reporting rape would be because it would be a he-said-she-said type of situation. He could claim it was consensual, even if it wasn't. If she doesn't have evidence for every single aspect of her claim, then there's no way for it to be proven in court. Another reason not to report rape would be the stigma that many still hold: "she asked for it". She was dressed like a slut, she flirted with him, she acted like she wanted it all up until the moment and then changed her mind, etc are all excuses that many make to excuse how the perpetrator acted.

In fact, you yourself just acted in a way that proves my point. You said men should "ghost" women who say they've been raped. How does this promote an environment where women feel comfortable reporting rape?

[–]OneWonder 2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy

No I'm saying alphas should not even try to comprehend or deal with a woman who said they were raped but did not report it to the police. Not only do they risk that it could have previously been a false accusation and it could happen again. But they also risk taking on a woman with other emotional and rationality issues for not going to the police.

Also I personally don't understand how there is no evidence in a violent crime like rape. In a shooting there is a gun wound. In armed robbery the victim is roughed up. And in a rape they look for DNA under fingernails, both the victim and the defendants clothing, and also their sexual organs. There is not an excuse to not go to the police if the victims want to see their perpetrators behind bars.

Also quizzically enough they won't go to the police but have no problem blasting it on social media. This is why this post is being made. The facts and actions of women do not match the statistics.

No man should ghost, hard next, or verbally abuse a woman who actually got raped and tried in the court of law. That is horrible. Only women who pull this crap should be hard nexted causing them to only find a beta or not make false accusations.

[–]twistedmac111 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Ah, okay, I see what you're saying now, although I still don't necessarily agree. The defendant could easily say the sex was consensual, albeit rough - rough doesn't equal rape. There are people who role play rape fantasies during sex, and, theoretically, the physical effects from that sex would look similar to the physical effects from rape. All it takes is a good defense attorney for the rapist to go free. I haven't even mentioned the psychological distress that would go along with essentially having to relive the rape throughout the trial. Plus the fact that any good defense attorney will try to discredit the accuser - meaning the victim's reputation will be dragged through the mud (she asked for it; she shouldn't have dressed the way she did, etc). All of that, and the rapist could still go free, but you find it hard to believe that real rape victims wouldn't report the crime? Yikes.

Also, you say that only women who are crying rape for show should be hard nexted. How would you propose a woman talk to a man about how she was raped? Should she bring court documents that prove she took the perp to court? I mean really.

EDIT: I would like to add that I am under no illusions about women falsely reporting rape, and those women absolutely need to be dealt with accordingly. My issue lies with assuming that real victims are liars based on whether or not they pressed charges against the perp.

An interesting article by Time magazine, definitely worth reading: [Why Victims of Rape in College Don't Report to the Police](time.com/2905637/campus-rape-assault-prosecution/) This is pointed towards college students, but the information in it can be applied to many other rape victims as well.

[–]killermike-el-P-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy

"What do we do with this information?" Before you said that I was starting to think you thought of us as your personal diary in which you wrote your philosophies.

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy

"What do we do with this information?" Before you said that I was starting to think you thought of us as your personal diary in which you wrote your philosophies.

That's exactly what you are to me. What are you doing interrupting me?

[–]Lo-G0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Frame = asserted.

[–]killermike-el-P0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Is this not banter?



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter