TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

      • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/seduction
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo

      • Other

      • Artful Prudence
      • A Voice for Men
      • Alpha Game
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Good Looking Loser
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • In Mala Fide
      • KillToParty
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Married Man Sex Life
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Power Moves
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • The Spearhead
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

TRP doesn't advocate for rape, except when it does.

danhakimi
July 25, 2014
0 upvotes
/r/PurplePillDebate
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title TRP doesn't advocate for rape, except when it does.
Author

danhakimi
Upvotes 0
Comments 244
Date July 25, 2014 10:39 PM UTC
(12 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2bqf1l/trp_doesnt_advocate_for_rape_except_when_it_does/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/trp-doesnt-advocate-for-rape-except-when-it-does.285243
https://theredarchive.com/post/285243
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill
Top posts by danhakimi

What do RPers think of this comic?

17 upvotes
August 12, 2014
/r/PurplePillDebate

XKCD Comic

12 upvotes
February 17, 2014
/r/PurplePillDebate

[META] Idea: PPD "Movie Nights"

11 upvotes
July 28, 2014
/r/PurplePillDebate

RPers: Are Betas inferior to Alphas?

8 upvotes
August 4, 2014
/r/PurplePillDebate

To what extent is TRP based on the following selection bias?

6 upvotes
July 27, 2014
/r/PurplePillDebate

"A Former Asshole Answers for His Bad Behavior: One dude explains why guys act like total jerks sometimes."

5 upvotes
May 24, 2015
/r/PurplePillDebate

TRP, Sexual Strategy, and Moral Content

5 upvotes
February 15, 2014
/r/PurplePillDebate

TRPers: No, seriously, how is "Captain and First Mate" not extremely sexist?

4 upvotes
June 28, 2014
/r/PurplePillDebate

Comments

[–]aintdonegotno13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (78 children) | Copy Link

Just like, "No means no".

Except, y'know, when it doesn't.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (72 children) | Copy Link

How the fuck are you going to know? If you hear no, you better fucking stop, check and clarify. Perhaps set up a safe word. Short of that, yeah, no means no.

[–]aintdonegotno3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

So, "no means no", always, no matter what, right?

[–]teeeloRed Pill8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

...no!

That's why safes words were adopted. It's part of the fantasy and thrill to be screaming no! No! No! All the while thinking, yes! yes! yes!

You add to the experience by selling the fantasy, start screaming banana! Or Furby! And then things stop.

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

In sexual situations, unless there's been a conversation about it beforehand, then yes.

[–]aintdonegotno4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

In reality things are more subtle than that.

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

No, they aren't. If you haven't talked about it beforehand, stop means stop. I would never trust someone again who didn't take no for an answer.

[–]aintdonegotno-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

There's a wide gulf between no not always meaning no, and "not taking no for an answer".

That's what I mean by subtleties. Not everyone can deal with those. Sexually unsuccessful men have a hard time with subtlety.

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Sexually unsuccessful men have a hard time with subtlety.

Yes, I agree. But that doesn't mean that just hoping a woman's 'no' really means yes is a good idea.

Yes, it depends on the situation. Yes, if she's laughing and giggling and her body language is relaxed and comfortable it's very plausible she's being coy. But you should still get consent and no, it doesn't have to kill the mood. Ask her to beg for it. Keep asking if she wants it until you get a yes. Then afterwards, if it's not just a ONS or whatever, have a conversation about safewords if playful no's are going to be a thing.

Also, I didn't say that no always means no, I said it means no if there has been no prior conversation about safe words and pushing boundaries. People who say no and mean yes without such a conversation are childish and naive and putting themselves in a dangerous situation. Yes, those people exist. Yes, there are people who want it to just "feel real" and have domination fantasies. However I will cite Louis CK on this one, that it's a pretty stupid plan to rape someone on the off-chance they're into it. Hell, there was even a post on Reddit pretty recently I saw about a guy who even did have a conversation with his girlfriend about rape play, but didn't agree on a safeword and specifics and pretty much raped her for real one night when they were both drunk. She said no, he assumed she was into it, and she wasn't. This sort of shit is dangerous and nebulous and needs to be treated very, very carefully if a couple wants to mess around with non-consensual sex roleplay. There will always be people who think safe words are lame, but I would never sleep with someone like that.

[–]aintdonegotno4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Keep asking if she wants it until you get a yes.

Which is more or less what TRP advises. In fact, methods to get that yes too. Nobody's talking about hoping.

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If that's the case, we're in agreement.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]aintdonegotno2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'd bet that a red pill type saying the sentence of yours I quoted would get branded a rapist, too. Keep after her? Rapey.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

Naw, but pointing that out tends to confuse people. "No means no" is simple, easy to understand, and by far closer to the truth than "it's complicated."

[–]aintdonegotno8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

So you prefer an easy lie instead of a complex truth?

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

For the masses, yes. The alternative involves a whole lot of rape.

[–]aintdonegotno4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

I suspect that "rape or lies" is a false dichotomy.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say there would be no rape if we told the masses "no means no." We do, and there still is. But "no means no" brings a whole lot of clarity to a whole lot of people who think no is meaningless and that if she doesn't want sex she will actually push you off of her (and not just attempt to, but succeed). There's a long conversation to be had with those who want to have it; in lieu of that conversation, "no means no" is the only explanation that will not result in lots of rape.

[–]aintdonegotno2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

in lieu of that conversation, "no means no" is the only explanation that will not result in lots of rape.

Yet you immediately admit that no doesn't always mean no.

So when TRP comes along talking about last minute resistance and anti slut defense and related concepts, you're not going to have anything better to say. "Well yeah you're right but you should be quieter about it" isn't going to convince much of anyone.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

I have no idea what you mean by "last minute resistance" or "anti slut defense." What are they? I have not said "well yeah but you should be quieter about it" yet.

[–]aintdonegotno2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Those are very standard red pill/pickup concepts that are relevant to this discussion. Not going to do your homework for you.

And no, you haven't said to be quiet, you merely imply it.

[–]danhakimi2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Those are very standard red pill/pickup concepts that are relevant to this discussion.

I've been around, and I've never heard them. I do know that TRP makes up new terminology to justify bullshit every day. Is it more of that?

Not going to do your homework for you.

As though reading about TRP is some sort of wholesome learning exercise. We're having a discussion, and you refuse to tell me what you mean because I should know. I don't think I should be an expert on TRP -- I think it takes a real jackass to keep reading enough TRP to become an expert. I get pretty sick of it pretty fast.

And no, you haven't said to be quiet, you merely imply it.

If I've been ambiguous, let me be clear:

With regard to "no means no," you should be quiet except in contexts where a healthy discussion can be had. These contexts do not include TRP, as TRP has rules against dissenting opinions. Mods will literally ban you for saying things antithetical to their claims. When you say something like "no means no, except when it doesn't," in TRP, you're shoving that phrase into a pro-rape echo chamber and nothing good will come of it. Say it here, and maybe we can have a healthy discussion. Say it in a place where people are ready and able to sit and talk and arrive at a reasonable answer, and yeah, I have no problem with that.

With regard to "last minute resistance" and "anti slut defense," I have not said or implied anything, because you refuse to tell me what the hell you mean.

[–][deleted]5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

LMR and anti-slut defense are some of the oldest concepts in PUA. If you've never heard of them, you can't have been doing your homework too hard, because even The Game specifically talks about them.

On topic, yeah, the post is over-the-top ragebait that is painting in strokes that are far too broad.

[–]aintdonegotno3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not going to provide definitions for things that you can easily google yourself. Your ignorance regarding the discussion is not my problem to solve.

I don't think I should be an expert on TRP

Yet you appoint yourself as competent to discuss it, because your feelings tell you your opinion is valid.

you should be quiet except in contexts where a healthy discussion can be had. These contexts do not include TRP

Lol. I'll keep my own counsel, thanks.

[–]danhakimi2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not going to provide definitions for things that you can easily google yourself. Your ignorance regarding the discussion is not my problem to solve.

Ugh. I think it's ignorance to know what these terms mean, as they were made up by people with agendas who are trying to trick you into buying books or some other bullshit, but fine. I googled them. What bullshit.

"Last minute resistance" sounds like revocation of consent. When she revokes consent, you do not have permission to have sex with her. Having sex with her is then rape. Perhaps women sometimes put up such resistance but don't really mean it -- I don't fucking care. You check.

Anti-slut defense, from what I have found, is:

Roughly, anti-slut defence is what we men label as ”all the reasons women have to not have sex with a man”. It is a defence mechanism that tries to bypass and work against her desires to have sex with a certain man.

So, again, it sounds like her not giving consent. Perhaps it's for silly reasons, like her feeling like a slut -- if so, maybe you should talk to her, and make her feel safe and make her feel like she does have permission to enjoy herself. You do not have permission to fuck her without her consent just because her reasons are silly.

[–]aintdonegotno2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Knowledge is ignorance. Weakness is strength. Peace is war. You're so upset you can't think straight.

they were made up by people with agendas who are trying to trick you into buying books or some other bullshit

How many books did you have to buy to do that googling?

[–]danhakimi2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're so upset you can't think straight.

Or maybe I'm upset because I'm thinking straight. Maybe that explains why people on TRP aren't all upset.

[–]aintdonegotno1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Right, because

I think it's ignorance to know what these terms mean,

Makes perfect sense.

[–]danhakimi1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It does. Knowing what "LMR" is is like knowing which race is the "master race." It's the kind of thing it takes an asshole or idiot to "know."

[–]aintdonegotno2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you want to have a discussion you need to know the material well enough to conduct such a discussion. If you find the material to be self evidently false then you shouldn't be having a discussion, you should be fellating your own dick about how smart you are, with the other blue pill types.

In fact, there's a subreddit just for that.

Participation in this sub means that you implicitly take TRP seriously enough to conduct an adult discussion. Calling red pill types idiots and assholes isn't adult discussion, is middle school name calling. Childish.

[–]danhakimi1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you implicitly take TRP seriously enough to conduct an adult discussion

I take it as a serious threat, which warrants a serious attempt to stop. I don't have respect for it -- it is not a respectable theory.

Calling red pill types idiots and assholes isn't adult discussion, is middle school name calling.

Wait, are there redpillers who have graduated middle school?

[–]aintdonegotno1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your only weapon against this threat is argument. You've given that up because your feelings tell you you don't need to make arguments, just to state how upset you are.

You're unpersuasive.

[–]danhakimi1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm making arguments, they just aren't working.

[–]aintdonegotno0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You mistake invective for argumentation.

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The alternative involves a whole lot of rape.

Or a lot of responsibility and introspection that one side is absolutely unwilling to accept.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Or a lot of responsibility and introspection

Some of that, but a whole lot of rape, definitely.

that one side is absolutely unwilling to accept.

