259 thoughts on ““Rape Culture” Was Manufactured To Wage An Unjust War Against Men”

1. All the salient points on this issue in one convenient, easy-to-read article.
   Well done, and a must-read for anyone new to the topic.
   I’m going to start posting links to this article any time the topic comes up.
   The feminists want to ruin civilization. It is our job to thwart them by spreading the truth.

2. I see the feminist movement as a political movement, aimed at favoring a group of people over the others, ie ugly unfeminine women and effeminate men. It’s not about arguing points with them, because in the end, they like and want to be favored. People will politically defend positions that favor their lifestyle.
   What’s troubling is how an ideology that favors only certain kind of people got accepted by everyone without any resistance. How did the baby boomers let all this happen, in the hope of receiving female approval? Funny thing is, a lot of women start to realize that feminism is sabotaging their life. Those “Plain Janes” who got ignored all their life, get old and are childless, start to wonder what the fuck happened. And this time the patriarchy won’t be blamed.

   1. “Effeminate men” are the biggest problem.
      Remember Jenny Erikson? Well Leif the beta wants her back:
      “I rarely mention my “private” life but I ask for prayers that the Lord would soften our hearts and bring us to reconciliation.” – Tweeted by Leif (@tremorden) a couple of hours ago.
      Sometimes, you can’t fix beta. Is Leif Erikson beta of the month?

      1. He doesn’t know better. He’s gotten out of a ten year marriage with a wife who did him dirty by filing for divorce behind his back, with no warning, not even giving him an attempt to save his marriage (not that he needed to but that’s just my point). He’s still understandably very heartbroken. It’ll take him years before he finally realizes that Jenny Erikson is a right bitch.

         1. Didn’t she cheat on him too?
            The irony is feminists have abused their position so much that they are imprinting life long hatred in the mind of all those betas, and betas are the backbone and the only reason the movement exists in the first place. They are shitting where they’re eating.

         2. Did she cheat on him too?
            Nobody knows for sure. Some people were saying that her actions (the under-the-table divorce and telling someone not her husband about it, her general secretiveness, etc) suggested that she had someone waiting in the wings, meaning she likely was screwing around on him. Then later she wrote a pot about google making it difficult for her to date.
            And that is true irony indeed. The betas gave in to their every demand and then they get shat upon for it.

         3. Someone commented that she was fooling around with men at conventions. Apparently, she would call her husband to to the kids in over the phone then go back to flirting with a man, going as far as placing her head in his lap in front of convention attendees.
            A comment from the ROK article on Jenny:
            “I sure hope Leif gets custody and his ex gets kicked to the curb, not
            the other way around. Dozens of people
            that have witnessed her behavior at conventions, and to suggest that the
            father is in any way responsible for this divorce is asinine at the
            least. More than a handful of folks have seen her “checking in” with hubby in the evening while
            resting her head in the lap of a perceived not-her-husband-but-still-male potential career booster du jour, and then hearing
            her say “I love you” to hubby after she verbally tucks her kiddos in. Click, the phone hangs up and the self-centered opportunistic teasing with non-husbands begin. There’s nothing wrong with having a great time and getting staggering drunk at a convention. But, making a marital fool of yourself to promote your insignificant writing career while wrapping yourself in the blanket of Christianity, motherhood and morals is pathetic. You reap what you sow, and at the end of the day a family has sadly been destroyed by a selfish and immature hypocrite.”

         4. After women lose their attractiveness, ‘marrying up’ and hypergamy lose their steam so women just go for the divorce-rape and life as a single mom. The thing where women already have someone waiting in the wings is mostly for younger, more attractive women.

         5. it seems as though no matter what that type of woman would always come out ahead, and wouldn’t even know enough to feel shame over it.

         6. That’s awful. That’s how a lot of these women act nowadays, sadly. no respect for their husbands, the husbands supplicate, then bang-one less family.

         7. because there is beta, as long as they will be beta this shit will never end.

      2. No he is not! He is omega of the year! Beta is too good for him. May he one day grow a fucking backbone and get some self respect. Really all he needs is one time with high class pussy to change his perspective….but he will never get that because he is an omega. It’s called BALLS! He needs to find his

         1. I wouldn’t insult the guy though. He was a loving husband and father, Christian at that, and all that got him was sent up the river.

         2. No, my friend. You can be a loving husband and not let your wife walk all over you. He was a walking roll of toilet paper that she wiped her ass with. He was her “friend” when she was dating other guys….always the shoulder to cry on. that was his fault. How he LET her treat him was his fault. He could have set the standard in the beginning of the relationship but he didn’t. He desperately wanted her love. NO MAN should be desperate for a woman’s love. Her love is not a requirement. Her respect is. She didn’t respect him. I don’t blame her. I blame him for not being the man in the relationship. If she wasn’t going to respect him in the beginning, he should have cut her loose and never looked back….but he didn’t.

         3. Can’t argue against that.

         4. It’s also called a “VIP Escort.” They are respectful, courtious, and worth the cost.

      3. Stop with the alphabet bullshit. they don’t exist. Even if they do exist, they only exist in certain situations in certain peoples minds. And if they really do exist universally, then you’d be a beta yourself projecting it onto another dude. just chill out man.

   2. The baby boomer females who got married young and followed their parents generational traditions – seemed to feel a fair amount of remorse when they reached their mid 30s (1970s / 1980s) and hit the wall and realized they’d missed out on all these great adventures they could have had in life if they’d gone to university and traveled the world (and sucked 500 cocks). This happened in part because people started having less children, and those children were not focused on instantly getting married, so the baby boomer mothers were not grand mothers. They only had 2.4 kids and they reached 35-45 and had zero to do with their time. No qualifications, no professional respect or direction – husband in the height of his career busy at work. Divorce was the new fashion and almost a form of entertainment for them.
      They encouraged their daughters (far more than fathers encouraged their sons) – to go out into the world, get a uni degree, to wait to have kids and etc. etc. It is the women to a large degree who form the direction the children will take – such that Gen X was heavily misdirected by restless unhappy baby boomer mothers that had nothing to do with their time. Read a few issues of Cosmo and suddenly all the mothers in the 70s and 80s were pouring derision on their own life choices – and became installed with the fembot virus to shovel their daughters into office jobs. It’s a bit like the botnet viruses – take over enough PCs and you have a super computer. This low level dissatisfaction was fed into the community from about 1960 – probably by the KGB. It only needed a few bitter comments from the mother and the impressionable young daughter was off to be a doctor, lawyer, candlestick maker etc. and thought of being a wife, mother home maker as a second class citizen.
      Essentially the grand mother to mother to daughter female traditions that were handed down for generations were lost. Partly by technology, partly by deliberate communist subversion and partly by fashion and also because people just live a lot longer and as such can wait to get married and have kids.

3. You are doing society a great service with these articles, sir. Don’t stop, no matter how vile the protest gets.
   Happy holidays.

   1. I think the most important thing to understand at least on a joe public level – is that not much of the feminist / socialist / Marxist agenda has any real planning or intelligence behind it. It’s largely a lot of bigoted do gooders that want to save the world and think they are doing something great for humanity.
      They are largely interfering useless types with some chip on their shoulder thinking the world owes them a living. Even Pablo Escobar the most vicious drug lord gave back huge amounts of money to his community. Any one who wants to talk about socialism should go do something productive, earn some money and then give it away.

4. Rape Culture is actually a lot simpler than the above.
   Rape culture feminists are undesirable by high quality men. Ugly, fat, masculine, the reason doesn’t matter. They do not have the sexual power over men and high quality men that other women do.
   However, they do have one power over men. As soon as they yell rape, the army of white knights will come to their aid. Rape culture is just the attempt to leverage this power, it has nothing to do with preventing actual rapes (the studies which “prove” rape culture have to do with man on man rapes in prisons, feminists are wholly uninterested in stopping these).
   Men need to stop mindlessly white knighting. No more white knighting, no more rape culture.

   1. Feminists are obsessed with “empowerment” because they don’t recognize women have ALWAYS had power over men, i.e. pussy power. Most men will bend over backwards to accommodate and protect pleasant, feminine women. But because these women are neither pleasant nor feminine, they have to up for the sexual power they lack by amassing political power. The first step is curtailing masculine sexuality. Under a patriarchy, men would simply pair up with better women and leave these bitter hags with no protection or resources.
      That’s why “rape culture” isn’t really about preventing rape—if it was, feminists would support ALL attempts to prevent rape including teaching women how to protect themselves. But by grossly expanding the definition of rape, claiming women bear zero responsibility for crime prevention, and spreading memes like “rape is about power, not sex” (as though everyone who commits a crime has identical motives!) they achieve their actual purpose—demonizing and marginalizing male sexuality. It’s a transparent scare tactic.

      1. For the love of all that is decent, spread some of your knowledge to the sisters at the other site. They’ll at least listen to you.

   2. Yeah, male-on-male rape exists in prison, heck even outside (In the Middle East, it is not uncommon for men and boys to be raped) but men are demonized once they rape women. There is also a small percentage of female-on-male rape but then again feminists like to ignore this. This is called double standards because of radfems!

      1. Crime statistics in the good old USA show that the number of male rape victims exceeds the number of female rape victims. When you brace a feminist with these facts they say, “Well that doesn’t matter, since the perpetrators in either case was male.” They feel/believe that this makes male victims of no significance. Rape remains strictly an female victim issue.

5. Somewhat off-topic, but to illustrate the political nature of ‘rape culture’, this year saw the Socialist Workers Party of the UK implode thanks to a rape accusation aimed at one of it’s top members referred to as ‘Comrade Delta’, followed by an internal disciplinary process which found the allegations ‘not-proven’, which was complicated by the disciplinary panel being made up of people who could reasonably be called ‘his close friends and colleges’. After much infighting within the SWP by party loyalists and a feminist faction, the ‘pro-women’ faction quit the party and headed off into the political wilderness currently working under the banner of the International Socialist Network. Lots of other things were going on around the rest of the British ‘left’ at the time that eventually led to the creation of a new party called Left Unity, where most of the decamped SWP’ers ended up, with the ISN forming an ad-hoc internal faction within the new party.
   At the end of November Left Unity held it’s conference where it would decide it’s vision and structure going forward, one major proposal put forward was that of representatives in the party to never number less than 50% of women. One man and a couple of women at the conference argued that such was discriminatory, as it meant that female representatives could vary from between 50-100% whereas male reps could only ever number between 0-50%, and suggested a more egalitarian approach of a 40% minimum for both, with the remaining 20% being allowed to vary as required. For this they were called Tories, right wingers, and of course the ghost of ‘Comrade Delta’ was brought up, implying that by opposing the 50% measure they were ‘reinforcing rape culture’. Needless to say the 50% measure passed, and Left Unity is now just another callow vehicle for feminist political power.
   And all obtained by using the Rape culture/women are victims card.
   Luckily thanks to said measure and how it was pushed through, being widely advertised across the web, Left Unity looks pretty much dead on arrival at this moment in time. But it does serve as a good example for how feminists will use guilt and emotion to weasel their way to power and dominance.

6. Lesbian feminists are driving extreme, anti-male feminism but they are just tools. These lesbians invented “rape culture” and the false statistics that give it credence. Their goal is to outlaw masculinity thereby removing the sole obstacle to their dominance of the female: raw male power.
   By making heterosexual sex fraught with risk, lesbian radfems can clear the field of their natural competitors: men. The nominally hetero females who go along with the “rape culture” bs are just useful idiots in the grand scheme of male emasculation. See Femen.
   The radfems themselves are useful idiots in the desire of the power elite males’ desire to eliminate competition from other men. Rape culture and the enforcement mechanisms are tools of male oppression. Male oppression requires an instrument of enforcement: The Praetorian Class.
   We now have ‘The Rise of the Praetorian Class.’ See more here:
   http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig12/kofod2.1.1.html

   1. I don’t really think there’s some overarching plan here; all of feminism is just a set of knee-jerk reactions. Women should dress more conservatively? “NO! We want to dress the way we want!” Dressing suggestively increases the possibility of rape? “It’s not our fault, we want to do what we want!”
      They’re like little children, unable to see that their position is ludicrous and contradictory. It’s like when your kid sister avoids all warnings to not hug the pet hamster and then winds up killing it, and then cries about it (and blames it on someone else). They’re like children and they should be treated as such.
      If you’re ever confused about the difference between actual science and bullshit, here’s a tip: real science is heavy on facts and light on words.

      1. — “They’re like little children, unable to see that their position is ludicrous and contradictory.”
         Little children can be useful tools. Children have been used for mine-clearing (Iran/Iraq War), human shields, narc lookouts, alpha male entrapment, hostages in divorces, etc.
         What makes you think women/children cannot be used by bulldyke lesbians, who in turn are used by cultural marxists, who in turn are used by elites?
         Your love/tolerance of homosexuality is learned behavior. You learned it in college, a placed dominated by marxist indoctrinators. Free your mind.

      2. No plan eh? But who backs them financially?

         1. it’s not that difficult to find like minded people to bank roll pretty much whatever you want to do… even pedophiles find resources amongst themselves. It’s a good look for big business and public figures to be seen to back these pet causes, but that doesn’t mean they believe in them at all, or find much use for them beyond gaining a few extra votes. What did Obama really do for Black people ? What was Hillary really going to accomplish for women ? It’s just two faced political games.

      3. “I don’t really think there’s some overarching plan here; all of feminism is just a set of knee-jerk reactions.” Don’t be ridiculous! If you can read philosophy and politics, you must know this is crap. It is all about power and defining masculine power as E-VIL! And therefore institutions are redefined accordingly. For example, FIRE cites that 62% of all college and universities have policies at odds with the First Amendment, which all federal courts have upheld. Why the difference? Mostly, feminize ideology. Sexual harassment is defined up, and female responsibility down.

      4. Are you familiar with the term “useful idiot”? Do you know who came up with it?

      5. Got a friend that got mad when I told her that part of the reason why her friend got raped was because she was wearing a mini skirt and a tight top and was really drunk. Next thing I know, a group her friends went against me because I was simply stating what I thought.

         1. Instead of getting angry about them ganging up on you, why didn’t you listen to them and try and learn their point of view. If you truly believe that because a women is wearing minimal clothing she is asking to be raped, then why aren’t more women raped at swimming pools or at the beach when they are basically naked…?

         2. So, if I go walking through the ghetto in my very whiteness, drunk on my ass, with money falling out of my pockets, I contributed in no way to what happens? I quit asking how stupid can you get because too many people took it as a challenge instead of a question.

      6. My God man!! Where were you when I was finishing my degree? So many disorders in one person. You’re a gold mine. Don’t ever change.

      7. Ok. Think about it like this. Its socially acceptable for men to walk around in shorts and no top and they feel safe. All women want is that same feeling of safety. Articles like this suggest that if a women walks around with too much skin on show, then she somehow deserves to be raped? Also, following the ‘women should dress conservatively’ idea, what about when women are at the beach? We wear fuck all clothes then and women tend to feel pretty safe then. Why can’t women get the same level of respect that they get at the beach, when they are on a night out wearing a short skirt

         1. Finally an intelligent mind, knew there must be one here somewhere.

         2. because criminals don’t care and if you offer them an opportunity they will seize it. at the beach there is a lot of people so criminals can’t act.

         3. If you walked into a Church in your bikini it would not be appropriate. There is a general code of conduct that is acceptable in any given location. The beach is something special of its own. You can leave your towel and bag on the beach and generally no one will steal it. Everyone goes there for the same reason.
            Decades ago women and even men went to the beach fully clothed. There is an intelligence in modesty, because naked people = SEX which the human brain finds very stimulating.
            If you go out on the town at night the fact is the single people women included do this so they can get laid. So if you walk into a bar in a short skirt late on a Saturday night you are signalling sexual availability whether you like it or not. A woman on a beach in a bikini is not signalling sexual availability in the same way.

         4. I agree with you, but there is a fine line between victim blaming and common sense. A woman wearing revealing clothing is not an invitatation to be raped. At the same time, advising young women not to get blackout drunk with strangers isn’t terrible advice. I suppose in a perfect world I could pass out in an alley in a mini skirt (although binge drinking is terribly unhealthy so I really don’t think that should be encouraged)— and wake up unharmed. In a perfect world I could also leave my bike unlocked and not have it stolen. An unlocked bike doesn’t give someone the right to steal it, but practically speaking…. The police are interested primarily in prevention of crimes, and they extol advice accordingly.

      8. do you think strong men would have allowed this immigration ivasion, NO.
         the goal of the elites is to obtain world control, men are generaly nationalists and will refuse open border or open trade because it is a threat for their ecenomical safety. and when this immigration come from a culture who is in opposition with our culture it can only end bloodly. so the elite create hype around it’s plan and use women to enforce it.
         Their goal is to make men who oppose them too weak to do anything, they are afraid to see men as powerful as the trump familly appear.

      9. Ever read Lord of the Flies ? Children can be very dangerous – more by accident than design. It’s just monkey herd mentality.

   2. Homosexuals are about 1% of the population. Lesbians are about 1/2 of 1% of the population but even this number is too high. Half of those girls in the lesbian group are not lesbians but straight girls being groomed by the dykes so it’s really like 1/4 of 1%. Almost all of these feminists in the 60’s were lesbians and even NOW admitted back then that 50% of NOW was (it was more) So yes, this tiny fugly looking lesbo group is trying to get more and better looking females to have sex with them and they’ll try every trick to do it. They love turning sweet innocent girls just like the rape scene with the 13yo in the Vagina Monologues.

      1. The goal of radical feminism is extermination of males (including boys) and the destruction of heterosexuality. False rape accusations are being used for achieving this goal.
         Feminists provide evidence of this goal:
         “The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist.” (Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey, Links Books, 1974, p. 86)
         “Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice.” (Chicago Women’s Liberation Union pamphlet, Lesbianism and Feminism, 1971; Stevi Jackson, Sue Scott, Feminism and Sexuality: A Reader, Columbia University Press, 1996, p. 282)
         “The price of clinging to the enemy [a man] is your life. To enter into a relationship with a man who has divested himself as completely and publicly from the male role as much as possible would still be a risk. But to relate to a man who has done any less is suicide. . . . I, personally, have taken the position that I will not appear with any man publicly, where it could possibly be interpreted that we were friends.” (Ti-Grace Atkinson, Amazon Odyssey, Links Books, 1974, pp. 90, 91)
         “The married woman knows that love is, at its best, an inadequate reward for her unnecessary and bizarre heritage of oppression.” (Beverly Jones and Judith Brown, Toward a Female Liberation Movement, Gainesville, Florida, June 1968, p. 23)
         “[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” (Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, Secker & Warburg, 1975, p. 6)
         “The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be
         identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.” (National Organization
         for Women Times, Jan.1988)
         “Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women’s Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” (Sheila Cronan, in Radical Feminism – “Marriage” (1970), Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., HarperCollins, 1973, p. 219)
         “Marriage is a form of slavery.” (Sheila Cronan, in Radical Feminism – “Marriage” (1970), Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., HarperCollins, 1973, p. 216)
         Daly, Mary (former Professor at Boston College who was forced out of her job because she would not allow men in her classes)
         “If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore.” (from a 2001 interview with What Is Enlightenment magazine [referencing] Mary Daly, Quintessence…Realizing the Archaic Future: A Radical Elemental Feminist Manifesto, Beacon Press, 1998)
         “Men are from another planet, sent here by spaceships to copulate with female earthlings and propagate the species—a task for which science has rendered them all but redundant. We need keep only a handful of donors on a sperm farm for that purpose, where they can subsist on pizza and beer and Playboy magazine.” (Toronto Star, January 11, 1999, p. 31)
         “The institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is maintained. In a very real way the role of wife has been the genesis of women’s rebellion throughout history.” (Marlene Dixon, Why Women’s Liberation? Racism and Male Supremacy)
         “How will the family unit be destroyed? …[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.” (Roxanne Dunbar, Female Liberation as a Basis for Social Revolution, New England Free Press, 1974)
         “One of the differences between marriage and prostitution is that in marriage you only have to make a deal with one man.” (Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone, Dutton Publishing, 1989)
         “Marriage . . . is a legal license to rape.” (Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone, Dutton Publishing, 1989)
         “The hurting of women is . . . basic to the sexual pleasure of men.” (From The New York Times, Larry Elder, Smiting Moses, FrontPageMag.com July 10, 1998)
         “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.” (Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone, Dutton Publishing, 1989)
         “Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership.” (Andrea Dworkin, Letters >From a War Zone, Dutton Publishing, 1989)
         “Rape is the primary heterosexual model for sexual relating. Rape is the primary emblem of romantic love. Rape is the means by which a woman is initiated into her womanhood as it is defined by men.” (Andrea Dworkin, Letters >From a War Zone, Dutton Publishing, 1989)
         “I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” (Andrea Dworkin, Ice and Fire, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1987)
         “Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relations with men, in their relations with women, all men are rapists and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, their codes.” (Marilyn French, advisor to Al Gore’s 2000 Presidential campaign — The Women’s Room, Summit Books, 1977)
         “All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women… All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men’s prey.” (Marilyn French, The Women’s Room, Summit Books, 1977)
         “The family is the primary site of female subjection, which is achieved largely through sexuality: women are indoctrinated into their supposed ‘natural state’ by male control of their sexuality in the family.” (Marilyn French, The War Against Women, Ballantine Books, 1992, p. 53)
         “Female heterosexuality is not a biological drive or an individual woman’s erotic attraction or attachment to another human animal which happens to be male. Female heterosexuality is a set of social institutions and practices defined and regulated by [patriarchal mores, values, and law].” (Marilyn Frye–Professor of Women’s Studies at Michigan State University, Willful Virgins: Essays In Feminism, 1976-1992 – Willful Virgins or Do You Have to Be a Lesbian to Be a Feminist?, Crossing Press, 1992, pp. 130-132)
         “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” (Sally Miller Gearhart, The Future–If There Is One–Is Female, 1982)
         “Such a prospect [ovular merging] is attractive to women who feel that if they bear sons, no amount of love and care and non-sexist training will save those sons from [a] culture where male violence is institutionalized.” (Sally Miller Gearhart, The Future–If There Is One–Is Female, 1982)
         More here:
         http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/lgb.asp

         1. Yes to all of that.
            It is my firm opinion that the biggest reason why feminazis endlessly harp on about rape is that the whole subject make their cunts tingle.

         2. This is what it boils down to, isn’t it? During normal heterosexual intercourse, the man penetrates the woman. There’s a biological element of dominance and submission there. The radfems hate this because they’re lesbians and hate male sexuality in general. This isn’t surprising; what is surprising is how many straight women they’ve gotten on board with their agenda to demonize male sexuality over the past 40 years.
            Women nowadays are raised to vaguely believe submitting to a man is bad, but submitting to their every impulsive whim is good. This ends up with weird stuff like 50 Shades of Grey and self-proclaimed “feminists” into choking and violent sex (“but it’s my choice! so it’s feminist and empowering!”) Women are so culturally indoctrinated never to admit they enjoy being fucked and sexually submitting to a man, they can’t express their natural sexual desires without spinning a bunch of whips and chains and convoluted pomp and circumstance around it. Sounds pretty empowered to me!