What the fuck are you high on? You really think mainstream society wants to keep you from thinking? Between mainstream society and TRP, one of them has rules against dissent. Hint: It's not mainstream society.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What the fuck are you high on? You really think mainstream society wants to keep you from thinking? Between mainstream society and TRP, one of them has rules against dissent. Hint: It's not mainstream society.

What fuckin society are you talking about? I want a slice.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

He said, "that one side is absolutely unwilling to accept." I'm assuming he's talking about the mainstream society that you have to swallow the red pill to escape.

[–]Villaintine0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm assuming he's talking about the mainstream society that you have to swallow the red pill to escape.

No, I'm talking about the general nature of agency (or moreso the lack thereof) with women and their embrace of magical thinking.

[–]danhakimi0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

... I have no idea what you just said. The side that is unwilling to accept responsibility is "the general nature of agency?" What?

And I don't know how it was relevant to your comment that women "embrace magical thinking," but I'm not going to let you get away with saying something that stupid and unfounded. No, women are not engaging in magical thought just because you disagree with everything you ever heard a woman say. All that means is that you're a sexist asshole.

[–]IRScientistSober2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Isn't that the whole point of NAWALT? While every woman doesn't act like this, these generalizations are useful. I thought that's what RPS was just scolding the community about. I mean, I could be wrong--feel free to correct me if I am. Even the whole red/blue thing is a simplification.

[–]aintdonegotno-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The key is to know what generalization is appropriate - what an engineer might call an order of approximation.

Here we're talking sexual strategy, specifically the OP's hysterical rape claims. In context "no means no" is as worthless as those selfsame hysterical claims. Everyone here understands no doesn't always mean no, and the comparison is useful in understanding where the OP went wrong.

[–]darthcamroniusRed Pill-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

If no really meant no, way more guys would be virgins. There's a difference between saying no, and really fighting back or screaming "get away from me," which is what you do when you're being raped.

[–]Cactuar_TamerMaking poor life choices.11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

"What you do when you're being raped" is actually, freeze up for a majority of people, especially when "no" has already been ignored and attempts to physically push off your attacker haven't worked.

Why keep saying "no" when it isn't working? Why keep physically fighting when it isn't working and you literally have no chance because of the power differential?

If someone locks me in a jail cell, the fact that I don't continually scream and bang my hands on the bars ins't an indication that I want to be there, it's an indication that I understand that 1) the person who locked me up is not going to listen to me when I scream to be freed, and 2) banging my hands on iron bars is going to do fuck all to get me out of this and is, in fact, only going to hurt me more.

When has someone said "no" enough to satisfy you? When have they tried to push someone off enough times to satisfy you? If someone stops resisting that is not the same thing as consent to a situation they were forced into.

I really hate this attitude. Someone wrote into Dan Savage after their ex did something like this to them, She said 'no' over and over, tried to get away only to be dragged back several times, pulled clothes back on after having them torn down several times, but because she eventually gave up when she couldn't get away suddenly it's "not rape" or something, according to some people. Fuck. That.

[–]darthcamroniusRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't like the jail metaphor because putting someone in jail against their will is legal, but I understand what you're getting at. And I don't really disagree with you.

Firstly, I don't think it's how many times you say no. It's really just about how you say it.

I completely agree with the last part. That is extremely messed up. But you have to understand that he dragged her and ripped her clothes off. If a man is using enough force that the woman can't fight back, then yes, it's rape. The thing I have a problem with is that women say no all time, are completely fine with what happens, and then society says "no means no." Obviously it doesn't [always].

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

and really fighting back or screaming "get away from me," which is what you do when you're being raped.

That's not true. There are plenty of stories out there where the victim of rape 'freezes' due to the shock of what is happening. Actively fighting back is not the only response.

[–]darthcamroniusRed Pill-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

You're right, I didn't realise that at first. Frankly, I think that's a problem that should be overcome. And I'm not trying to put the blame on rape victims by saying, "You should've fought back!" But seriously, they should fight back. I don't care how "scary" it is or whatever. If you don't even try, how can you expect to be taken seriously?

[–]witzzzer 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Why should they expect to be taken seriously? If I say "no" and he starts raping me anyway, obviously I have no expectations of him caring whether or not I "fight back" at all.

[–]darthcamroniusRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I should have clarified. I mostly meant afterward. If you just freeze up and then charge him for rape, he's gonna be able to say you didn't do shit. But even if he honestly had no idea that you didn't give consent he would still get convicted because that's how the world works now.

[–]witzzzer 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Dude, if she says no, there's no way for him to "honestly know there's no consent."

That's just a rapist excuse.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]darthcamroniusRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That's not the same thing. I understand it's similar, but they're not having a stroke. They still have control over their body. Do you really think that a deer would have a 0% chance of survival by evasion just because it literally can't do anything other than freeze?

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]darthcamroniusRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Alright, I see what you mean. Science can't truly be argued with. The only thing I don't understand is moving your body or not moving your body is something you [almost] always have control over. As is breathing, but you don't have to control it. Heart rate on the other hand, you can never have any direct control over. That's whee I see the difference, but now I realise what I didn't understand. Thank you.

[–]stubingPurple Pillz Here!0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are the type of person that makes people think that RP users are rapists.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

which is what you do when you're being raped.

How many times have you been raped?

Many rape victims don't even say no, as they don't believe they have a choice. Of course, I wouldn't find the man culpable in such a case if the non-consent was not made manifest, but the point here is clear: men should know that when women say no, they often mean it, and should stop, check, and clarify. If you ignore her because she hasn't succesfully pushed you off yet, you are being unreasonable, and you're a fucking rapist.

[–]Plugawy_Nedznik 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How many times have you been raped?

How many times have you been raped?

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Never. But I'm acting on what I've been told, and you seem to be acting on what you think you'd do if you were being raped. The phrase "which is what you do when you're being raped" clearly implies that there is only one reaction, which is just not true.

[–]darthcamroniusRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I agree that if a woman does not wish to give consent they should try to do something about it. And I can tell you this from personal experience: there's a distinct difference between "saying no" and really saying no.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree that if a woman does not wish to give consent they should try to do something about it.

Do you realize that they don't, always, and that there's something wrong in society that makes them feel like they can't say no? Many feminists argue that that "something wrong" is that, when they do say no, you don't think they mean it.

there's a distinct difference between "saying no" and really saying no.

How well do you know the partner? Do you have a safe word established? If not, and you don't know her particularly well: isn't it a good idea to stop and clarify before continuing? What if she does really mean it? Mightn't she?

[–]darthcamroniusRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you realize that they don't, always, and that there's something wrong in society that makes them feel like they can't say no?

I am honestly curious what society has done to make women feel that they can't say no.

What if she does really mean it? Mightn't she?

As I said, I've experienced this kind of thing before and it's very clear when it's a real no. Like when your parents are being really serious when telling you no. That's what it's like. But any time a girl just says "stop" (and not playfully) or "no," it's so obviously just a program. It sounds like they're saying no simply because they think they're supposed to. And then if they even decide to do anything about it, it's as juvenile as a push on the arm. If that's a real no, then real no's are weak. There's a certain way to tell someone to stop what they're doing. That's not it.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If that's a real no, then real no's are weak.

As we've established, they don't always say no at all. You can say that's a mistake all you want (I agree). But you can't say taht it isn't a real no because it sounds weak. She might mean it. You haven't said that it's impossible -- is it possible that a woman says "no" weakly, in a way that you don't think sounds like a real no, but it is? Is it so extremely unlikely that you're willing to risk raping her because you don't want to take two more minutes before you come?

[–]SpaceWhiskey🍃 Social Justice Druid 🍂1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If no really meant no, way more guys would be virgins.

...you actually believe that a shy or socially awkward or young person wouldn't freeze up? You think that it's only really rape if she kicks and screams? You think it's a good thing that guys have gotten laid by ignoring the word 'no'?

[–]darthcamroniusRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You think it's a good thing that guys have gotten laid by ignoring the word 'no'?

Only because no doesn't always mean no.

[–]Mutant_Squirrel 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Hey guess what? You have no fucking idea what you do when you're being raped because you haven't been. There isn't just fight or flight response to danger, there is also freeze, ever seen a gazelle go still after a lion grabs it? That is the freeze reaction kicking in.

When I was attacked I said no repeatedly, he kept coming at me and trapped me where I couldn't escape. I didn't want to hurt him because I thought he was my friend... and then I was too scared to fight him because I thought he would hurt me. My limbs were heavy, I felt out-of-body and surreal.

No means no. If she changes her mind later fine, but if you are going to press past a no and ignore it then you are a rapist.

[–]darthcamroniusRed Pill-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Did you notice how the other two people that pointed out the freeze response weren't frantic and annoying?

I didn't want to hurt him because I thought he was my friend.

Seriously? That's a stupid excuse. I understand the feeling, but there's a point where danger is danger is danger no matter who it's coming from. Not recognising that is going to get you raped or killed.

And in case I seem insensitive or rude, you have to understand that I truly am sorry that happened to you. What your "friend" did is not okay. Unfortunately, the situation you were in is not really what I'm talking about.

Edit: a word

[–]Ahabs_Pegleg 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fuck is wrong with you?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

"hey you're frantic and annoying and also stupid for not fighting back but don't worry I'm sincerely sorry what happened to you."

[–]darthcamroniusRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Why do you think all of those things can't be true?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That was one of the most amazingly cretinous posts I've had the pleasure of seeing on these forums.

Seriously, it starts with you calling a rape victim "annoying" for telling her experiences, goes on to have you suggest that maybe shes an idiot and should have fought harder, and then caps off with you sort of dimly realising how disgusting you sound and doing this mealy mouthed "Im sorry this happened I'm not the bad guy here" pseudo apology thing.

I have zero interest in taking you seriously.

[–]darthcamroniusRed Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Seriously, it starts with you calling a rape victim "annoying" for telling her experiences

If you would try reading what I wrote you would realise that I called her annoying for so rudely pointing out the freeze response, while other people were interesting and actually explained something to me.

you sort of dimly realising how disgusting you sound and doing this mealy mouthed "Im sorry this happened I'm not the bad guy here" pseudo apology thing.

Again, why do you think I can't be sorry for her? She was fucking raped. That sucks serious ass. I don't really have any true sympathy for her because it doesn't affect me, but I am sorry it happened.

Maybe I'm being unclear. I would never ever rape anyone. Under no circumstances would I ever sexually abuse someone in any way. My entire point is that sometimes no doesn't really mean no. It is simply just a default response sometimes.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]aintdonegotno-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Pithy statements often aren't comprehensive. In this case, it's sufficient to illustrate the hysteria of the OP.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]aintdonegotno-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Some random ass guy on the street is by definition not what that piece was talking about.

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (85 children) | Copy Link

Did you read it before posting?

So how does the average TRP'er benefit from this? If you're already sexually active with a woman, discuss the concept of a safeword.

Whoops, that's not advocating rape. What's that other word?

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (82 children) | Copy Link

No, it's advocating rape, it's just doing it poorly. He says, "rape women, but wait, the best way to do it is consensually." OP is confused as fuck. I linked to another comment that actually explained the difference, but it hasn't gotten that much attention.

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

What happens when you have sex with somebody's consent? What's that called?

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link

Whatever it's called, it's not called rape. But he said that women want to be raped. So he's an idiot advocating for rape, rather than a person who knows anything about rape advocating for rape. You're not convincing me that his post was okay.

[–]17b29a5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

Do you have a problem beyond the inaccurate use of the word 'rape'?

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

Yes. The fact that he's advocating for it. If he clearly only meant one of those things, and it was the okay one, it would be fine that he was advocating for it. But that he advocates for his confused concept is damaging.

Particularly, I think there is a strong sentiment in that thread that if she is attracted to him, then it's okay, regardless of actual consent. Nobody really seems to be talking about consent at all... There are a lot of people who will walk away from that thread thinking rape is okay if you have rock-hard abs.

[–]17b29a4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

you seem to be able to distinguish what OP means:

Granted, it seems OP thought he was talking about a consensual act -- evidence that most of TRP has no idea what the word rape even means.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

OP meant a consensual act that he calls rape is okay. People read that and they think that what the word rape means signifies something that is okay. Because everybody in that sub is extremely confused about what rape is.

[–]Exner24 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

That's not how I read it. At one point he said a woman can't be raped by a Fortune 500 guy with big muscles. No question of consent, because in OPs mind a woman can't help but consent if the guy is rich and/or brawny enough. I'm sure 9/10 rapists would agree.

[–]Perspective133 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

How about we look at the actual quote instead of "how you read it"?

Being forcefully held down in bed by the muscular CEO of a Fortune 500 company does not evoke this fear.

That in no way says "a woman can't be raped by a Fortune 500 guy with muscles".

It would seem that according to you, no woman on this planet has ever been turned on at the thought of someone like Christian Grey holding them down and having his way with them... yet, all those women who bought the book seem to disagree with you there.

[–]Those_Who_Remain2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It would seem that according to you, no woman on this planet has ever been turned on at the thought of someone like Christian Grey holding them down and having his way with them... yet, all those women who bought the book seem to disagree with you there.

Being turned on by the thought and actually being forced upon by a succesful man are two different things. Rape by a CEO of a Fortune 500 man still will evoke fear in the victim.

[–]Perspective1332 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What he was describing wasn't rape. It was "being forcefully held down in bed"... aka kinky sex.

I've forcefully held down many women in bed and even acted out full-on rape fantasy scenarios with women and I can guarantee you they enjoyed it and wanted it.

I swear, the posts in this thread are leading me to believe that some BP'ers think the only acceptable form of sex is in the missionary position, and only in a "loving, committed relationship", otherwise it's rape.

[–]Those_Who_Remain2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, but did they consent to it? If so, that changes the quote from 'women can't be raped by a succesful man' (This came from the link the OP gave) to 'some women like to be kinky with their partners'.

[–]Perspective1332 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, but did they consent to it?

Yes.

If so, that changes the quote from 'women can't be raped by a succesful man' (This came from the link the OP gave) to 'some women like to be kinky with their partners'.

The words "women can't be raped by a successful man" do not appear in the post which OP linked to. Look for yourself.

[–]danhakimi1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes.

The OP never fucking said that. It never used the word consent. The OP was terribly confused, to say the least, about what rape is.

[–]danhakimi2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What he was describing was being forcefully held down in bed, regardless of consent, as long as he's good-looking. And he used the word rape to describe that. Whether he knew what he was doing or not, that's fucked up.

[–]Exner22 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, let's look at the exact quote:

So when is it rape instead of ravishment? Aside from obvious cases of drugging someone or having sex with the unconscious (for the feminazi retards: No one here condones these instances of legitimate rape) the difference is strictly in the disparity of your SMV's.|

That speaks for itself, doesn't it? OP says "legitimate rape" occurs when a woman is when drugged or unconscious. Otherwise, it's "strictly in the disparity of your SMVs." Meaning a man of high SMV cannot rape a woman; rather, he "ravishes" them. He goes on to explain that the difference is in the fear response:

The stranger-in-the-bush is often characterized as some seedy low-life thug. This evokes intense fear. Being forcefully held down in bed by the muscular CEO of a Fortune 500 company does not evoke this fear.|

That is OPs logic for why he perceives a high value man literally cannot rape a woman, unless the woman is unconscious. He's arguing that in virtually any other scenario, the woman will not - this is the kicker - NOT experience a fear response and will be overwhelmed with her passion for the alpha man.

Obviously (to many, many people, at least) this is inane logic and should not be taken seriously. But for any outliers who actually believe this crap, it could create a dangerous situation.

[–]danhakimi0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why not provide context?

So when is it rape instead of ravishment? Aside from obvious cases of drugging someone or having sex with the unconscious (for the feminazi retards: No one here condones these instances of legitimate rape) the difference is strictly in the disparity of your SMV's. The stranger-in-the-bush is often characterized as some seedy low-life thug. This evokes intense fear. Being forcefully held down in bed by the muscular CEO of a Fortune 500 company does not evoke this fear. No woman alive is comfortable by the idea that she enjoys rape, so she needs to reframe it. Be aware of that.

So, when it doesn't evoke fear, it's "ravishment," and it isn't rape. And there is never fear when he's high enough in "SMV," like a Fortune 500 COO. So, a Fortune 500 COO having non-consensual sex with a woman is "ravishing" her, not raping her. Or raping her, but not "legitimately" raping her, nobody could abide "legitimate" rape.

[–]Perspective1331 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

He's talking about whether or not it's a fantasy for women. Some women do find that type of thing a turn on, and it doesn't matter whether or not you are comfortable with the idea of rape fantasy.

[–]danhakimi2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Where do you get that from what he said? Where do you get that it's limited to fantasies? He didn't say "rape fantasy," he said "rape." OP never used the word "fantasy."

He might have been talking about fantasies. It's not clear. What is clear that people reading what he wrote could not have known what he meant, because he didn't put together a coherent thought.

[–]Perspective1331 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As I said to another poster... it's well implied that it's a fantasy by the part that read no one is condoning rape and by the comparison to 50 Shades of Grey.

[–]danhakimi1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

He did not say nobody is condoning rape. He said:

No one here condones these instances of legitimate rape

"These" seems like it must refer specifically to the classes of rape he mentioned just a second ago:

Aside from obvious cases of drugging someone or having sex with the unconscious

So, if she's conscious, you haven't drugged her, then it's not a legitimate rape, it's the okay kind of rape. As long as you're good-looking. Or something. That's what OP was saying, right?

[–]Perspective1331 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So, if she's conscious, you haven't drugged her, then it's not a legitimate rape, it's the okay kind of rape. As long as you're good-looking. Or something. That's what OP was saying, right?

...Yes. That's exactly what OP was saying. -rolls eyes-

Seems to me that you're one of those types who will read rape in to just about anything so at this point there's no sense in talking to you.

[–]danhakimi1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The title literally says women want you to rape them. How the fuck am I reading rape into that?

[–]Perspective1331 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The article also says "no one is condoning rape".

I'll give you the fact that the piece is not very well written and can read somewhat contradictory at times, however it's pretty damned clear to me that the author is talking about rape fantasy.

He isn't saying "If you are a Fortune 500 muscular guy, women want you to stop what you are doing, get up, right now, and go out and rape them. Tonight." like you seem to be reading about it.

[–]danhakimi1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The article also says "no one is condoning rape".

I'll quote for you my comment from another thread:

He did not say nobody is condoning rape. He said:

No one here condones these instances of legitimate rape

"These" seems like it must refer specifically to the classes of rape he mentioned just a second ago:

Aside from obvious cases of drugging someone or having sex with the unconscious

So, if she's conscious, you haven't drugged her, then it's not a legitimate rape, it's the okay kind of rape. As long as you're good-looking. Or something. That's what OP was saying, right?

however it's pretty damned clear to me that the author is talking about rape fantasy.

Nothing is clear to me, and I'm actually trying. Imagine tens of thousands of people giving the post a glance and assuming, by the number of upvotes, that he makes a good point. Even if they look further into the title, it would take quite some thought to look far enough as to say "ohhh, I think he probably means rape fantasies, not rape." The majority of RPers who read the thread itself would leave with a worse idea of what rape is than when they came in.

[–]Perspective1330 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Seems to me that you've already made up your mind.

You're looking for ways to say "AHA! SEE EVERYONE! RP'ERS THINK RAPE IS OKAY!" in a "gotcha" move, and that was pretty much the point of posting this in the first place.

And for the record?

The majority of RPers who read the thread itself would leave with a worse idea of what rape is than when they came in.

That's like saying you think RP'ers would have a worse idea of what murder is if they watched an action movie. Contrary to feminist teachings, men are not stupid and don't need to be "taught" what rape is. We are not dogs who need to be "taught" not to shit on the rug.

[–]danhakimi0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Seems to me that you've already made up your mind.

You're looking for ways to say "AHA! SEE EVERYONE! RP'ERS THINK RAPE IS OKAY!" in a "gotcha" move, and that was pretty much the point of posting this in the first place.

I mean, I've looked at the evidence that RPers think rape is okay some of the time. They've said it and gotten tons of upvotes for it, so... I really don't see why it's a problem that I've been convinced by that evidence. Yes, there is some evidence that they don't think all rapes are okay, and there is some evidence that they think they've figured out the difference between bad rapes and good rapes, but it's pretty clear that many of them who think they know what they're talking about don't, and are still advocating rape.

Contrary to feminist teachings, men are not stupid and don't need to be "taught" what rape is. We are not dogs who need to be "taught" not to shit on the rug.

Most men aren't stupid and can figure it out by speaking to other people who use the word. Some men, like a lot of the ones in the thread I linked to and some in this thread we're in, have no idea what the fuck they're saying.

What do you think the word rape means, if you don't need to be taught?

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I'm honestly still confused by what OP thought he meant.

[–]17b29a1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

hmm, seems you have a problem with the inaccurate use of the word

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Yes. I thought we established that.

[–]17b29a2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

specifically that you don't have any problems with the OP itself beyond the usage of that word, which you didn't agree on. do you think readers won't be able to distinguish that consent is required or what?