         3. YES!!
            Why is it rape this, rape that. Christ the answer to everything is now “rape culture.” Honestly is this some kind of parody of feminism? is it april fools day? How often does rape actually happen? Not That rape isn’t horrible, it is, but shit if we all walked around fearing the sky was going to fall on us, well then life wouldn’t be very happy.

         4. Awesome job chief. Glad to see you are a bastion of sanity from that “other” website.

         5. Why would lesbians continue to use strap-ons then? Still penetration taking place?

         6. When you believe in your heart and mind that all heterosexual sex is rape, then you fight tooth and nail to get that enshrined in law. Think about the anti abortion groups that think it is murder, and how taken to extreme this justifies killing abortion doctors.

         7. It’s ok when a woman does it. That is the one thing they are consistent in, massive double standards.

      2. There’s this thing called the Kinsey Scale. It’s numbered 1-6. 1 being completely heterosexual. 6 being completely homosexual. Only 10% of the population on the planet can honestly claim to be either a 1 or 6. Scientific Fact.

         1. Kinsey’s results have been disproven multiple times and over many years. Quoting his work is a sign of the weakness of your arguments.

      3. ‘lesbo group is trying to get more and better looking females to have sex with them and they’ll try every trick to do it’ You’ve literally just described what this blog is about. Tricking women into sleeping with you. Replace lesbo group of ROK. Also, where are you getting your figures from? Im pretty sure there are more LGBTQ+ people in the world population that 1/2 of 1%. Which is 0.5% you moron

         1. Now it’s been openly encouraged at a primary school level I expect homosexuality is more common that it used to be, but in the past it was fairly rare. The fact of the matter is that both men and women when in formative years are curious about sexual preferences and may even play around a little bit. There’s very good reason for discouraging it and making it taboo, a bit like child smoking or drinking – once you take the cat out of the bag it’s impossible to get it back in again – so effectively all this faggot agenda does is rob (young men especially), of the chance to work their way through sexual identity issues and settle on being straight.
            in 2016 if you have any gender identity wobble at all, you are instantly a cock sucking faggot and welcomed into the community with open arms and even social benefits. This is clearly an incorrect approach, not least since homosexuals are prone to not only horrible diseases but also depression and psychological problems.
            Smoking is public enemy no# one, because it robs people in their later years 50+ of good health and long life. Makes sense. Homosexuality robs people of the chance to raise a normal family and be normal members of the community and the rare 1 in a million that’s ‘born like it’ – should not be allowed to influence herd mentality and have the 1 in 1000 with a little wobble all jump the fence the first twinge they get. It’s completely childish. Most teens will grow out of it if given a little direction – and if not, well go take it in the ass behind closed doors and don’t tell us about your disgusting habits. They are not appropriate for a normal healthy society.

      4. Watch the video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfYtOITj9QA, about the women’s shelters in Sweden. They are run by dykes that are obvious about their grooming and indoctrinating young women to separate completely from all male contact and to become lesbians.

   3. Won’t straight women stay straight no matter how horrible they think men are?

      1. No, women are much more fluid about their sexuality. The eons of polygamy led to a little bit of lesbianism in every woman. It just needs a little nurturing to grow into a massive weed.

7. Good article, but I don’t agree with your contention that rape isn’t about power. I would say that there’s a percentage of rapists for whom it is and a percentage of rapists for whom it isn’t. Either way, you made very good points.

8. That is an Awesome article and I completely agree with his conclusions. it makes sense. Rape was not a major issue in ancient times….and they treated it as such. FALSE rape accusers should get the same penalty as men found guilty of rape. Rape is not nor has it ever been about power. its about sex. Forced sex…but sex. Rapists…true rapists should be imprisoned and in some cases killed. The same goes for women who accuse men falsely of rape. They get no lee way.

9. “It was always the women, and above all the young one, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.”
   “The aim of the Party was not merely to prevent men and women from forming loyalties which it might not be able to control. Its real, undeclared purpose was to remove all pleasure from the sexual act. Not love so much as eroticism was the enemy, inside marriage as well as outside it. All marriages between Party members had to be approved by a committed appointed for the purpose, and–though the principle was never clearly stated-permission was always refused if the couple concerned gave the impression of being physically attracted to one another. The only recognized purpose of marriage was to beget children for the service of the Party. Sexual intercourse was to be looked on as a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema. This again was never put into plain words, but in an indirect was it was rubbed into every Party member from childhood onwards. There were even organizations such as the Junior Anti-Sex League which advocated complete celibacy for both sexes. All children were to be begotten by artificial insemination (artsem,it was called in Newspeak)and brought up in public institutions. This, Winston was aware, was not meant altogether seriously, but somehow it fitted in with the general ideology of the Party. The Party was trying to kill the sex instinct, or, if it could not be killed, then to distort it and dirty it. He did not know why this was so, but it seemed natural that it should be so. And so far as the women were concerned, the Party’s efforts were largely successful.”
   –George Orwell, “Nineteen Eighty-Four”

   1. Not many people know Eric Arthur Blair was an insider. My guess is that 1984 was written as a psyop to get people ready for what was coming. It was my favourite book in school. The very fact it was required reading in schools is a very good sign it was a psyop. Many people say that he rebelled and it was a warning. No way. Given it was in schools it was meant to be there.
      Indeed, after I was falsely accused of copying a poem I wrote myself and refused the opportunity to present my case to the headmaster by a hate filled shrew of a deputy headmaster, I refused to study in English any more. Every time I was asked to write an essay I wrote it on 1984. That was when I was 13.
      Many years later when I was vice captain of the school the headmaster asked me why it was that I deliberately refused to study in English. I was dux of the school and it puzzled him why I refused to study english.
      I repeated my story about how many years earlier I was falsely accused of copying a poem and that his deputy headmaster had refused my request to bring this false allegation to him for decision. I pointed out that the very fact he allowed false allegations NOT to be brought to him was pretty clear evidence that he did not believe in honesty and justice himself.
      He took what I said to him on the chin. He deserved it. He should have made it very clear to all his teaching staff that any student who denied an allegation of a teacher should have his/her case brought to him to decide.
      So yes…man hating, boy hating, femnazi teachers were responsible for me rebelling and refusing to write any more poetry even though I was very good at it, and refusing to study English. And the men who allow these man hating shrews to get away with such false allegations are just as responsible. That was in 1977 by the way…a long time ago.
      That is why we offer the service of denouncing criminal women on CAF. If a man is the victim of a crime of a woman and he will not say so out loud in public in his own name? He can have no complaint he has been criminally victimised.
      Here is the service offer. With CAF ranked 540,000 now? Women who are named in CAF have their CAF entry at the top of the google search. By the way? We are also going to make the same offer to women to name criminal men. I see no reason why we should not make money from women naming criminal men. I am pretty sure we will get a lot of women takers for that offer. So far not ONE man has been willing to publicly name and shame a criminal woman via CAF other than me. How about that?
      And you men wonder why you suffer from false allegations so much? Duh?!
      http://www.a-man-zon.com/Services/MBAServices/NameShameWomen.aspx

10. There is too much rape going on, and it’s all because of the damn economy. Women are helpless…. without the Coon…
    

    1. Allright CARTMAN!!! lol don’t go scratching up people making out on park benches again. lol

11. I’ve had sex with girls who stated that their fantasies in the bedroom, were to be “raped” by someone they know. It’s appalling to have such an attitude

    1. It is quite standard. Lots of women have rape fantasies. In the west it is a very foolish man who indulges that fantasy in the current man-hating climate.

       1. One can come close though. ‘Rough sex’ (hair pulling, choking, slapping, spanking, etc.) reminds women of rape so it’s a good strategy to use.

    2. Then it’s a man’s duty to point out that’s not “rape” …..
       because you can’t rape the willing.
       So her fantasy can’t ever come true. Too bad. So sad.
       And to prove it’s not just YOU who have had sex with girls like that:
       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JIjsCVJ2as
       Oh yeah. There you have it. They want to be “ALMOST raped”. Like raped but know your name. “Rape” is a complete JOKE to women. If women don’t take it seriously ….why would anyone else?
       So very sorry ladies, we know you want to be penetrated and you have sick fantasies about being raped and forcefully penetrated, but the majority of you fucked up slags will be waiting for the rest of your lives. Maybe thats why women are always miserable most of the time? Because nobody is wiling to rape them. I might be on to something here….

       1. And the duct taped mouths would solve so many other modern malaises.

    3. Its only appalling because you were taught that good girls don’t like that kind of thing. Better to look at the reality of things than to just take blindly what is taught to you. The dirty little secret is that women do like dominant men…Feminists as much as they decry strong men, really love them when with them in person(ever notice how president Clinton got a pass from the feminists?)

    4. There is nothing appalling about it anymore than it is appalling that some people have gay fantasies.
       Both dominance and homosexuality exist in nature and within certain accepted boundaries both should be celebrated.

    5. Let’s be honest: most women only see it as rape if the man is undesirable. If the man is attractive and has game, he can do just about anything to her. It’s not “appalling” unless you find basic human nature appalling.

    6. But the paradox is that if she truly wants it, then it’s not rape.

12. Great article, and spot on. The occurrence of cognitive dissonance naturally prevents these people from hearing anything remotely resembling reason. Only people on the other side of the fence are required to be “open-minded”.

13. The car analogy is perfect. I can handle myself, but i know it’s fucking stupid to stagger home alone at 3AM with my headphones on.

14. Rape as denoted in our current degenerated Western societies in a nutshell is absolute bullshit. First of all, men in the west allow their women, whether its wives, sisters or daughters to dress like sluts. Even a Victorian Era prostitute circa 1890 would gasp at the way “common” women dress today, and at this point I’m sure the common western woman has had more partners and extracted more money from men than Victorian Era prostitutes as well. Men are biologically programmed to induce sex upon seeing a women scantily clad. People keep saying it’s not right for men to act out upon their impulses (true), but on the same hand IS IT RIGHT FOR WOMEN TO PARADE AROUND WITH PRACTICALLY NOTHING ON, SEXUALLY TEMPTING OUR BIOLOGY FOR THEIR OWN AMUSEMENT? Throwing their filthy vaginae in our faces in clubs and parties and then claiming rape when they wake up the next morning. Old Christian civilizations (non-existent) and current Islamic societies have it right, women cannot parade around tempting men in whorish clothing. Again this is a phenomenon that has started with the white western woman and permeated to all other races of women that decide to inhabit the West. Men have allowed this, white men mostly. You all have allowed them to do this! And you people have the nerve to criticize Islam. At this point there’s no going back to the Old Christian West (Das ist Kaput!), so if faced with an Islamic takeover or feminist matriarchy, give me the first any day. At least the first maintains most of the same civilizational doctrines, Christianity instilled. It cannot get any worse than it already is, there is no Gramscian “march through the institutions,” because it already happened, and they already won the West. Just sit back and play Mozart’s Requiem in D minor and think of all that we’ve lost.

15. Its simple, when feminists say rape is about power its projection. Feminism is about power. Want to know Feminisms stand on something?– A very sure rule they follow is that if a man would like it, oppose it. Prostitution? Bad! Makeup? Bad, Porn? Bad. Man treated fairly in court? Bad. Having any right to access to your kids? Bad. A man marrying a woman outside of the US? Bad (they’ve made the laws as easy as possible to divorce him once she gets here by claiming falsified battery.) Then they are retarded enough to spew this shit that everyone should be a feminist. How much do feminist men hate themselves?