[–]danhakimi1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't mean to imply that my problems are purely semantic. My problems are semantic, and then he takes the confusing concepts he creates with his semantic issues and advocates for them in a damaging way.

Some readers will not be able to distinguish that consent is required. Other users, like the OP, will think that "rape" can refer to certain consensual acts, and then go on to advocate for rape "in some cases." What they really mean to do is advocate for things that aren't rape, but they will carry on this confusion and spread the incorrectly worded idea that rape is okay to more people.

If he was semantically correct, there wouldn't be a huge problem. If he misused his words, but wasn't advocating for anything, that wouldn't be as bad, because, although he would be confusing people, they might not walk away with different ideas. It's the combination of these two that really pisses me off.

[–]deepfriedcocaine1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So your main problem is with how he goes about advocating it, rather than the actual message he's trying to deliver?

[–]danhakimi1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Is there a coherent message he is trying to deliver? I still don't know what message he is trying to deliver, but there are a lot of bad lessons one could draw from what he wrote (such as, "it's not rape if you look good and have lots of money.")

[–]deepfriedcocaine1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think it's a coherent message. Rather than taking it 100% literally (keep in mind that the tone of his message is what gets TRP attention and brings in newcomers), consider

  • the more attractive and successful you are, more women will want to have sex with you

  • it's not rape if she wants it

Those seem like entirely reasonable claims, so therefore

  • Unattractive/unsuccessful men will have less success making the sexual advances that attractive/successful men do.

When you say

there are a lot of bad lessons one could draw from what he wrote

it seems like your main problem still stems from semantics. Specifically, the fact that he refers to consensual sex as "rape."

The main message is just a matter of sexual strategy. He's not saying "rape is literally impossible for attractive/wealthy men," and he's certainly not condoning rape. Essentially, he's arguing that if you go to the gym and further your career, you can make sexual advances that would have probably been considered rape/sexual assault in the past.

[–]danhakimi1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

it's not rape if she wants it

First of all, this is inconsistent with his title, where he says women want to be raped by certain people. They want it, and it's rape.

Second of all, this is bullshit: it's not about wanting, it's about consenting.

Third, he never says it's not rape if she wants it, he implies it's not rape if he is "high value." To OP, rape is about him, not about her. All women are the same: if you are high enough in "value," she wants you to rape her.

it seems like your main problem still stems from semantics. Specifically, the fact that he refers to consensual sex as "rape."

That's a big problem for me. But note he never even talks about consent. I don't think he even realizes that consent is a part of the definition of rape.

He's not saying "rape is literally impossible for attractive/wealthy men," and he's certainly not condoning rape.

I'm really not sure where you got that from -- those bits are all clearly ambiguous to me.

Essentially, he's arguing that if you go to the gym and further your career, you can make sexual advances that would have probably been considered rape/sexual assault in the past.

That seems very different, to me, than what he's saying. I see how you got that lesson, but if that's what he wanted to say, he could have said it in a way that wasn't totally awful.

[–]deepfriedcocaine1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah I can't speak for him, I'm limited to my own interpretation.

I mean I can understand if getting "as close as possible to rape" is a turn-on for a lot of people. As long as it's "not non-consensual" then there's no problem, but who wants to "rape" someone by accident because "they felt like they couldn't say no." Unless they were physically incapable of saying no, that's like a cop arresting you for jaywalking right after he said that you could jaywalk.

[–]stubingPurple Pillz Here!0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yes.

Well I hope you don't hang out with Feminists because Feminists love to inaccurately use words.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

How do you mean?

[–]stubingPurple Pillz Here!0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Racism = discrimination + power

Sexism = discrimination + power

consent = enthusiastic consent and nothing else

This is common among academic Feminist. They take a powerful word, and change the meaning around to fit their agenda.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

... what? You're going to have to spell this out for me.

consent = enthusiastic consent and nothing else

I don't think I've ever seen this.

[–]stubing1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here (6th bubble) is an image one of my academic feminists friends posts on her Facebook.

Basically, the academic feminists at my school believe that consent is only consensual when the girl is enthusiastic about it since some girls freeze up in these situations. They may say yes or consent verbally at first, but if they aren't enthusiastic the whole time, then it is rape.

They took the original meaning of consent, and changed the rules of it saying consent only exists when it is enthusiastic.

[–]danhakimi1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again, I don't think I've heard enthusiastic before. I've definitely heard sober, which I'm not sure I quite agree with. I'm thinking "aware" and "clear" and "informed" are all important aspects. I also never really hear that it has to be explicit...

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

"Women have rape fantasies" and "women want to be raped" are very different statements. I have fantasies about fucking porn stars and random women I don't know. I don't actually want to have sex with them -- I don't know them. That doesn't mean I don't fantasize about it. I can also tell you that very few nerds want to go toe to toe with dragons.

Saying women fantasize about rape is fine, if you know what you're saying. Saying women want to be raped is really, really offensive and for good reason.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Bullshit. There's a fucking difference. I explained what I thought the difference was. You can't just say I'm an asshole for saying there's a difference after I've explained myself. You have to actually explain why it's not a real difference.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't think the OP actually knows what rape is. He's just blindly advocating for it anyway. I think he wouldn't advocate for non-consensual sex, but people reading that thread will be confused and some will think non-consensual sex is just the bee's knees.

[–]shitpostwhispererReality Contrarian3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Get over yourself. The science on this is clear. I'm sorry that not everyone uses exactly the wording you like.

The science is much clearer than the TRP. Danhakimi is right, fantasy =/= reality. You don't need to be a lawyer to know that.

[–]Exner23 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are clearly in the wrong here. There is an enormous difference between fantasy and reality. Come on, man.

[–]17b29a2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's a pretty substantive difference between fantasizing about an idealized situation you may not even necessarily want to actualize, and actually wanting to be raped (by a 'high-SMV' man or otherwise).

You expect everyone to communicate like a lawyer with constant disclaimers, otherwise you get offended.

There seems to be the contrary trend on TRP where they say dumb things and get upset when people point out their horribly inaccurate language.

[–]teeeloRed Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a major cornerstone in the SJ Blue Pillers foundation.

That and name calling.

[–]Pastiricawe're all sluts2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

rape fantasies are first and foremost FANTASIES. In her imagination woman has the power, she controls the setting, the behaviour and the appearance of the "rapist". In real life if being raped, women don't have the ability to control what is happening to them or who is doing it. Big difference. Please, don't go around raping women thinking it's OK "because science says so". Not cool

[–]DocileBanalBovine 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Science actually said 31% to 57% of women.

Trp didn't.

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actual prevalence of rape fantasies is probably higher because women may not feel comfortable admitting them.

Do you want conclusive evidence that for some women are more likely to lie on any sex surveys in accordance to social expectation, because we have it(and its not hard to google on your own). It is a widely documented phenomenon acknowledged by the people who conduct these surveys and gather statistics. Every family study, from NIMH to the Australia and New Zealand Journal of Medical Health to the Kinsey Reports add a note about it. Granted its not known by how much conclusively, as it varies wildly according to subject but it is not insignificant as 1 or 4 percent either(closer to 20). Its attributed to slut shaming, and feminists hold it up as just one symptom of things women are not likely to openly say and do because they are shamed for it and taught it all their life.

Men also lie to say what is more socially acceptable on such surveys, but at lower rates(closer to 8-12%).

RP says its hamstering. People are rationalizing to themselves. Because otherwise, you have no motive to lie on an anonymous survey, unless such a fact is hard to keep in your head itself because it makes you feel uncomfortable or ashamed because of social narrative.

I bring these up because its a relevant part of the debate about how many actually believe and think like this.

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

"rape women, but wait, the best way to do it is consensually."

OK, since I didn't qualify for that last album. Let's try again: I completely agree with this statement.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

It's not a coherent statement. If it's consensual, it isn't rape. I f you agree with that statement, you don't know what the word rape means.

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

OK, i'll clarify the statement:

"Women want to be raped, by a high value man. How does this help you? Learn how to convey value(frame+amused mastery). Learn how to read signals(miscellaneous RP), and learn how to escalate(game). Set up safe words. Fulfill that fantasy."

I don't see whats so hard. Rape her. Consensually.

I actually try some of the advice in /r/sex and /r/seduction (and RP) regularly to spice things things up. And something posted recently on TRP was the "sex god method". Silly name but it explains what I mean. You'll have to find it via google though, don't want to post copyrighted stuff.

Fulfilling rape fantasies and experimenting has actually been really fun. I'm still not completely into it(I am vanilla), but I think if she enjoys it more, you might be onto something and should experiment more. Calibrate.

As for the part about calibration, this is my entry for the next album:

Rape her every day until she loves it.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't see whats so hard. Rape her. Consensually.

That's a pretty hard thing for most people to do, considering it gives rise to a logical contradiction.

Rape means sex without consent.

And something posted recently on TRP was the "sex god method". Silly name but it explains what I mean. You'll have to find it via google though, don't want to post copyrighted stuff.

The method itself is not copyrighted, only the way it is expressed is copyrighted. So the books.

I can't believe I actually searched Google for that bullshit, but what I learned about the sex god method: It's the name of multiple books, and it really really works, and what it is is a secret and you should pay us before we tell you what that secret is. Sounds like an infomercial to me.

Fulfilling rape fantasies and experimenting has actually been really fun.

Sure. That's not raping. (unless it is -- do you have her consent or not?)

Rape her every day until she loves it.

I don't think you know how scary a statement this is. This is one of the most fucked up sentences I've seen since I started reading TRP. Holy shit man, look up the word rape before you keep using it.

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Except it isn't rape. Consensual sex and rape are mutually exclusive. Exploring kinks and fantasies is fine, but women definitely do not want to be raped.

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The fantasies and kinks are expressly for "ravishment"(rape) by a high value men. If you don't agree, justify your side. Otherwise, the discussion doesn't belong in PR.

Like the previous OP said, nobody is calling for rape. We are calling for thinking about setting up the conditions for that fantasy to be realized, in a safe and secure way.

The poster used rape to convey both the nature of the fantasy and what he's calling for, out of some need to be direct and make a point. But it is what it is. Rape play.

Do note, by high value, nobody necessarily means rich btw. The definition of value depends on what is valued. See RP sidebar. In this case, what is valued depends on her sexual strategy(women have two main).

[–]Those_Who_RemainIrrelevant Homosexual4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Let's take a look at the OP on TRP again, shall we?

Not pussyfooting around this one. Title is literal.

He literally means women like to be raped. As in raped, not rape play. Strike 1.

If anything could ever be classified as a Feminist's Nightmare, it's the irreconcilable notion that women are extremely aroused at the thought of being able to make a high value man so lustful that he loses control and has to have her. Many women have struggled with this concept. Some have cleverly come up with positive terminology to deflect from the dissonance; they'll use terms like "ravishment" to doll it up, as if simply assigning a new word takes away from the reality of what's going on.

'Ravishment' (rape play) is just a female invention to disguise the true desire of women to be raped. Strike 2.

Here in TRP we do not shy from these realities. What goes through a woman's head when she contemplates being ravished is that she is of such high SMV that men lose their control just to have her. This is a level of validation few women get to truly experience

Rape gives women a feeling of validation since the men fully loses control of himself. That's just a disgusting statement.

Please be aware that in Rape Play, the men does not lose control of himself, nor does he truly force himself on the women. The women is still in control of the sexual encounter due to the 'power' of shutting it down whenever she wants.

Women want to be taken by force by a high value man.

Some do as they like that as their kink. Plenty of women don't like that as well. None of them want to be truly raped.

Aside from obvious cases of drugging someone or having sex with the unconscious the difference is strictly in the disparity of your SMV's.

'It's only rape when low SMV people do it. We high SMV alphas can't rape!'. Strike 3.

This shows ignorance about what rape is and how women react to it. Rape by high SMV men is still rape.

This evokes intense fear. Being forcefully held down in bed by the muscular CEO of a Fortune 500 company does not evoke this fear.

Strike 5. No explanation needed I hope.

No woman alive is comfortable by the idea that she enjoys rape, so she needs to reframe it. Be aware of that.

'Silly women just hamster away their desire to be raped and reframe it. But we, TRP, know that they all truly desire to have us forced upon them'.

How about not assuming all women like this and actually communicating with potential partners about this kink, since plenty of women do not like this kind of sex?

So how does the average TRP'er benefit from this? If you're already sexually active with a woman, discuss the concept of a safeword. Even though women love the idea of being taken, there's always the chance that she may be in one of those emotional frames where she genuinely isn't up for sex, this is a failsafe. Once you've established that, next time you're looking to sexually escalate simply ignore her token attempts to refuse. She turns her lips away from a kiss, you force her against a wall and take it. She tries to push you off, you squeeze her. You grab her and throw her onto the bed, then lay into her with your weight so she can't get away. And so on.

This is where the OP 'redeems' himself and shows he simply does not know what rape means. He's talking about kinks and fantasies, despite him saying he was literally talking about rape earlier in his post.

Paradoxically this creates intense arousal and pair-bonding in women. I encourage you to try this. Of all the women I've had sex with only ~5% genuinely hated rough, aggressive sex. The other 95% beg for more afterwards. Surprising how many victims offer to make food and drink after their "trauma".

...And here he forgets the difference between acting out on a kink/fantasy and rape again.

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He literally means women like to be raped. As in raped, not rape play. Strike 1.

Yes, like I said, if you accept that fantasies speak of innate desires(and you do) than I don't see whats the problem. The fantasy is quite literally a desire to be raped, or "ravished" if you'd rather, by a high value man(while your quote says the title is "literally just raped"). Read the title yourself. You repeating it as if I'm crazy because its shocking to you is not going to make me believe you. Its neither hypocritical or wrong. If you believe it is, explain to me your POV. That is the basis of RP(and intellectual) discussion. No strike.

'Ravishment' (rape play) is just a female invention to disguise the true desire of women to be raped. Strike 2.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ravish

No strike. The word isn't even that subtle. Its just a way to talk about the desire among the burgeoning porn and sex industry for this kinda stuff, without confusing it with rape, which is sensitive. George Carlin would like to have a word with you if you don't think that people don't substitute words all the time. (Also, read the RP side-bar link on power-talk for a detailed explanation on why word rape is different and more significant.)

And, just to be sure, as an ESL, I looked up the urban meaning for you too: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ravish

Rape gives women a feeling of validation since the men fully loses control of himself. That's just a disgusting statement.

:/ Umm... OK? I'll pass on your compliments.

Also, it should be a "high-value" man. See your quote. i.e. since SMV is subjective, she already finds him highly attractive.

Please be aware that in Rape Play, the men does not lose control of himself, nor does he truly force himself on the women. The women is still in control of the sexual encounter due to the 'power' of shutting it down whenever she wants.

Yes, while the male pretends to have power, thus acting out the desire. Not all desires are ideal or rational. This desire is unsafe. So you do a mock version in the bedroom to satisfy your craving. A safe version. Even a high SMV man truly losing control of himself and just taking her poses a risk, but the real risk is really just any random thinking he's her high SMV guy. She doesn't want that... most men's advances from a rape point of view would repulse her. It needs to be the right man.

Some do as they like that as their kink. Plenty of women don't like that as well. None of them want to be truly raped.

Most women like it as their kink. A minority of women don't. Agreed on the last bit. But they want to be able to be. To bring an unattainable man to that point.

Strike 3.

'fraid not. Look I'm sorry you don't like it,, but if you don't put up a counter-argument, dismissal on the basis of shock is not gonna fly. Yes, it is legally and morally rape. The right of consent is still firmly with her.

But by definition, at that theoretical point, she'd want it. I admit its is a dark and dangerous territory to even mentally consider, but its the logical truth. Like I said above, that is the exact fantasy of many(shown in the link from psychology today elsewhere in the thread, even considering most women lie anyway on such surveys the rate is 60% plus) even though it is not a risk any woman would be willing to consider or contemplate rationally.

The extreme averseness to rape works against this but then you have many instincts that work against each other. Example, the desire to approach a girl vs the fear of rejection. Take away rationalizing and its all about risk and rewards to your feelings. The same balance sheet applies with the rape fantasy. Not all women have it. But the ones that do, have it for high SMV men. High SMV = Yes. lose control. I consider this sexy.(It doesn't even have to be rape really. These seemingly unattainable visions of masculinity must just want her like mad) Low SMV = Rape. I would never consent.

It doesn't have to be rape btw. He can ask for permission in some way. But he must be caused by her to lose control and want her as his personal fuck-thing.

Why is it so hard to admit that theoretically that is exactly what a rape fantasy means? A secret desire to be raped by a man you find attractive. Nobody is endorsing raping women. We are recognizing its a desire. And then working out how to do it.

Strike 5. No explanation needed I hope.

Yes it is needed. :/ Explain it to me. Just so you know, this is absolutely dismal standard of discussion in RP. When you make a point, justify. Always. Take me through your thought process at least, if not evidence directly. No, I will not mentally create your reasoning for you, and then proceed to argue it.

Also, you skipped strike 4. But technically, we're still at strike 0.

He's talking about kinks and fantasies, despite him saying he was literally talking about rape earlier in his post.

Is there a law against talking about rape and rape fantasies? Yet encouraging exploring that kink play.

Like the comments in that post point out... its not really rape if its a kink(with a safe word and all). The strong language of RP betrays you. Its is just... "Rape her the way she wants to be raped." Just like I used it above "Rape her everyday until she loves it".

...And here he forgets the difference between acting out on a kink/fantasy and rape again.

No. This is where you miss the point and consider a quote distinct from context. We are clearly talking about rape play with an agreed upon safe word.

Do I qualify for that album yet?

Also, out of curiousity, are you a woman? If so, do you have a rape fantasy?

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]aintdonegotno0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's clear that he read the title and the obligatory subredditdrama post. Beyond that....

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

And yet TRP wonders why everyone hates them.

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Do they?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Considering that anything on TRP is basically "low hanging fruit" for drama, yea. Here is a link to new drama

[–]aintdonegotno4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

What makes you think that a subreddit full of middle school mean girl personas is "everyone"?

What makes you think that TRP cares what other subreddits think about them? The stickied post at the top of TRP right now disputes that assumption.

Forget about straw men, you're desperately scrambling to find straw to construct one.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Ever heard of an example? TRP blatantly gives no shits, except when they are called misogynistic dicks, then they talk about how it's all "self improvement".

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, they don't give a shit then either, they just say you don't get it.

[–]aintdonegotno-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So an example that consists of internet gossips is "everyone" now?

Next you'll be trotting out Perez Hilton as some kind of standard.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The majority of redditors who have been exposed to TRP think it is a cesspool, so there is that. It's always mentioned as one of the worst subreddits on any "worst of reddit" AskReddit thread.

[–]amatorfati2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most redditors don't know anything at all about TRP. It's all secondhand accounts.

[–]aintdonegotno0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It could be all of reddit and still not be everyone. Unless you mean everyone that matters to you.

Some redditors think that this place is the world. It severely distorts their perspective.

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I don't think they particularly care why they are hated. They certainly revel in the attention and i don't think there is a single uncertainty as to the causes.

[–]shitpostwhispererReality Contrarian2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think they particularly care why they are hated.

Which is why they constantly complain about being hated every time there's an askreddit thread, anytime they come to TBP, and a lot of times in PPD right?

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do they complain about it? I see it acknowledged- and please direct me to appropriate links if I'm mistaken- but I generally see amusement. I don't frequent TBP and I haven't seen any complaints about being hated in the reddit-sphere aside from being censored via downvote brigades and bannings.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Maybe, but when you guys get called about for being misogynistic (as a whole, individually I couldn't possibly speak on anyone), some default to the "it's about self improvement" thing. The defensiveness is palpable in those situations.

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Going by the literal definition of misogyny: "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women" I'd say 100% of TRP is mistrust, dislike could apply to quite a majority, but I think hatred would be better ascribed to MRAs or staunch MGTOWs.

Personally, I don't see the big deal. We live in an openly misandric culture where masculinity and normal, heterosexual male behaviors are demonized so when it happens to the other sex in one, dark corner of the internet it hardly seems shocking.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Ah, it all depends on perspective really. Misandry and misogyny are both real, but as people start to become more understanding, these issues should start to melt away. Basically, if TRP is a reaction to the current culture, I think it's efforts are misplaced. That's just me. If you can use it for positive things without being a massive twat, go right ahead, but I think the ideology itself has many underlying issues that lead to unhealthy thoughts and destructive beliefs, especially if left unchecked.

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'll agree that most any set of beliefs can be dangerous if left unchecked (see religion and social progressivism for example). As far as using it for something positive without affecting others negatively, when you think broadly enough most everything we do harms someone. Just living in the first world (unknowingly buying items made in sweatshops, buying petrol that affects the ecosystem, etc) is causing harm.

Once you get desensitized to the idea that getting out of bed each day is going to continue causing some degree of negativity in multiple spheres you kinda get used to it. It goes to the back of your mind and you go back to finding the most effective way of meeting your needs (thanks Maslow!)

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's complicated, it really depends on where each individual draws their line in the sand. I would say that TRP is rather extreme regardless though.

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I find it hard to believe that TRP's strategies are really that provocative or extreme when they were explained to me in another post that it's the same things women have been doing in regards to dating for the last couple of decades. TRP just speaks it plainly rather than sugar coating it.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No, they don't get it but they think they get it and they don't care.