16. The ‘how to avoid a false rape accusation’ may be useful but deprives us from a really really fun part of the game, our victory dance, the moment when we can be us without repercussions, which is after you fuck a chick.
    Yeah, I enjoy treating her as a slut, and I enjoy making feel bad. I enjoy leaving her house without saying a word. I enjoy kicking her out of my house without an explanation. I enjoy throwing her a bill. I enjoy not calling her anoymore. I enjoy not answering her calls nor her texts. And I enjoy giving her the finger in addition to all of this. Why I’m such a bad person? Because I can.
    Because they deserve it. Every one of us were emotional manipulated at one point of out lives. Every one of us were unfairly blamed for all of her psychologycal flaws. Every one of us were attacked one way or another because we are men. Because they can.
    And I say, fuck them. Fuck women. Both literally and not literally. If we can take our little revenge after exploited their evolutionary flaws. If we can have the initiative, the freedom, to say them what we really think, what we really deserve to hear, is that moment.
    So vulnerable. So emotional. Expecting to be loved. Looking at you with puppy eyes. Wanting to hug you. And you, free of the shackles of the game, not a beta, not an alpha, just you.
    And because some feminist say hurting a girl feelings is rape I won’t stop, I won’t take a single more measure against that nonsense. If something, I’ll be more cruel. Because that’s not rape, that’s my middle finger bitch.

    1. if vengeance does it for you, sweet. i’m open to it, but where’s the future in it? i don’t want to do that myself. i don’t want to hate myself. i don’t want to hate them either. balls. i like the ‘just you’ part though. too bad it doesn’t work with all the white-knights thumping their chests and the pua-knaves thumping their cocks. race ya to the bottom, bro? or not.
       the way i see it, at least remember to laugh, less you accept the projection of self-hatred those failed women have for themselves. less you become them.

17. Here is a great link that explains further the “Darwinian perspective” this author references. It’s from 2000 and was published by the New York Academy of Sciences. It has not been picked up on by mainstream media because it “challenges old ideas,” such as the one that says rape is about violence, not sex. I would like to see this link spread far and wide in the manosphere and its ideas gain some traction. IMO an analysis of what’s contained in this link is worth an article in itself. http://iranscope.ghandchi.com/Anthology/Women/rape.htm

18. What color are most rapists? Some certain dudes need to keep an icepack on those 18 inch schlongers. Gives normal guys a bad rap. And the drunk cunts need to go to AA if u cant handle your liquor.

19. There’s no such thing as rape in Nature. This is just something we made up to protect the pussy we own. Females walking around with impunity especially at night and after drinking are just asking for it. A female who drinks with a man and then goes home with him or takes him to her place is asking for sex. Why else would a man ask you to come to his place at 3am? To play checkers? lol
    Real rape is extremely rare, perhaps 1 in 50k, but if a female was so worried about it she’d always have a chaperone along with her and wouldn’t go with a man to his place. She also wouldn’t engage in foreplay like kissing which has always been considered consent to sex. Ever see any old films from when they were censored? You’d see a female kissing a man and then you’d see the ocean pounding or something like that which meant she was getting fucked. The spoiled attention whores who you boys “make out” with in clubs and who then don’t have sex with you were called cock teasers in the past and were looked down on. And if a girl didn’t want to have sex she was labelled frigid. She could also be labelled frigid if she couldn’t have an orgasm. “you know dear, perhaps you should see a doctor about your problem” lol Not like you nerd Gen Y boys who wear yourselves out for an hour trying to make the bitch cum.
    Yeah, I think I’m going to amuse myself by bringing back the old shaming language for females. You Gen Y boys are not too clever and the females are using shaming language against you.

    1. I’m a ‘Gen Y boy’ and I totally concur with this. Too many guys of our generation became pussified and got us into the shithole we are in today. If a girl comes home with me at 3am and then doesn’t have sex, that’s being a cocktease, and I show her the door. When you’re having sex with a girl there is zero priority for you to give her an orgasm. The guy should be enjoying it. The girl only really enjoys it if the guy enjoys it. Because it’s female nature to want to please men. And if the girl doesn’t enjoy it, well she should start enjoying it.
       It’s all this incredible female-worship and pedestalization that has made the modern club scene so incredibly toxic. Clubs used to be a place where young adventurous souls (sluts) would gather to ‘have some fun’. Now it’s a place where girls go casually to gather attention and validation and drink and act like men.
       I mean, I even see this stuff in so-called ‘players’. They act like they’re aloof and don’t care, but in the end, it’s all about being validated by women.

       1. > Because it’s female nature to want to please men. And if the girl doesn’t enjoy it, well she should start enjoying it.
          Let me know how this sexist gig works out for you in 50 years.

          1. In 50 years I’ll be dead.

          2. You are merely flame-baiting, Ms. Wang.
             That it is in the nature of woman to want to please the opposite sex does not make a “sexist” statement. Your agenda to color anything that you can as “sexist” is clear.
             You have many unanswered challenges in other threads. Perhaps you should deal with those first before asking others to answer to misguided queries like yours.

          3. No, it is sexist.
             Definition of sexism:
             Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person’s sex.[ Sexist attitudes may stem from traditional stereotypes of gender roles, and may include the belief that a person of one sex is intrinsically superior to a person of the other.
             If it is always in the nature of one sex to please the other, then the statement framed in that way is sexism–because it implies that is all women are capable of doing. Furthermore, looking at the second statement,
             >And if the girl doesn’t enjoy it, well she should start enjoying it.
             If this doesn’t start ringing bells about consent, and how the perceived gender role of women /on this site/ is to serve men, then I don’t know how I can demonstrate that the commenter was sexist more clearly. Maybe you should ask him what he thinks about the intrinsic ability of women to study STEM-related fields.
             I guess I should expect you to come and rape me and some point, then. 😉

          4. No, it is sexist.
             Definition of sexism:
             Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person’s sex.[ Sexist attitudes may stem from traditional stereotypes of gender roles, and may include the belief that a person of one sex is intrinsically superior to a person of the other.
             If it is always in the nature of one sex to please the other, then the statement framed in that way is sexism–because it implies that is all women are capable of doing. Furthermore, looking at the second statement,

             Lol. That’s another grade-school level attempt at a rebuttal. Not only that, your retreat to semantics is flawed.
             While the attribute of being desirous of pleasing the opposite sex is said of women, there has been no implication that the behavior is restricted to only one of the sexes. Hence your claim that it is “discrimination” is not valid (not even by your definition). You then attempt to surreptitiously slip in the notion that it “may include” the belief that one sex is intrinsically superior to the opposing sex. It is typical that need to apply this hyperbolic misrepresentation of your opposition in order to justify your feigned indignation.
             In reality, that many (if not most) well-adjusted women have an underlying desire to be congenial to others (including men) is neither “sexist” nor fallacious. Your position is faulty and you know it. That is why you attempt to deflect from it with false accusations.
             As far as the “all women” accusation, please refrain from this typical eight-year-old child type of thinking that any notion has to be a panacea to be valid. It is understood that the norm is well described by the assertion.
             It was hoped that you would realize flaws in your assertion. Those flaws being:
             __1__ There was neither an explicit nor implied statement that pleasing the opposite sex is restricted by the individual’s sex.
             __2__ Wanting to please the opposite sex is neither demeaning nor is it a sign of subservience.
             __3__ A general trend is not negated by existence of exceptions.
             As expected, by employing the typical false premises in order to refute the opposition, you have proven that you actually know you are wrong, but cannot admit it. Hence you are only repeating fallacy, and to do so knowing that you have no foundation is merely trolling.

          5. >And if the girl doesn’t enjoy it, well she should start enjoying it.
             If this doesn’t start ringing bells about consent, and how the perceived gender role of women /on this site/ is to serve men, then I don’t know how I can demonstrate that the commenter was sexist more clearly. Maybe you should ask him what he thinks about the intrinsic ability of women to study STEM-related fields.

             This is another cheap attempt at misrepresenting your opposition in order to refute them. In this case, you are purposely taking the comment of “A guy” out of context.
             The premise was not “whether or not there was consent” in his response. His point is about the cases where there IS already mutual consent. You are either unable to isolate each conversation, or are surreptitiously pretending that “A guy” was claiming a woman should enjoy UNWANTED sexual interaction (which he was not). He was talking about consensual sex. You are changing his premise in order to promote your false accusation.
             His post is there for all to read, so your feint is obvious and does your already minimal credibility irreparable damage.

          6. I guess I should expect you to come and rape me and some point, then. 😉

             How apropos. It is expected that you would resort to underhanded tactics like lightly veiled accusations of being a rape promoter.
             You haven’t been able to refute any criticism of your arguments (Yes, your so-called refutations are all based on misrepresentations and are usually deflections or other evasive tactics) so you resort to ad hominem. Even if you didn’t realize it when you first started trolling, you should know by now that your position is faulty. You should admit fault and retain what little dignity remains.

          7. Dude. Just joking. 😛
             You seem like an articulate guy. I wish you the best in life. I hope you find whoever you’re looking for.

          8. > His point is about the cases where there IS already mutual consent.
             Okay. I was addressing the fact that some people believe that mutual consent can be given when one partner is clearly inebriated to the point of mental incoherence. If they are both clearly mentally capable of giving consent, then it gets tricky and each case will have to be dealt with in its context.

          9. >You then attempt to surreptitiously slip in the notion that it “may include” the belief that one sex is intrinsically superior to the opposing sex.
             Sorry dude, got that from Wikipedia.
             >In reality, that many (if not most) well-adjusted women have an underlying desire to be congenial to others (including men) is neither “sexist” nor fallacious. Your position is faulty and you know it. That is why you attempt to deflect from it with false accusations.
             Uh, I never said that? I am pro being nice towards everyone. Seriously. I just want to encourage tolerance.
             __2__ Wanting to please the opposite sex is neither demeaning nor is it a sign of subservience.
             In the context of the original comment, it was.
             > When you’re having sex with a girl there is zero priority for you to give her an orgasm.
             >And if the girl doesn’t enjoy it, well she should start enjoying it.
             Do you seriously believe this? You seem more moderate than that.
             If the girl doesn’t enjoy it, she should? First of all, that implies that men are in the “superior” role of telling girls what they should and shouldn’t do. That is definitely subservience–when one gender’s beliefs or opinions are completely assumed to be invalid by the other.

          10. Dude. Just joking. 😛
              You seem like an articulate guy. I wish you the best in life. I hope you find whoever you’re looking for.

              Lol. That’s expected too. It’s a “joke” if the target takes exception, but less of one if they don’t. It is doubtful that you find the concept of “rape” very humorous. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt this time, but little jabs below the belt like this erode you credibility more than it serves to hurt your opposition.
              “hope you find whoever you’re looking for”?
              Hmm… probing for a weakness are we? Let’s stay on topic.

          11. > His point is about the cases where there IS already mutual consent.
              Okay. I was addressing the fact that some people believe that mutual consent can be given when one partner is clearly inebriated to the point of mental incoherence. If they are both clearly mentally capable of giving consent, then it gets tricky and each case will have to be dealt with in its context.

              LOL. Well, it clearly wasn’t the case. He was talking about cases where mutual consent was established.
              Now, on to the notion about people believing that “drooling and babbling incoherently means yes”…
              One thing that is literally ignored in all of this is that the accused (usually a man) is expected to be sentient and capable of making the determination that the alleged victim (usually a woman) is functionally sentient and capable of offering consent. Can you not see the problem with this already? In case you don’t, it is the expectation that the man is responsible for BOTH party’s capabilities.
              In FAIRNESS, he is responsible for his decision making process, and not that of the other person. Advocates of “rape culture” demand a clearly unfair standard where a woman can be falling on her face drunk, but regardless of how far from lucid the man is, he is automatically considered to be at fault should any poor choice by BOTH occur. YES. That is how it translates.
              Add to that the free license to women to be as enticing as they wish to be (whether by attire, behavior, verbal cues, or any combination thereof) and the extreme bias becomes so glaring that it is astounding that we even allow it in our society.
              While we are at it, lets re-introduce the situation where the woman regrets her choice to partake afterwards.
              In those cases, yes, it becomes trickier. That is why many “rape” cases fail to convict. When it can be shown that the woman is merely regretting her choice, and that the she was capable of making a reasonable decision at the time, no forcible sexual assault really occurred.
              It is those cases that can be avoided if penalty for false accusations are greater and more effectively enforced. However, in all cases, the current system can and will create problems for the accused. Even if the accusation is false, they often suffer undue and lasting consequence.
              Seriously, one cannot think that this is merely “collateral damage” that is unavoidable because “we need to protect the accuser”. At the apparent rate false claims occur, this is not a small matter. Western society is not a “Rape Culture” at all. If anything, it is a culture that allows the loud minority of misguided feminists far too much latitude in their campaign to legislate further bias in the system. It is a “Spoiled Brat Culture”.

          12. >You then attempt to surreptitiously slip in the notion that it “may include” the belief that one sex is intrinsically superior to the opposing sex.
              Sorry dude, got that from Wikipedia.

              ROFL. Heck, you could have got it off of the world authority on Sexism… It doesn’t matter WHERE you got it from; the point was that it was inaptly applied (and it was already explained why). Nice try though.

              >In reality, that many (if not most) well-adjusted women have an underlying desire to be congenial to others (including men) is neither “sexist” nor fallacious. Your position is faulty and you know it. That is why you attempt to deflect from it with false accusations.
              Uh, I never said that? I am pro being nice towards everyone. Seriously. I just want to encourage tolerance.

              Uh… no… you DID. It was carefully worded to reflect your comment too. In fact you said:
              >>>“If it is always in the nature of one sex to please the other, then the statement framed in that way is sexism–because it implies that is all women are capable of doing.”<<<
              Again, you claimed that the consistent nature to please men is “sexist”. It is not (nor is the original statement you attempted to criticize meant to be a panacea).
              Q.E.D.

              __2__ Wanting to please the opposite sex is neither demeaning nor is it a sign of subservience.
              In the context of the original comment, it was.
              > When you’re having sex with a girl there is zero priority for you to give her an orgasm.
              >And if the girl doesn’t enjoy it, well she should start enjoying it.
              Do you seriously believe this? You seem more moderate than that.
              If the girl doesn’t enjoy it, she should? First of all, that implies that men are in the “superior” role of telling girls what they should and shouldn’t do. That is definitely subservience–when one gender’s beliefs or opinions are completely assumed to be invalid by the other.

              Seriously?
              There are some severe flaws in your logic here (which could explain how you are trapped in these delusions… really, that’s not meant as a derision).
              If you and I were taking a walk on Waikiki beach (a decision both decided to embark upon too), it’s up to each one of us to enjoy the moment. How realizing that each person is the far greater influence in his or her personal ability to have a good time becomes a notion of “subservience” is beyond reproach. How telling the other party that they need to allow themselves to reach a higher state is an act of superiority is equally inane. If one were telling you to enjoy the process of gaining knowledge, they are acting “superior” to you? Ridiculous.
              Furthermore, it is not “one gender’s belief” vs. another’s, unless, of course, you are suggesting that most women feel that the ability to enjoy sex is not in any part (much less the greater part) within their control.
              This notion that men “owe” it to you to ensure that there is a smile on your face is typical of entitled little girls that pout when things don’t go their way (all while refusing to understand that most of what creates a personal good time is one’s own work towards it).

          13. Wow. You just have no middle ground, do you?
              >Again, you claimed that the consistent nature to please men is “sexist”. It is not (nor is the original statement you attempted to criticize meant to be a panacea).
              Used in the context of the comments on this site, it is meant to be derogatory. If it was in the middle of a /highly nuanced/ statement like yours, then I would treat it differently. But where it was originally used, it was clear that the commenter used that statement to validate his ever-so-convenient beliefs about women–that their base instinct is to “please men”, so that of course overrides whatever silly notions of “rape” came afterwards.
              >If you and I were taking a walk on Waikiki beach (a decision both decided to embark upon too), it’s up to each one of us to enjoy the moment.
              It would be kind of different if we were having sex and I was clearly not enjoying it, for whatever reason. In that situation, my opinion is more valid than yours, no matter if I “should” be enjoying it or not. You are not me. As a partner who sees me as a human being with legitimate opinions, you should respect my decisions, not force an alternate opinion. you should inquire as to the source of my discomfort, as someone in a healthy relationship would. Not tell me to shut up and enjoy it.
              Holy shit, why is this so hard?
              >How telling the other party that they need to allow themselves to reach a higher state is an act of superiority is equally inane. If one were telling you to enjoy the process of gaining knowledge, they are acting “superior” to you? Ridiculous.
              No. I am merely asking for respect and acknowledgement in the face of a disagreement. Telling a person what they “should” do, especially in highly charged sexual contexts, is blatantly disrespectful of another person’s autonomy. I hope you agree with me when I say that sex is about mutual pleasure, not that of a single person’s.
              >This notion that men “owe” it to you to ensure that there is a smile on your face is typical of entitled little girls that pout when things don’t go their way (all while refusing to understand that most of what creates a personal good time is one’s own work towards it).
              What?? I am speaking of the opposite situation altogether–what happens when things go wrong.
              Dude, I am in a relationship. We have a good time and guess what, we don’t even have sex. Sorry. Guess that doesn’t fit into your scheme of things.

          14. >LOL. Well, it clearly wasn’t the case. He was talking about cases where mutual consent was established.
              The context was unclear. This is the internet, people!
              >In FAIRNESS, he is responsible for his decision making process, and not that of the other person. Advocates of “rape culture” demand a clearly unfair standard where a woman can be falling on her face drunk, but regardless of how far from lucid the man is, he is automatically considered to be at fault should any poor choice by BOTH occur. YES. That is how it translates.
              Because it protects the victim. Let’s assume the alternate happened. That the rapists would not be punished if they were both crazy drunk. That may prevent some false rape accusations, but the overall effect would that a lot more people (the rapists) would be getting away with it who were not actually crazy drunk and were mentally capable of making decisions. The current system protects against that.
              I know that we have vastly different ways of thinking about this, but I’d rather have a system that encourages people who have been raped to report it rather than one that discourages it, or excuses it (people find ways to abuse the system. they always do. perfect world fallacy, remember?) I know you think it’s more important to protect whoever the false rape allegations harm, but I can only see the downsides of that.
              > When it can be shown that the woman is merely regretting her choice, and that the she was capable of making a reasonable decision at the time, no forcible sexual assault really occurred.
              These cases are actually rarely reported, simply because of the pressures you talk about here.
              It is true that both parties need to make their intentions clear. The person in danger of being raped should say a clear “no.” The person who is in danger of raping someone should hear that, immediately back away, and the situation dissolves. Agree?

          15. Similar to how you jab at my argumentative style instead of the content, hmm?
              >Hmm… probing for a weakness are we? Let’s stay on topic.
              Interesting coming from someone who intentionally cyberstalked me to find my name, but okay.

          16. Similar to how you jab at my argumentative style instead of the content, hmm?
              >Hmm… probing for a weakness are we? Let’s stay on topic.
              Interesting coming from someone who intentionally cyberstalked me to find my name, but okay.

              No. Your “method of argument” was criticized BECAUSE you use it as a way to obfuscate and deflect the content. It is necessary to mention when the opposition deliberately chooses to employ straw-man arguments as well as abject falsehood in order to falsely infer that their position is correct.
              It was brought up when it became inescapable that your actions were to employ these fallacies in a constant barrage of misinformation.
              Cyberstalking?
              No. Requests are often made to discover the identity of repeat trolls. You are unlikely to find myself, or any others bothering to follow you around on the Internet (as in cyberstalking). However, if you come here to peddle misinformation, as forewarned, you will be put to task.
              I notice that many of your flame-baiting posts have been subsequently deleted from other threads on ROK. You should consider yourself fortunate that I even bother to converse with you. Most others don’t consider your comments of any value shy of comedic evidence of self-important, but ineffectual trolling.
              As far as the topic is concerned, the moment you provided the lament of someone who admitted to mental illness as “evidence” of wrongful adjudication of rape allegation, you forfeited your already jeopardized credibility. It is doubtful that can be recovered at this point.

          17. >LOL. Well, it clearly wasn’t the case. He was talking about cases where mutual consent was established.
              The context was unclear. This is the internet, people!

              No. The context was quite clear and you having the ability to obfuscate indicates a clear ability to have understood it. The phrasing was:
              A guy said, (comment-1176432273):
              “If a girl comes home with me at 3am and then doesn’t have sex, that’s being a cocktease, and I show her the door. When you’re having sex with a girl there is zero priority for you to give her an orgasm.”
              It is clear that those who elected to stay had consented to sex (or else they would have been shown the door). Those are the facts, people!

              >In FAIRNESS, he is responsible for his decision making process, and not that of the other person. Advocates of “rape culture” demand a clearly unfair standard where a woman can be falling on her face drunk, but regardless of how far from lucid the man is, he is automatically considered to be at fault should any poor choice by BOTH occur. YES. That is how it translates.
              Because it protects the victim. Let’s assume the alternate happened. That the rapists would not be punished if they were both crazy drunk. That may prevent some false rape accusations, but the overall effect would that a lot more people (the rapists) would be getting away with it who were not actually crazy drunk and were mentally capable of making decisions. The current system protects against that.

              No. The current system protects the victim because the onus is ENTIRELY on the man to determine the state of the woman as well as his own.
              Whether in the current system or the one that requires both parties to be capable of consent, the man is still responsible for his OWN sobriety, but NOT the woman’s. Do you really not see the problem with being responsible for someone else’s conduct? Please.

              I know that we have vastly different ways of thinking about this, but I’d rather have a system that encourages people who have been raped to report it rather than one that discourages it, or excuses it (people find ways to abuse the system. they always do. perfect world fallacy, remember?) I know you think it’s more important to protect whoever the false rape allegations harm, but I can only see the downsides of that.

              No. It is EQUALLY important to protect ANYONE who is victimized by the abuse of allegation. What part of “EQUALITY” are you having trouble with? Where has it been suggested that it is MORE important to protect those victimized by false allegation than those who are victimized by rape? WHERE? You are making things up again.
              Making it those who knowingly abuse the system pay a heftier penalty is the aim. This doesn’t mean we are doing it at the expense of the real victims (search for “The truth is that seeking justice is rarely without work and effort on ALL parties involved. Yes, that INCLUDES the victim” for full details on this.)

              > When it can be shown that the woman is merely regretting her choice, and that the she was capable of making a reasonable decision at the time, no forcible sexual assault really occurred.
              These cases are actually rarely reported, simply because of the pressures you talk about here.

              Of course these cases are rarely reported. When does “changing your mind” afterwards make the previous night’s sex a crime of rape? Please, it only happens now because there’s little perceived penalty for doing so.

              It is true that both parties need to make their intentions clear. The person in danger of being raped should say a clear “no.” The person who is in danger of raping someone should hear that, immediately back away, and the situation dissolves. Agree?

              If only the mating rituals were like legal transactions…
              What “rape alarmists” conveniently overlook is that the dynamics of the mating game requires the context of the situation. It’s not as simple as a man saying, “Do you want to have penetrative sex?” To which the woman either says, “Yes” or “No” and signs some waiver in triplicate. The game of romance doesn’t work that way. Most of the time, the invitation is “to have a few drinks”, or “come over for coffee”, or “can you help me with moving some furniture”. The moves are subtle, as are the cues.
              The “yes” is not easy for neophytes, but any experienced man will tell you that it doesn’t take much to figure out how the evening is going to end up. Most of the time, the manifestation of a clear “no” is obvious. Seriously, the only people who don’t think so are the ones who are deliberately vague.
              It should be clear that most of the contentious rape cases are the ones that involve subsequent regret. They may appear as “I said No”, but what plaintiff is going to say, “Well, I changed my mind the next day”?