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And you get it?

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I have a few ideas about why everybody hates them, but the reasons are quite vast in number.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

It's worse than that. They know people hate them, and they're PROUD of it.

[–]ICWilfred-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They're

[–][deleted] 12 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Having a man you already want sexually "ravish" you isn't really rape--it's just a man taking charge and you consenting back.

There is nothing that "isn't really rape" but is kind-of sort-of rape. It's either rape or it isn't. It's about consent and nothing else. Granted, it seems OP thought he was talking about a consensual act -- evidence that most of TRP has no idea what the word rape even means.

It's rape when a man you have zero interest in having sex with forcibly inserts himself into you, and no woman is aroused by that.

It's also rape when a man who you are extremely interested in forcibly inserts himself into you, unless you give him consent. I don't see why you're bringing up attraction. It has nothing to do with attraction.

People get off on being desired.

FTFY.

This is why women will brag about how their SOs think their farts are cute and go down on them during their periods.

... what?

But that's not rape, because in this scenario she already essentially consented

I don't know what you mean by "essentially consented." Did she consent or not?

You say she "initially resisted." That could mean a lot of things in a lot of contexts. My question, again, is: did she consent or not?

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Okay. I haven't read any of these scenes (I heard 50 Shades was really poorly written). I can imagine people overreacting slightly to something more consensual than they give it credit for.

I'll shift the example to one we might both be familiar with: Game of Thrones. There's one particular scene in season four that people are pissed about, but which I was torn over -- let me know if it won't be a spoiler, and we can continue the conversation.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Right, so Cersei and Jaime. Cersei said no, and actually expressed non-consent pretty clearly. If I was in a jury watching that video, I wouldn't think twice. But being a viewer of GoT, I do. I know the nature of their ongoing relationship, and the nature of that moment. I feel like she might be saying something more like, "I want this, but don't make me want it here and now." Or something. Now, if she didn't want to have sex there, she didn't want to have sex and that's still rape. But it's more like she didn't want to want to... I don't really know. And they have that psychic twin thing going on, so for all I know, what everybody else thinks from looking at that is different from what the characters think. The actors and directors didn't think it was rape, and maybe they know better. I don't know.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, if they didn't want it to be rape in the show, they could have made it look less like rape. I think it's a very extreme case in terms of what can be expressed and what can be understood.

[–]shitpostwhispererReality Contrarian1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

TRP is creepy as fuck.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]shitpostwhispererReality Contrarian0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nice red herring.

[–]Exner21 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't believe OP wrote this inane post. I see that some people are theorizing that OP "didn't really mean rape" or somehow misunderstands what rape is, but I don't think so. He literally says a woman can't be raped by a Fortune 500 dude with muscles. WTF, TRP.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why can't you want a contradiction? Rape without danger, or simultaneous consent and non-consent. I know I want lots of impossible things.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is one comment that tries to draw a line between rape and rape fantasies, but it also generalizes to say that all women have those fantasies. http://www.reddit.com/r/theredpill/comments/2bowat/women_want_to_be_raped_by_a_high_value_man/cj7frck

[–]autoNFAPurple Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is an argument that "having rape fantasies" and "wanting to be raped" are semantically equivalent, not that men should rape women. OP specifically points out the necessity of safe words, which is well established by mainstream BDSM.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

First of all, "having rape fantasies" and "wanting to be raped" are not semantically equivalent. They are very different in very important ways. As I said elsewhere:

I have fantasies about fucking porn stars and random women I don't know. I don't actually want to have sex with them -- I don't know them. That doesn't mean I don't fantasize about it. I can also tell you that very few nerds want to go toe to toe with dragons. Saying women fantasize about rape is fine, if you know what you're saying. Saying women want to be raped is really, really offensive and for good reason.

not that men should rape women.

No, only that women want it. And that, you know, the sexual strategy that makes women want you most is raping them. But raping them in a consensual way -- so, you know, not raping them. Except, if you're good looking, it's not rape, it's ravishment. Wait what?

Note that OP from that post clearly has no idea what he's talking about, or what rape is. He's just advocating for it.

[–]Plugawy_Nedznik 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

ITT a TRP member confuses "rape" with "being taken by force" and we all follow suit.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I... don't know what you mean by "being taken by force," (or "rape," for that matter), but I assure you, many of us in this thread are not confused -- few as much so as the OP. We've discussed OP's confusion, and why I think it's a problem, elsewhere.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

So when is it rape instead of ravishment? Aside from obvious cases of drugging someone or having sex with the unconscious (for the feminazi retards: No one here condones these instances of legitimate rape) the difference is strictly in the disparity of your SMV's. The stranger-in-the-bush is often characterized as some seedy low-life thug. This evokes intense fear. Being forcefully held down in bed by the muscular CEO of a Fortune 500 company does not evoke this fear. No woman alive is comfortable by the idea that she enjoys rape, so she needs to reframe it. Be aware of that.

This isn't even true as an attempt to follow on from "rape is a fairly common fantasy" lots of rape fantasies involve a scenario of being raped by a nasty stranger. Be it the mailman or gang members or whatever.

It's like the OPs only knowledge of dominance fantasies is 50 shades of grey (which is pretty straight BDSM that doesent even cross over into rape at all from what I've seen) and he's extrapolated a whole theory of rape and female sexuality from one crappy Twilight knock off.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, and he seems to think that rape isn't rape if you're good looking enough, and then there's just another word for it and it's morally acceptable.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Which is a conception of rape which conveniently removes consent or women's individual desires from the equation at all.

Is your SMV low? Rape. Is it high? Not rape. How neat.

Does this mean that literally every time a sports star has been accused of rape it was a false claim?

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think that if you asked OP, he would say no -- but he'd struggle through a long debate about what he really did mean and never admit to having mangled his words, or say "obviously I meant X, even though by all measurable standards I said Y."

[–]PaulRivers10-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

As a regular reader of TRP over the last year, I've grown more and more annoyed at how clearly feminism manipulates their stories to create a fake reality. "The Patriarchy" is the best example - "mysteriously", all of the men who weren't villains aren't in the story! What. A. Coincidence. Elliot Rodgers - a man kills 5 men and 2 women, let's try to keep anyone from realizing men were killed.

I was drawn to TRP because it was more straight up. And while it's ideas where outlandish - I watched girl after girl mostly like TRP described. Like the last 5 girls - all got into relationships with guys who mixed good guy with pushy and won't give up. The last guy I honestly wondered if he was dangerous towards women - but they're getting married! And she's so excited! TRP was great because it just told the truth (well the other half of the truth, but feminism wasn't telling almost any of the truth). It helped me out in my job even more, when I realized I was being manipulated by my boss and a particular coworker. When I stood up to them, I ended up with more respect and less work.

But this latest thing - I remember some people would say TRP is basically "feminism for men". The same drawbacks, same villification of the other gender, etc. And I'm really disappointed to see that they're right. It was really nice to discuss reality with other men without having to fight with someone who's priority was only to give women more power and not hurt women's feelings.

But now TRP is just doing the same crap. Before it was "I don't care if this is offensive", now it's "I'm saying this to be offensive even though it doesn't make any sense". What a bunch of crap.

I went to TRP because I wanted to see through to reality. And frankly, it worked fairly well. Now they're just doing the same "make a fake reality" crap that feminism does. Sigh.

[–]shitpostwhispererReality Contrarian0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

As a regular reader of TRP over the last year, I've grown more and more annoyed at how clearly feminism manipulates their stories

Couldn't make it further. TRP always complains about being strawmanned but then always has the dumbest shit to say about feminism.

[–]PaulRivers100 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Feminism always just tries to use tactics to avoid discussing it's manipulative behavior while continuing to do it.

Feminism does what it usually does with Elliot Rodger - emphasizes men who are villains, remove men who are victims or neutral in the story because in feminism mens lives don't matter, and emphasize women who are victims.

Here's a wikipedia entry where a feminist (I assume) is arguing the same thing I saw feminists saying in blog posts on my facebook feed - http://i.imgur.com/xJEGDPq.jpg

"please do note that the gender of the victims is often mentioned as a way to subvert attention from misogyny"

An accurate title of Elliot Rodgers is "Man proclaims hatred of women who won't have sex with him and the men who they are having sex with on the internet, kills 3 male roomates, 2 women, can't get into sorority house to kill more women, kills 2 more men".

A feminist title of Elliot Rodgers is "Man proclaims hatred of women who won't sleep with him, goes on killing spree targeting women, kills 7 people".

In feminist stories, men are always the villains, and men who are victims are pointedly removed from the story to because they're a distraction from the feminist "men = villain, women = victim" theme.

[–]shitpostwhispererReality Contrarian-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't care what you have to say about feminism. Take your strawman campaign to a relevant sub.

[–]PaulRivers101 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is the relevant sub. Take your own strawman campaign when you can't talk about what feminism actually does to a relevant sub. This isn't r/feminism, where getting angry at logically describing the actual things feminism is doing isn't allowed.

[–]shitpostwhispererReality Contrarian-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You sound so mad loool. This sub is for TRP/TBP/others to debate TRPers. not to hear whiney opinions of feminism that don't mean jack shit. go find someone else to try to validate your silly opinions with.

[–]PaulRivers101 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

And yet you're offended at a logical description of how feminism created it's story on a specific topic. Good luck with that.

[–]redpill800 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

check out /r/AlreadyRed

[–]PaulRivers100 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for mentioning that. It's a pretty bare bones sub that doesn't have a lot of posts though isn't it? Still, I'll check it out, thanks.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

"The Patriarchy" is the best example - "mysteriously", all of the men who weren't villains aren't in the story! What. A. Coincidence. Elliot Rodgers - a man kills 5 men and 2 women, let's try to keep anyone from realizing men were killed.

I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say here. I don't think you're in the right thread.

[–]PaulRivers100 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

See my other post in response to shitpostwhisperer. That's feminism for you though, attack and insult people who make valid points that don't agree with your rhetoric.

That's why I'm not interesting in being part of RedPillSchool's TRP though - I have no interest in being part of a male group doing the same bullshit as feminism does.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

See my other post in response to shitpostwhisperer. That's feminism for you though, attack and insult people who make valid points that don't agree with your rhetoric.

I... what? I wasn't insulting you, or, I didn't mean to. I just genuinely didn't think you were replying to my post. I guess I can see how the last two paragraphs are vaguely on topic...

That's why I'm not interesting in being part of RedPillSchool's TRP though - I have no interest in being part of a male group doing the same bullshit as feminism does.

Okay, I think I see how it relates...

I don't have any idea why you reduce feminism to the worst feminists there are, but I assure you, there are sane people making coherent points who call what they do "feminism."