          18. Wow. You just have no middle ground, do you?

              If you come here in earnest to discover the truth, a kind and gentle hand is offered.
              However, as you were cautioned, if you come here to troll, you will be put to task. That means any misinformation will be indelicately dismantled. Should you persist in peddling propaganda, your credibility and reputation will be at stake and likely collaterally razed to the ground.

              >Again, you claimed that the consistent nature to please men is “sexist”. It is not (nor is the original statement you attempted to criticize meant to be a panacea).
              Used in the context of the comments on this site, it is meant to be derogatory. If it was in the middle of a /highly nuanced/ statement like yours, then I would treat it differently. But where it was originally used, it was clear that the commenter used that statement to validate his ever-so-convenient beliefs about women–that their base instinct is to “please men”, so that of course overrides whatever silly notions of “rape” came afterwards.

              He said this (comment-1176432273):
              “When you’re having sex with a girl there is zero priority for you to give her an orgasm. The guy should be enjoying it. The girl only really enjoys it if the guy enjoys it. Because it’s female nature to want to please men. And if the girl doesn’t enjoy it, well she should start enjoying it.”
              Having a base instinct to want to please the opposite sex… that is sexist? How?

              >If you and I were taking a walk on Waikiki beach (a decision both decided to embark upon too), it’s up to each one of us to enjoy the moment.
              It would be kind of different if we were having sex and I was clearly not enjoying it, for whatever reason. In that situation, my opinion is more valid than yours, no matter if I “should” be enjoying it or not. You are not me. As a partner who sees me as a human being with legitimate opinions, you should respect my decisions, not force an alternate opinion. you should inquire as to the source of my discomfort, as someone in a healthy relationship would. Not tell me to shut up and enjoy it.
              Holy shit, why is this so hard?

              In the context of what the “a guy” said, there is nothing implied about NOT enjoying the experience. He speaks of achieving climax, not of having a bad time. “Doesn’t Enjoy” was in the context of not achieving sexual release, it was not meant as feeling pain or discomfort. It is understood that if one’s partner is actually have a miserable time, or even discomfort, that some concern will be raised. Just WHERE are you reading such negative connotations into this? (Don’t say it is because we are talking about rape, as the context of this particular story was of CONSENSUAL sex).
              “Why is this so hard”?
              That’s usually what the women say to me, to which I reply, “because of you, bbbbaby”.

              >How telling the other party that they need to allow themselves to reach a higher state is an act of superiority is equally inane. If one were telling you to enjoy the process of gaining knowledge, they are acting “superior” to you? Ridiculous.
              No. I am merely asking for respect and acknowledgement in the face of a disagreement. Telling a person what they “should” do, especially in highly charged sexual contexts, is blatantly disrespectful of another person’s autonomy. I hope you agree with me when I say that sex is about mutual pleasure, not that of a single person’s.

              You claimed that it was acting “superior”. You were not merely asking for respect and are just deflecting from that. As far as respecting another person’s autonomy, saying that someone “should” is not the same as demanding that they do.
              As far as sex is concerned, he IS saying that a person has autonomy in that they are the greatest influence on what heights they will reach.

              >This notion that men “owe” it to you to ensure that there is a smile on your face is typical of entitled little girls that pout when things don’t go their way (all while refusing to understand that most of what creates a personal good time is one’s own work towards it).
              What?? I am speaking of the opposite situation altogether–what happens when things go wrong.
              Dude, I am in a relationship. We have a good time and guess what, we don’t even have sex. Sorry. Guess that doesn’t fit into your scheme of things.

              However you wish to maintain your personal relationships is irrelevant to this discussion. Why bring it up?
              He was not addressing “when things go wrong” in a sexual encounter. His pretext is that there is too much emphasis on placing women on a pedestal in today’s First World society. This is something that is further propagated by dysfunctional situations like poor “false rape accusation” penalty policies.

          19. Sigh.. so many people who aren’t willing to hear other viewpoints here.
              I hope you have a good life. I am getting back to mine, and trying to be as kind and good and happy of a person as possible.

    2. >Females walking around with impunity especially at night and after drinking are just asking for it.
       So you fuck anything that moves. Good job.

       1. Well now Ms. Wang,
          Just where is it said or implied that PanchoandGringo will accept anything that moves as a suitable mating partner?
          As it as been said before, if you choose to troll, you will be put to task.

          1. When he said that females walking around at night are asking for it.
             They are not asking for it. It is /his/ responsibility, and his alone, to control his desires.

          2. When he said that females walking around at night are asking for it.
             They are not asking for it. It is /his/ responsibility, and his alone, to control his desires.

             Yet another fallaciously based refutation.
             Again, WHERE is PanchoandGringo saying he will take anything that moves as a sex partner? While you are evading that question, answer this one based on your evasion:
             WHERE is PanchoandGringo saying or implying that women who choose to be walking around with impunity especially at night and after drinking have to watch out for specifically him?
             While we are at it, even if others were to check their “desires”, how is it that men are wholly responsible for the bad choices that women make in a drunken state?
             Note too that like many zealots, your edicts are steeped in absolutes. In reality, people have the responsibility to mitigate their vulnerability. It is the inflated sense of entitlement that makes some think that everyone owes them the perfect world (or compensation when it isn’t) and that no effort is required on their part. There’s more on this in the response to your other ill-conceived response. As for this one, just answer the questions instead of evading them (like usual).

          3. >Again, WHERE is PanchoandGringo saying he will take anything that moves as a sex partner? While you are evading that question, answer this one based on your evasion:
             Okay, you are right. He didn’t say that. He said this.
             > Females walking around with impunity especially at night and after drinking are just asking for it.
             Note that impunity is not an objective measure. He’s saying that he’s the arbiter of who’s walking at night inappropriately, and thus all responsibility of whatever sex might happen is lifted off his shoulders regardless of the nuanced circumstances.
             >WHERE is PanchoandGringo saying or implying that women who choose to be walking around with impunity especially at night and after drinking have to watch out for specifically him?
             Not specifically him. But if he uses that to evade responsibility, then doesn’t that encourage men to act similarly?
             >While we are at it, even if others were to check their “desires”, how is it that men are wholly responsible for the bad choices that women make in a drunken state?
             Of course they are not. I am merely asking for men to take responsibility of the bad choices they make.

          4. >Again, WHERE is PanchoandGringo saying he will take anything that moves as a sex partner? While you are evading that question, answer this one based on your evasion:
             Okay, you are right. He didn’t say that. He said this.
             > Females walking around with impunity especially at night and after drinking are just asking for it.
             Note that impunity is not an objective measure. He’s saying that he’s the arbiter of who’s walking at night inappropriately, and thus all responsibility of whatever sex might happen is lifted off his shoulders regardless of the nuanced circumstances.

             Chuckle… oh please, let’s dispense with the coy word games. This isn’t grade three and you are not a little child. Do I really have to come by and give you a spanking? Lol.
             The context of his statement is that if one isn’t paying enough attention to how they look to others, and if they are careless in where they choose to be, they have effectively placed themselves in a vulnerable position. By doing so, they have assumed some responsibility to any subsequent loss.
             He is not the arbiter (nor does he imply that). In fact, it is those one comes across in that situation that will be the arbiter of what the attire represents. The perpetrator decides who is a likely target. No amount of feigned misunderstanding of what PanchoandGringo said is going to change that.
             There you go with the “ALL” responsibility again. It isn’t a binary set of solutions (100% one-way or 100% the other way). Responsibility is often shared in differing degrees.

             >WHERE is PanchoandGringo saying or implying that women who choose to be walking around with impunity especially at night and after drinking have to watch out for specifically him?
             Not specifically him. But if he uses that to evade responsibility, then doesn’t that encourage men to act similarly?

             It was important to get this admission since your position needs to be clearly and concisely established.
             On to why it is flawed…
             While any given individual is responsible for their conduct, that does not exonerate any other’s responsibility of theirs. This is the fundamental flaw in every argument that based on “only the accused person (usually a man) is responsible for instigating sexual interaction, that in retrospect, is deemed undesired by the other party (be it man or woman)”.
             Neither PanchoandGringo nor anyone else has the ability to determine or control the conduct of unsavory individuals that one can meet in certain situations. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that these miscreants will pay any attention to the example set by those less irreverent. The attitudes and actions of the potential perpetrator are generally very selfish, and are unlikely to be modified merely because some people choose to believe fallaciously constructed descriptions of society (such as “rape culture”).
             Hence, we aren’t talking about those victimized by perpetrators with the intent to assault (those are the clear cut cases). We are talking about the cases where there are mixed signals (or in reality, intentional provocation, often with subsequent consent, but eventual remorse).
             What you are hoping is, that creating a false notion that women are exempt from any and all accountability for their conduct (and YES, that is what one is saying when they promote this notion of “we can dress and act as provocatively as we like since all we have to do is cry rape to be free from any blame as this is especially handy if one decides later that things went too far”) criminals will be effectively deterred from acting out their intentions. You then extrapolate this false notion by saying any third party action that doesn’t agree with this (like saying that women CAN bear some responsibility), is essentially “promoting” criminal intent.
             Can you really not see how ridiculous that concept is?
             Reminding people to lock their front doors isn’t “promoting” someone to break and enter. It’s informing people of due diligence. As it was already said, “Thieves will be thieves”. Thieves may or may not even care about consequences, as they don’t intend to be caught. Consider too, that dressing and acting provocatively in the wrong places is like flaunting the contents of your home. In both cases, you are inviting undue attention.

             >While we are at it, even if others were to check their “desires”, how is it that men are wholly responsible for the bad choices that women make in a drunken state?
             Of course they are not. I am merely asking for men to take responsibility of the bad choices they make.

             You weren’t “merely” asking for men to take responsibility. You were clearly attempting to draw attention away from women having some onus regarding their own conduct.
             You also attempt to downplay the situations where the cry of “rape” is more akin to regretting one’s actions and justifying the subsequent lament by convincing oneself that you had no part in it’s instigation (and, no, it is not an insignificant rate of occurrence that “rape culturists” want people to believe). The concept of “buyer’s remorse” is human nature. Do you not think that it also applies to conduct that led to sexual intercourse? (Don’t take the “buyer” part literally now). Many will “blame” their lack of acumen at the time due to suppressed inhibition, and relying on the belief that the other party is WHOLLY responsible for the unfolding of events (regardless that both parties potentially lacked objectivity at the time of the incident).
             To believe that the other party is completely responsible for both parties conduct is truly a sense of “entitlement”. It is this faulty and childish view of the world that “rape culturists” cling on to. Namely, that others are wholly responsible for things when those things are unsatisfactory.
             There’s an important point that the audience here should realize too.
             Note how much manoeuvring it has taken to get you to admit that men are not wholly responsible in the situations where at least one of the parties did not make choices they agreed with after the fact. Not only there, but in practically all of the conversation, you exercise a great deal of coyness and evasion. Often you will couch things vaguely in order to give some room for escape if the pressured towards some precision and clarity.
             This is EXACTLY the attitude and behavior that provides cause for dismissal when evaluating the reliability of a rape claim.
             When people practice this type of indistinctness, it is usually deliberate and betrays a hidden agenda (in which their position is not only false, it is known to the claimant to be false). Can you not see why many accusations of “rape” don’t even make it past the stage of being reported (yes, those cases don’t even qualify as “unfounded” as they aren’t even official documented as “rape” charges)?
             When people are sure of something, and are sure because they base the conclusion on fact, it is unlikely they will present the case with any imprecision. In contrast, when people practice subterfuge, they are usually trying to justify a “feeling”, and discover that the facts are far less supportive than they initially believed. In an Internet forum many who get their fallacious arguments exposed as such will pretend they haven’t been proven wrong and retreat to repeating fallacy ad nauseam (a form of trolling).
             The facts do not support the case to promote “rape culture”. It’s time to get over it.

          5. >Chuckle… oh please, let’s dispense with the coy word games. This isn’t grade three and you are not a little child. Do I really have to come by and give you a spanking? Lol.
             While we’re at it, can you please stop talking about my argumentative style and just debate content? I don’t even know what your positions are on this. Hiding behind other people’s doesn’t exactly count.
             >The context of his statement is that if one isn’t paying enough attention to how they look to others, and if they are careless in where they choose to be, they have effectively placed themselves in a vulnerable position. By doing so, they have assumed some responsibility to any subsequent loss.
             Some responsibility. not the majority of the responsibility, which is what counts in the end. Self control, remember?
             >No amount of feigned misunderstanding of what PanchoandGringo said is going to change that.
             Feigned? If I wasn’t doing all this, writing up thousands of words to a stranger on the internet, as a clear expression of my own beliefs then you are sincerely mistaken. This is good practice for when I have to debate against people who are so convinced that we’re on opposite sides, when we mostly agree about something. holy shit.
             > The attitudes and actions of the potential perpetrator are generally very selfish, and are unlikely to be modified merely because some people choose to believe fallaciously constructed descriptions of society (such as “rape culture”).
             No. It’s subtle. Watch The Act of Killing by Joshua Oppenheimer and you will see how scarily human mass murderers can be, how well they have justified to themselves that what they are doing is right. If someone has society telling them a woman is “asking for it” because of whatever shit reason, then that’s a justification. That’s rape culture.
             >We are talking about the cases where there are mixed signals (or in reality, intentional provocation, often with subsequent consent, but eventual remorse).
             So you’d like to the majority of the blame/accountability on the provocateur. In all mixed-signal cases. Because that’s what your decision to oppose everything that I have said sounds like.
             >What you are hoping is, that creating a false notion that women are exempt from any and all accountability for their conduct
             Where did I say this? I said that when the woman is clear about her intentions, and is dressed (by some arbitrary standard) provocatively, she should never hold the majority of the blame for what happens. Self control. Again. I said that mutual cases should be dealt with by the nuances of their context.
             >You then extrapolate this false notion by saying any third party action that doesn’t agree with this (like saying that women CAN bear some responsibility), is essentially “promoting” criminal intent.
             Again, your context is nuanced. Most people don’t think about it this thoroughly during the situation. They’ll grab any opportunity to excuse their behavior. Woman was dressed provocatively? It’s her fault. Duh.
             >Consider too, that dressing and acting provocatively in the wrong places is like flaunting the contents of your home. In both cases, you are inviting undue attention.
             Oh. So we’re talking about “acting provocatively” now. Such an objective measure. Has it occurred to you that women have the right to feel good about their bodies? That their bodies aren’t just for men to judge? thus, I can go out on the street with no intention of flirting with anyone, dressed in a way that I think is sexy simply because I am proud of my body (and in fact, do not want to hook up with anyone), and then say it’s the majority of the responsibility if I get raped?
             >You weren’t “merely” asking for men to take responsibility. You were clearly attempting to draw attention away from women having some onus regarding their own conduct.
             No, you’re misconstruing my intentions. Again.
             I am honest to a fault. I don’t have any intention of deceiving you and then making you look stupid later, like you do. Sorry if you don’t believe this.
             I wasn’t even thinking about women taking responsibility when I made the argument. Simply, like I said, asking politely that maybe men could take some of their own. Which you blatantly disregarded. And then you make the same request of me.
             Do you see how frustrating this is?
             I am responding to the debate in good faith, that you mean what you say. If you don’t believe the same of me then this is over.
             So yes, I will say that of course, women need to take responsibility in some situations. Not even a concession, because that’s what I believed in the first place, but I know that you’ll insist that it is.
             >You also attempt to downplay the situations where the cry of “rape” is more akin to regretting one’s actions and justifying the subsequent lament by convincing oneself that you had no part in it’s instigation
             Again, is this under the context that both parties are mutually consenting at the time, and were capable of consenting? If so, then I resort to my previous stance: that each situation is to be dealt with with the appropriate nuance and attention that it deserves.
             >To believe that the other party is completely responsible for both parties conduct is truly a sense of “entitlement”. It is this faulty and childish view of the world that “rape culturists” cling on to. Namely, that others are wholly responsible for things when those things are unsatisfactory.
             It is also what false rape allegation accusers (the people who accuse the accuser of having made a false rape allegation, who are actually wrong) cling to when they say that the woman was asking for i and it was her fault all along, oh and why don’t you charge her while you’re at it, completely threaten to destroy her life for telling such an insidious lie? It’s a human trait, not one limited to rape culturists.
             >Not only there, but in practically all of the conversation, you exercise a great deal of coyness and evasion. Often you will couch things vaguely in order to give some room for escape if the pressured towards some precision and clarity.
             Again, to me, you do the same thing by attacking what you perceive as my “argumentative style”. Your perception is yours. What I can say honestly is that I addressed your points to the best of my ability, with no eventual goals of manipulating or deceiving. Again, if you don’t believe that, then this debate is over, as you can always use the same excuse to make yourself look better.
             >When people are sure of something, and are sure because they base the conclusion on fact, it is unlikely they will present the case with any imprecision.
             Did you read that “false rape allegation” article I gave you? She had physical damage of rape trauma. They ignored her. Do you really think that “facts” will stand in the way of bigotry?
             > In contrast, when people practice subterfuge, they are usually trying to justify a “feeling”, and discover that the facts are far less supportive than they initially believed.
             Are we still talking about rape here? In cases where the accuser based the accusation on a feeling? That does not automatically invalidate it. Depression is a feeling that becomes a state of being. You can sink into depression through feeling physically violated, and that has mental and physical consequences.
             >The facts do not support the case to promote “rape culture”. It’s time to get over it.
             No, because of the remarkable number of comments on this site that disturbingly suggest that all accountability should be placed upon women, using this article as an excuse. Not you. Others.

          6. >Chuckle… oh please, let’s dispense with the coy word games. This isn’t grade three and you are not a little child. Do I really have to come by and give you a spanking? Lol.
             While we’re at it, can you please stop talking about my argumentative style and just debate content? I don’t even know what your positions are on this. Hiding behind other people’s doesn’t exactly count.

             Your “argumentative style” is wholly tied to the topic in two ways (and this has been mentioned):
             __1__ You employ misrepresentation of opposing statements in order to create a false refutation. This “style” has been noted to be merely deflective and really serves no purpose towards the topic aside from creating the illusion that one’s falsehoods are valid (which they clearly are not.)
             __2__ If you wish to debate ONLY the content, then stop employing these ploys and admit when your argument has been defeated. Also stop with the false accusations in the form of inapplicable parroting attacks.
             You don’t know what my position is on “this”. Seriously? I think both position and the supporting evidence has been quite transparent. “Hiding behind other person’s position” is yet another deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. In one branch, the position of PanchoandGringo was defended. To couch that as “hiding behind another person’s position” is insincerely false. Nice try.
             The mention of the “style” of fallacious tactics was important because it shows the audience at large how subterfuge is used to promote falsehood. THAT is critical to dismantling the propaganda. I would rather not have to point it out, but it is up to you to avoid using these fallacies (seriously, you KNOW when you purposely misrepresent what your opposition has written).

             >The context of his statement is that if one isn’t paying enough attention to how they look to others, and if they are careless in where they choose to be, they have effectively placed themselves in a vulnerable position. By doing so, they have assumed some responsibility to any subsequent loss.
             Some responsibility. not the majority of the responsibility, which is what counts in the end. Self control, remember?

             The operative word is “SOME” responsibility. Remember?
             You are merely DEFLECTING AWAY from WHY this was mentioned. As a reminder, it was demonstrated that you purposely, and on numerous occasion, tried to make it appear that blame is either ONE way or the OTHER, and not shared as you are now alluding to. It was noted how much effort it took for you to finally admit to that.

             >No amount of feigned misunderstanding of what PanchoandGringo said is going to change that.
             Feigned? If I wasn’t doing all this, writing up thousands of words to a stranger on the internet, as a clear expression of my own beliefs then you are sincerely mistaken. This is good practice for when I have to debate against people who are so convinced that we’re on opposite sides, when we mostly agree about something. holy shit.

             No. Once again you are deflecting.
             The term is “feigned MISUNDERSTANDING”, and not “feigned OWNERSHIP of opinion”. You know this and are employing a coy attempt at redirecting based on, as was mentioned, a “feigned misunderstanding” of the criticism.
             Whether it is good practice or not, using this type of fallacious tactic will earn you neither respect nor audience should you try this in a more formal setting. Courts of law, discovery venues, board rooms, etc… will not entertain this type of childish coyness. Do not think your sincerity or reputation does not suffer for this here either.
             Mostly agree?
             Actually it is apparent that you probably acknowledge and agree with what has been presented to you. Why else would you resort to those tactics in order to defend the points that have been challenged? Yes. You actually agree that there needs to be reform such that false claimants perceive and actually are administered greater penalty for wasting the systems time and resources. You just can’t admit it.

             > The attitudes and actions of the potential perpetrator are generally very selfish, and are unlikely to be modified merely because some people choose to believe fallaciously constructed descriptions of society (such as “rape culture”).
             No. It’s subtle. Watch The Act of Killing by Joshua Oppenheimer and you will see how scarily human mass murderers can be, how well they have justified to themselves that what they are doing is right. If someone has society telling them a woman is “asking for it” because of whatever shit reason, then that’s a justification. That’s rape culture.

             Really? You are now saying that the “attitude and actions” of those who intend to rape are “subtle”. So… Rape is now a subtle action and not the violent act which feminists revile? The CONTEXT of these potential perpetrators was very clearly the violent rapists (the small but dangerous sector of society) so don’t try to claim you thought it was about those who are influenced by “perceptions of what is and isn’t rape”.
             These felons do NOT represent the culture at large. That they exist does not make society a “rape culture”.
             Discussing what goes on in the mind of those extremists is hyperbole. False claimant legislation in one way or the other doesn’t even remotely affect those situations. You are just deflecting again.

             >We are talking about the cases where there are mixed signals (or in reality, intentional provocation, often with subsequent consent, but eventual remorse).
             So you’d like to the majority of the blame/accountability on the provocateur. In all mixed-signal cases. Because that’s what your decision to oppose everything that I have said sounds like.

             Enough is enough, Saffy.
             In your smug words, “Citation Please”. Please show us all where I have said or alluded to such a position. If you cannot, you are purposely insinuating a stance your opposition has not taken. No caveat of “sounds like” will exonerate you of this.
             Where SPECIFICALLY (because you placed in that SPECIFIC modifier) was it said or implied that the MAJORITY of the accountability be placed on the provocateur?
             I will point all back to this should you continue these attempts at false accusations.

             >What you are hoping is, that creating a false notion that women are exempt from any and all accountability for their conduct
             Where did I say this? I said that when the woman is clear about her intentions, and is dressed (by some arbitrary standard) provocatively, she should never hold the majority of the blame for what happens. Self control. Again. I said that mutual cases should be dealt with by the nuances of their context.