[–]PaulRivers101 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ok...I'm honestly not sure if you edited your post, or if something on my end got messed up. When I wrote that I was thinking of something pretty insulting, but when I reread it what you wrote is not what I was thinking of. Anyways, let's move on.

I don't have any idea why you reduce feminism to the worst feminists there are, but I assure you, there are sane people making coherent points who call what they do "feminism."

There are a few.

However, in real life, I know some very nice, caring, loveably feminists. But they repeat the same men-hating principles (wrapped in a caring shell) that mainstream feminism puts out.

I'll give you a specific example. Feminist articles follow a pattern: 1. Men are villains
2. Men who are not villains, especially if they're victims, are systematically removed from the story
3. Women are victims

Take "The Patriarchy".

A balanced view of warfare says something like this - "The man running one country decides to invade another country. He sends an army of men out. It fights with an army of men in another country, who defend their country from the invaders. If they win, many men on both sides die. The women mostly are protected from the warfare from behind the front lines - not being allowed into the battle. If they lose, the defending men are slaughtered, and then the invading army may do terrible things to the women, but even then they may not." Actually, even that isn't balanced, because in modern warfare the women are still largely protected. But that's another topic.

Feminism does the above - men are villains, etc. It's story is "Men decide to invade a country! Men in the army rape women! Can you believe that men who went out and waged war were sometimes rewarded with gold and money after doing horrific things?". The men who were killed don't exist, and the women who sat safely at home on one side or the other are also deliberately left out of the story.

Feminism deliberately villifies men, and deliberately removes the anti-villain men from the story. It then pointedly removes how protected women were from the story, to only talk about women being victims. "Man = Villain, Women = Victim".

And these are the core tenets of feminism that the "sane people" feminist - the genuinely nice, caring women who say they're feminists - promote. They put a nice, wonderful face, on a sociopathic need to villify men.

Now regarding TRP - it certainly appears that it's basically the same on the male side of things. Feminism is just better at creating a system where it's hidden and not as obvious.

I've met plenty of real life feminists who are very nice and well meaning people, but I haven't met any who aren't repeating the "Man = Villain, Women = Victim" theme, even though they don't realize they're doing it.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok...I'm honestly not sure if you edited your post, or if something on my end got messed up. When I wrote that I was thinking of something pretty insulting, but when I reread it what you wrote is not what I was thinking of. Anyways, let's move on.

Lol, all good. I didn't edit. There's no star.

Did you think I said "right in the head" where I said "in the right thread?"

Men are villains

I don't think I've ever seen that.

Men who are not villains, especially if they're victims, are systematically removed from the story

I'm not sure if I've seen this. I've seen articles about confidence that might be relevant: IE, a lot of men are confident to a fault, and the more confident they are the more we systematically favor them, and the men who are moderately confident are then less successful. As a man who is not an arrogant douche, I like hearing that. Is that what you meant?

The article I'm referring to, here, is http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/04/the-confidence-gap/359815/. I really enjoyed it, and it got really popular.

  1. Women are victims

Sure, but usually in the grand, social justice scale... and I don't see what's wrong with that. They usually have a point. They also often express how men are victims of sexism and sexist constructs in society.

Feminism does [stuff about war]

I've seen feminists say a lot of things about war:

  1. It's not right that men are always in charge. Women would go to war less (for reasons x, y, z). People probably want less war. But they keep voting for men because they're used to men being in charge, or something. There are good qualities to male leaders, but the disparity between male and female leaders is weird. We keep voting for men. Women vote for men who keep going to war, too. We voted for Obama, who seemed like he wouldn't be a war-monger (so much so that they gave him a nobel prize for no reason that made sense), but he is. Maybe warrishness is a quality that is associated with "confidence," which we have been shown to like to a fault. But one way or another, these are also associated with testosterone and maleness. The problem is never specific men, it's the societal tendency to favor men and certain qualities.
  2. It's not right that men do all the fighting. It's not right that women can't be drafted, or fight on the front lines. It's not right for either side; sometimes women want to fight, and sometimes men don't. It's not efficient -- you're cutting your employment pool for certain positions in half for no reason.
  3. Men also seem to get promoted within the military much more often, and make up a much larger portion of the officers. The military seems to consistently sell its women short. Again, this is bad for men and women.
  4. It's not okay to have a gender-exclusive military school. The men might want what you give the women, the women might want what you give the men, and your only reasons for making it gender-exclusive are that, well, gee, women usually aren't as strong, or whatever -- but you can just measure strength to do that, so it's bullshit. See Justice Ginsburg in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Virginia.
  5. Rape within the military is a stupid problem and the military just won't control itself. The military pretty much condones rape by higher ranking officers on lower ranking women. What the actual fuck. See season 2 of House of Cards (US).
  6. Sometimes, male soldiers commit insane atrocities by raping and killing women and children and civilians.

The only times I've seen it go wrong, like the crazy anger you're describing, is in parody, like Futurama's feministas. I've never really seen feminists attack or villify men. Certain problems are connected to our irrational preference for men, but only a few men, and a few women too, are actually at fault for that.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

How is pointing out the consistency of female rape and ravishment fantasies as REVEALED by their choices and self reports ADVOCATING rape other than saying "give them what they PROFESS to want"? The op even throws in the "communication" and "safe words" that make it NOT rape.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

He throws in words about consent to prove he doesn't know what rape is. He also says that women want you to rape them. The whole sub -- and many TRPers in this thread -- seem to be terribly confused about what rape is.

TRP doesn't actually "advocate" anything, it just says "well, if you want a happy life, here's what you should do." And then they pretend that they aren't advocating that action by not taking the one last step to remove that if. They think that women want rape; this is very thinly thinly veiled advocacy for rape.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Disagreeing with you about rape isn't confusion. I'm not remotely confused about what the rape epidemic hysteria definitions of rape are, I don't agree with them. There are ambiguities and grey line that happen between the humans that, while unfortunate, don't or shouldn't actually amount to felonies. Has no one on the other side ever once questioned any of their premises and discovered it's possible that rational people can simply disagree?

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

What do you think the word rape means?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I am perfectly happy with the definition of rape in my state's penal code and it's defenses:

Rape is a crime in Pennsylvania where the defendant forcibly or under threat of force engages in sexual intercourse with another person. Rape has also occurred if the defendant has substantially impaired the victim's ability to control his/her conduct by intoxicating the victim without his/her knowledge or if the victim has a mental disability.

If the defendant rapes a child under the age of 13, the charge is called "rape of a child" and is a separate offense from rape. It is also considered a separate offense if the defendant commits a rape of a child and the child is seriously injured. This offense is called "rape of a child with serious bodily injury."

Defenses to Rape Charges

Consent, No force or threat of force was used, Insanity, Intoxication of the defendant, Age

I reject all the feminist and college campus rape gobbledygook outright. Most of all, I reject the idea that the mere fact that an alleged "victim's" intoxication makes the other party guilty of rape if they didn't cause the intoxication.

If given my druthers I would get rid of the whole separate crime of rape and make it a specific intent crime known as sexual battery, as opposed to the ludicrous general intent crime it is now, since rape was mostly a separate crime because despoiling a woman either ruined her value for her father or her husband, and since female virtue is no longer valued, despoiling it should no longer be a separate category of crimes. It's just assault and battery, like being punched into a coma.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't see why it should be a defense to rape that no force was used.

( As a matter of fact, I don't see why it's a defense (in the criminal law context) that the sex was consensual -- the defense should be that the accused rapist reasonably believed that the sex was consensual. Now, when I say that, I mean: it's rape if it isn't consensual, but the criminal law deals with the defendant and the state, not the victim, so should be about the defendant's mens rea and action, rather than about the reality of the situation. )

But back to force -- here are some cases that stand out:

  • Fraud. If the accused deceived the victim into sex, I don't see why that should not be called rape. The victim did not want to have sex, save for the lie taking away her ability to make an informed decision. There is a case about men pretending to be doctors and telling women that they had a terminal illness, and that there were two ways to administer the cure: one cost $10,000 and the other was sex. Some women believed them. The men were let off the hook, because the women consented to the actual act of sex knowing that they were having sex, even though they were lied to about the context and their consent was clearly not meaningful. There is another case about a man who hired a fake minister and pretended he was married to his victim; if I remember correctly, that man was (rightly) convicted.
  • Blackmail and other such threats. There was a case where a woman's foster father threatened to send her back to the orphanage, or something, unless they had sex. Again, he was let off for some odd reason -- even though certain conditions of the orphanage made it clear that that was not a real option with which he was presenting her.
  • I also remember some cases that had to do with women being stranded... But I can't remember the details there.

Your legislature seems to be lagging behind the times some. The Model Penal Code still has gendered rape definitions that don't allow for any kind of marital rape. That's clearly wrong, too.

To me, rape is nothing but battery where the touching involves insertion or other certain sexual acts. I think there are actually some states that have removed the word "rape" from their laws and replaced it with "sexual assault," but I think that's just semantics.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I should also clarify -- these legal definitions are very largely related to practical concerns, such as the difficulty of proving actual consent versus the difficulty of showing an actual bruise. This is also why marital rape did not exist in the law for a long time -- some people thought it didn't make sense at all, but others thought it happened, but was just so rare that they shouldn't allow the claims.

What a statute says is not meant to be the definition of the crime for practical purposes, only for legal ones. Dictionaries explain what words mean in the vernacular, and as people use the word, rape refers to non-consensual sex, and is the morally blameworthy act. How we go about finding, accusing, convicting, and punishing people for that act legally is a different story.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I don't care about the non-legal definition of rape. It's a crime, not a moral issue. You didn't ask me for a doctoral dissertation on rape, you just asked me "what the word rape" meant to me. I was trying to get across a legal definition of a crime vs. The rape hysteria definitions on campus and in feminism

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It's a crime, not a moral issue.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Meaning that there aren't separate moral categories of "rape" that don't fit the legal definitions of rape

That's quite a debate tactic there

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So the legislature sets morality? Nothing is wrong unless your state's lawmakers say it's wrong?

Again, what the fuck is wrong with you?

I can only implement a debate tactic if what you say is not so profoundly stupid that quoting it is all there is to do.

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Can you explain your utterly alien emotional reaction? I'm at a loss to understand it. You're reading 1000 things into what I'm saying that isn't there. I don't discuss things in terms of "morality", I'm not a Christian or a Leftist. I'm not saying legislatures "set morality" at ALL, I'm saying morality doesn't apply to interpersonal relations, law and contract does. Individual strangers have no mystical, magic moral duties or rights regarding each other, only regarding themselves.