             Where do you say it (she innocently quips)?
             Well let’s see, on this response thread…
             __comment-1178865019__They are not asking for it. It is /his/ responsibility, AND HIS ALONE, to control his desires.”
             __comment-1179392366__“Do not try to blame the victim for an act which you could have prevented by simply controlling yourself.”
             __comment-1180474003__”…and thus have the responsibility to not have sex with someone who’s inebriated OR BEING PROMISCUOUS.”
             …to name just a FEW of the incidences.
             So, NO, you clearly and explicitly were promoting the notion that women are EXEMPT from any and all accountability for their conduct. Again, there is NO MENTION that women have the “majority of blame” in cases where her conduct or attire is a factor. You are clearly LYING in order to defend your faulty position. Again, you CLEARLY INTENDED to imply or in the cases noted, EXPLICITLY stated that women bore none of the blame.
             Q.E.D.
             Enough lies Ms. Wang. You have not only lost the argument, you have now completely destroyed your integrity and reputation.
             (Don’t worry guys. I have a snapshot of the posts, so any attempt to edit them after the fact will be easily detected an proven).

             >You then extrapolate this false notion by saying any third party action that doesn’t agree with this (like saying that women CAN bear some responsibility), is essentially “promoting” criminal intent.
             Again, your context is nuanced. Most people don’t think about it this thoroughly during the situation. They’ll grab any opportunity to excuse their behavior. Woman was dressed provocatively? It’s her fault. Duh.

             The scenarios may be variable, but the context is absolutely NOT nuanced. Nice try.
             The assertion is… that depending on the conduct and attire of the alleged victim, consent may have been mutual at the time. In the cases where impaired cognition is involved, not only must this be shown to be valid, we cannot excuse ONE party of this while holding the other accountable. It recognizes that the situation varies.
             You CREATE the caveat that most people do not think about the [the situation] thoroughly, so, therefore the accused is automatically “guilty” of ignorance, and are seeking alibi. This is typical of feminist zealot thinking. According to the society-is-a-rape-culture crowd, ANYONE that is accused of rape is GUILTY till proven innocent.
             That rather flies in the face of “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” (one is innocent till proven guilty) do it not? Please, you are clearly showing the type of prejudice that leaves little doubt that those who try to create this vilification of men are not about due process or equality.
             Furthermore, there you go again. Stop trying to say your opposition is saying, “it’s her fault” (with the innuendo that it is all her fault). Your misrepresentations didn’t work the first time, nor will they work now.

             >Consider too, that dressing and acting provocatively in the wrong places is like flaunting the contents of your home. In both cases, you are inviting undue attention.
             Oh. So we’re talking about “acting provocatively” now. Such an objective measure. Has it occurred to you that women have the right to feel good about their bodies? That their bodies aren’t just for men to judge? thus, I can go out on the street with no intention of flirting with anyone, dressed in a way that I think is sexy simply because I am proud of my body (and in fact, do not want to hook up with anyone), and then say it’s the majority of the responsibility if I get raped?

             Nice try. You are completely WRONG. Here is why…
             Firstly:
             We’ve been talking about “acting provocatively” all along. Don’t even try to say that dressing provocatively is any different than that. What, like someone wearing a revealing miniskirt and tank top is going to act like a “nun”? Please. You are just being obtuse. Besides the whole point of an interrogation is find out things like whether or not someone was leading someone else on.
             Secondly:
             We have already established, and repeatedly so, that HOW someone dresses can be interpreted by others, and that some awareness of this is expected. Look up the phrase, “It is also understood that in the cases where a woman is provocatively dressed” here. You were already told why this hackneyed excuse is invalid. I am not going to repeat this.
             Oh and there you go YET AGAIN. Where is said or implied that she automatically gets the “majority” of the responsibility? WHERE? That’s just the usual misrepresentation.

             >You weren’t “merely” asking for men to take responsibility. You were clearly attempting to draw attention away from women having some onus regarding their own conduct.
             No, you’re misconstruing my intentions. Again.
             I am honest to a fault. I don’t have any intention of deceiving you and then making you look stupid later, like you do. Sorry if you don’t believe this.

             Lol. Oh please. It’s not a matter of someone “believing it”, this thread is teeming with evidence of you doing nothing but being DISHONEST.
             You misrepresent your opposition by either adding in words that clearly change the meaning of what was said. You pretended not to have said something, which has now been documented in this response. …and now you claim your intentions are that of “honesty”?
             It is you that looks stupid for trying these tactics and thinking that others would not notice. You have no recourse but to admit that you have no valid response. Anything shy of that and you are only proving yet again that you are merely trolling and putting up propaganda.

             I wasn’t even thinking about women taking responsibility when I made the argument. Simply, like I said, asking politely that maybe men could take some of their own. Which you blatantly disregarded. And then you make the same request of me.
             Do you see how frustrating this is?

             You are honest? Not by what you assert here. Your original post implies NOTHING like “men could take some of their own [responsibility]”. In fact comment-1179392366 was:
             “Do not try to blame the victim for an act which you could have prevented by simply controlling yourself.”
             That was pointing out that men take ALL the blame. Note too that you ASSUME that any sexual interaction is RAPE merely because someone makes the accusation. THAT is the typical GUILTY until proven innocent prejudice of all rape alarmists.
             You’ve been caught lying again. You are purposely doing this so please stop feigning that it is “frustrating” for you.

             I am responding to the debate in good faith, that you mean what you say. If you don’t believe the same of me then this is over.
             So yes, I will say that of course, women need to take responsibility in some situations. Not even a concession, because that’s what I believed in the first place, but I know that you’ll insist that it is.

             Lol. It doesn’t so much if I say it. I only have to present the evidence of what really transpired. Each person viewing can be his or her own judge, jury and executioner.

             >You also attempt to downplay the situations where the cry of “rape” is more akin to regretting one’s actions and justifying the subsequent lament by convincing oneself that you had no part in it’s instigation
             Again, is this under the context that both parties are mutually consenting at the time, and were capable of consenting? If so, then I resort to my previous stance: that each situation is to be dealt with with the appropriate nuance and attention that it deserves.

             It would be reasonable to understand that a lot of the contested cases are of this nature.
             Cases that involve the proverbial hardcore felon are quite cut and dry. It is unlikely that the cases are contested on the grounds of “consent”. You would think that defences of such charges are based on evidence of being placed at the scene.
             Situations that involve remorse are exactly the cases that need the added clout of a perceived harsher penalty for perjury. I don’t see why all these “feminists” have such a problem with that.

             >To believe that the other party is completely responsible for both parties conduct is truly a sense of “entitlement”. It is this faulty and childish view of the world that “rape culturists” cling on to. Namely, that others are wholly responsible for things when those things are unsatisfactory.
             It is also what false rape allegation accusers (the people who accuse the accuser of having made a false rape allegation, who are actually wrong) cling to when they say that the woman was asking for i and it was her fault all along, oh and why don’t you charge her while you’re at it, completely threaten to destroy her life for telling such an insidious lie? It’s a human trait, not one limited to rape culturists.

             Do you really think that people take the eye off the ball that easily? Please.
             The difference isn’t with whether or not people abuse the system. The difference is that one way the accuser is protected, while the other way they are not. Come on. Who said abusing the system is exclusive to one sex or the other? You are just trying to deflect the issue again.

             >Not only there, but in practically all of the conversation, you exercise a great deal of coyness and evasion. Often you will couch things vaguely in order to give some room for escape if the pressured towards some precision and clarity.
             Again, to me, you do the same thing by attacking what you perceive as my “argumentative style”. Your perception is yours. What I can say honestly is that I addressed your points to the best of my ability, with no eventual goals of manipulating or deceiving. Again, if you don’t believe that, then this debate is over, as you can always use the same excuse to make yourself look better.

             No. You can accuse your opposition of the same, but without any evidence, it is merely a parrot accusation without merit.
             Again, it’s not my “perception” of someone being surreptitious. It is the evidence of you repeatedly misrepresenting what was said and creating a false refutation based on it. Seriously, Ms. Wang, don’t fool yourself thinking that people can’t see this type of fallacy. It’s far more obvious in a discussion that is written rather than in a conversation (where it’s easy to claim, “oh that’s not what I said).
             It is not about one person looking better than the other. If your argument is wrong, then it is wrong. If it is intentionally misleading, it will be pointed out. Of course, if one is really just promoting propaganda, then one’s reputation is anted, and lost.

             >When people are sure of something, and are sure because they base the conclusion on fact, it is unlikely they will present the case with any imprecision.
             Did you read that “false rape allegation” article I gave you? She had physical damage of rape trauma. They ignored her. Do you really think that “facts” will stand in the way of bigotry?

             Did I read and comprehend that article? Yes. The question is whether or not you did.
             It will be asked again. Do you realize that the author of that allegory admitted that she suffered from mental illness and has been hospitalized for attempted suicide in the past (prior to the alleged incident)? It is bad enough that you take the opinion of one side as sufficient evidence of procedural misconduct on the part of the discovery process. But to taking the story of someone who had has a track record of mental instability as substantial evidence? Really. Why not get an affidavit from an Ouija board while we are at it? You are beyond ridiculous at this point.

             > In contrast, when people practice subterfuge, they are usually trying to justify a “feeling”, and discover that the facts are far less supportive than they initially believed.
             Are we still talking about rape here? In cases where the accuser based the accusation on a feeling? That does not automatically invalidate it. Depression is a feeling that becomes a state of being. You can sink into depression through feeling physically violated, and that has mental and physical consequences.

             We are talking about ANY INSTANCE where people have a “feeling” and then try to defend that “feeling” by hunting down things that support that feeling. This happens all the time in discussions where people believe something they heard because it fits their agenda. However, when the belief is challenged, they resort to all sorts of tactics to protect their state of denial that the “feeling” is wrong. Is that clear enough?

             >The facts do not support the case to promote “rape culture”. It’s time to get over it.
             No, because of the remarkable number of comments on this site that disturbingly suggest that all accountability should be placed upon women, using this article as an excuse. Not you. Others.

             It is unlikely you will find, even amongst those who oppose the notion of “rape culture”, that anyone thinks that ALL accountability should be place upon women. Stop buying into the propaganda of the zealots that are promoting hatred (those zealots are not ROK or the men here by the way).
             You have every opportunity to steer clear of those fundamentalists. They prey on the hurt, the angry, and those with weak constitution. Use the Force. Lol.

    3. I don’t mind fucking girls who can’t cum for an hour, but I wouldn’t marry them.

    4. Another reason for kissing, you sexist ass, is to see if the sex will be any good. Perhaps, if people are kissing you and walking away, you might want to brush your teeth a bit.

20. I thoroughly enjoyed this article. I found it to be well written, well organized, enlightening, funny and relevant. Thanks for sharing.

21. The whole don’t-blame-the-victim is a ludicrous joke. Here is the final word on it:
    “When a drunk man walks into the wrong area, he gets his head bashed in and his wallet stolen. When a drunk woman walks into the wrong area, she gets her head bashed in and her purse stolen. There is no difference in the stupidity level exhibited.”
    These days if anyone should happen to pop out with the “don’t blame the victim” shit I simply laugh in their face. They will never be more an acquaintance that I look upon with contempt because they are literally too stupid to be allowed to live and breed.
    It’s a good thing that I don’t run this world.

    1. Because rape is totally just like getting your purse stolen, right?

       1. rapists are lurking everywhere, don thy armour and fend off those vile perpetrators of wrongdoing by willfully misunderstanding analogies on the internet. well done m’lord, i’m positive you’ve gained the favor of all fair maidens on the internet

          1. The analogy was false. The psychological and emotional effects of raping someone and stealing their purse are not equal.
             And do you know one reason why women don’t want to report rape? For fear of blame and judgment. Like the attitude that this website encourages.

       2. How the actual rape and the actual theft are both torts is not questioned. The relative damage between each offence (and that will vary depending on the contents of one’s purse) does not deter the fact that both are equally a coercive asset grab at the expense of the victim.
          The point made