There is no universal human "morality" that can be asserted against a stranger. Morality is a code for living your own life and applying your values to achieve your rational best interest. The only moral rather than legal statement that humans can reliably apply to interaction is the Golden Rule, "do unto others...", a purely selfish moral statement that places the burden of the moral content of the interactions solely on the person interacting under its aegis and places no magical duty on the strangers with whom he interacts.

[–]danhakimi1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not a Christian or a Leftist

You don't have to be. I have to say that most conservative atheists would agree that killing is wrong, and that rape is wrong. There is a coherent way to say that you don't believe in morality, and you are not saying it that way.

Morality is a code for living your own life and applying your values to achieve your rational best interest.

So... you're an egoist? Really? Do you realize how obscure a moral theory that is? And how low it ranks in the opinion of any set of people who know what it is?

Golden Rule, "do unto others...", a purely selfish moral statement that places the burden of the moral content of the interactions solely on the person interacting under its aegis and places no magical duty on the strangers with whom he interacts.

What? I've given a presentation about the golden rule, and studied it extensively under my thesis advisor, who wrote the entry for the golden rule in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. So let me say, with as much authority as that grants me, that what you said doesn't make any sense.

First of all, the golden rule is not selfish. It is all about how you treat others, not about how they treat you. That's the opposite of selfish -- it's about what you do for them.

Second of all, it's an imperative. You should follow the golden rule. The rule tells you how to behave. It isn't saying "you will be better off if you follow this rule," it's saying "follow this rule." So yes, the duty exists for all people -- strangers to. Strangers might fail the duty -- in that case, one would call them "bad people." Morally wrong.

Finally, I don't know what you mean by "under its aegis." There is no magical protection you get from following the golden rule. You're just supposed to do it.

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Do you realize how obscure a moral theory that is? And how low it ranks in the opinion of any set of people who know what it is?

How is that relevant to anything? Everyone's entitled to be wrong. Appeal to authority, weep woo

I've given a presentation about the golden rule, and studied it extensively under my thesis advisor, who wrote the entry for the golden rule in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. So let me say, with as much authority as that grants me, that what you said doesn't make any sense.

That's nice, I went to college and wrote papers too, it grants you no "authority" to me. People write serious analyses and papers on all manner of subjects and are wrong all the time. Interesting to see an "appeal to authority" in which you cite yourself though.

the golden rule is not selfish. It is all about how you treat others, not about how they treat you.

The "you" is what makes it "selfish", It's a dictum that only applies to the person asserting it based in how they would like to be treated, it takes no account of the wants, needs or morality of others and places neither rights or duties on them, only upon the person asserting it. It is a statement of rational self-interest.

Why "should" you follow the golden rule for ANY other reason than it's the only part of human interactions outside of law and contracts that you have any ability to control? What puts the "should" in there, specifically? God? Nature? Magic? I would suggest to you there is no "should" without god and in fact the golden rule actually is "you will be better off if you follow this rule".

Finally, I don't know what you mean by "under its aegis." There is no magical protection you get from following the golden rule. You're just supposed to do it.

definition 2 b "controlling or conditioning influence <passed new laws under the aegis of national security>"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aegis

[–]danhakimi1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How is that relevant to anything? Everyone's entitled to be wrong. Appeal to authority, weep woo

Good point, but let me remind you where we started: you said rape was a legal issue, not a moral issue. You didn't say that you didn't think rape was wrong. The vast majority of people do think rape is a moral wrong. You implied that only Christians and leftists thought so -- that was bullshit. Everybody but your obscure philosophical sect could be wrong, but you didn't even say that -- you said it wasn't even an issue. That's bullshit, too.

That's nice, I went to college and wrote papers too, it grants you no "authority" to me. People write serious analyses and papers on all manner of subjects and are wrong all the time. Interesting to see an "appeal to authority" in which you cite yourself though.

It wasn't really meant to be a logical argument. A lot of logical fallacies happen to be convenient heuristics. My main intent was not to appeal to my own authority so much as avoid the natural dismissive mindset people take towards "some random guy on reddit," itself an ad-hominem attack. I trust we can get beyond all that?

The "you" is what makes it "selfish"

Maybe you missed the "others" part. Egoism generally says "do what makes you happiest, fuck all the others they don't matter." Are you just saying that the golden rule is a useful rule to apply sometimes, and makes your life better if you apply it (selectively), and that's why you should follow it? I mean, that's a side-perk, but I think the main appeal of the golden rule is its clear consistency: it would be inconsistent to teach other people one way and expect them to treat you another. A double-standard about the self -- the main reason I feel egoism is so clearly wrong. "Fair" is a word that, to me, refers to the moral value in having no logically unfounded double standards. Egoism insists upon the most common such double standard.

It's a dictum that only applies to the person asserting it based in how they would like to be treated

What? I can quite coherently assert it against others. Actually, that's the way it's always phrased, in the imperative: "do unto others," as you said. The person stating the rule is telling another person to follow the rule. And the intent of the rule is that it apply universally. That's not to say that the world doesn't get better when one person follows the rule... But it's quite normal for me to say that you are "wrong" if you don't.

Why "should" you follow the golden rule

I've explained the appeal above -- it's not as logically rigorous as Kant's reasoning to follow the Categorical Imperative, but it still seems to have a stronger appeal.

it's the only part of human interactions outside of law and contracts that you have any ability to control?

Wait, are you saying that the fact that you can control whether or not you follow the rule is the reason you do? I don't understand why. Is that some odd derivative of stoicism, or something?

What puts the "should" in there, specifically? God? Nature? Magic?

No, no, logic. You should not treat other people by one standard and expect to be treated by another without reason. This is illogical. Whatever you expect of others, you should be prepared to do yourself.

I would suggest to you there is no "should" without god and in fact the golden rule actually is "you will be better off if you follow this rule".

I've considered that. It's interesting, but pretty weak -- I can easily imagine cases where that isn't true. I mean, if I see a hobo in a back alley where nobody will see him, and I stab him, and nobody finds out, am I worse off? If I give him a loaf of bread that I had to pay for, am I better off? Treating my friends and strangers by the golden rule might have very tangible benefits, but the rule clearly applies to many cases that are not coincidental to egoism. What's more, it seems there's no logical link between the two -- it might generally happen to work out well, but how did you get from point A to point B? Maybe "don't be a douchebag" is a rule that will get you better results? Or following the weaker, silver rule will get you better results? Is there some logical proof you have that following the golden rule will result in your best interests being met?

definition 2 b "controlling or conditioning influence <passed new laws under the aegis of national security>" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aegis

Damn. I only knew 1, 2a, and 3a. Thanks.

[–]shitpostwhispererReality Contrarian0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I reject all the feminist and college campus rape gobbledygook outright.

They reject you too!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank God

[–]Perspective133 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

That's not advocating rape at all.

That's discussing consentual rape/ravishment play in the bedroom. Ever hear of BDSM play, OP? Along the same lines.

Apparently, OP has a problem with other people's sexual preferences and doesn't like what two consenting adults decide to do in their bedrooms.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Apparently, OP has a problem with other people's sexual preferences and doesn't like what two consenting adults decide to do in their bedrooms.

That's a thought terminating cliche.

"You have a problem with a post entitled "women want to be raped" therefore you are basically equivalent to a homophobe"

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

First of all: he says women want to be raped. That's advocating rape. The fact that he doesn't seem to know what rape means doesn't change what he said.

Second: he very clearly seems to think that whether or not it's rape, it's okay if you're good-looking/"high value," because every woman wants to have sex with you and automatically consents.

[–]sh1vRed Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My wife said the word "no" about 100 times the first time we had sex. Woke me up the next morning for round 2+3.

I later learned she had just gotten out of a relationship and was trying to take things slow. My not taking no for an answer was apparently quite hot.

Some chicks really do get off on playing games with consent. And not just in a pre arranged s and m way.

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

What to you, is the difference between "rape" and "ravishment"?

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Consent.

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

Edit: consent isn't a part of either term's definition

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Where are you seeing a definition of rape that's not about consent?

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm seeing that both words are defined by being sexual acts to women without consent. One is demonized (rightly so) while the other tends to be a more accepted term for the act in regards to the very, very common fantasies that women have.

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

... What? Consent isn't part of the definition of either word, and both are nonconsensual? What the fuck are you trying to say?

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

both are nonconsensual

yes, as I said, one is accepted and one is not even though both are literally the same thing

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You never said that. If sex is nonconsensual, I would call it rape. Has nothing to do with anything else. That's the word for it.

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I would as well, so why is it that one is so common and remains fine to speak of (and is a constant act in ladyporn, i.e. romance novels) and the other is accurately represented as the vile act it is?

[–]danhakimiTalking about pills is stupid[S] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Because "ravishment" does not mean "non-consensual sex." If it meant non-consensual sex, it would be rape.

edit: Ah, I did just look up the word "ravish," and there is one outdated definition by which it means "rape." By that definition, "ravishment" is a vile, disgusting, and evil act that is not common and does not fit into lady porn. Any "ravishment" in those cases is a consensual type.

[–]ms_kittyfantasticothe great wall of vagina1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Ravishment is a rape fantasy. And what do you mean it's not part of either term's definition? You asked OP what it meant to them.

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I did, and his definition doesn't fit either word

[–]ms_kittyfantasticothe great wall of vagina4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

There is (normally, I hope) consent to role-playing in said fantasy. Perhaps you mean that the fantasy revolves around non-consent?

Edit: just not sure what point you're trying to make.

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

So then let me make sure I'm seeing things clearly- do women's sexual fantasies commonly involve acts that they despise or fear?

I only ask because as a man, my sexual fantasies 100% of the time are things that I'd be happy to have happen in real life and I don't want to blindly assume that that's the case with women as well.

[–]ms_kittyfantasticothe great wall of vagina2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

do women's sexual fantasies commonly involve acts that they despise or fear?

Not sure, I can't speak for all women. Mine sure don't. But if I could generalize, I think women enjoy being dominated by men, which is totally different than a rape fantasy.

[–]Villaintine╰▄︻▄╯-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And yet "rape" fantasies are extremely common to a large number of women

[–]ms_kittyfantasticothe great wall of vagina2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you have a source for this? (Not trying to be an a-hole, just wondering how common it actually is)

[–]Villaintine0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Certainly

The results of the study, (which also explored other sexual and aggressive fantasies, self esteem,attitudes to sex and other personality testing) are that 52% of the women had fantasies about forced sex by a man: 32% had fantasies about being raped by a man:28% – forced oral sex by a man: 16% – forced anal sex: 24% – incapacitated: 17%- forced sex by a woman: 9% – raped by a woman: 9% – forced oral sex by a woman. Overall, 62% reported having had at least one of these fantasies.

[–]ms_kittyfantastico1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Interesting read. Thanks.

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

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter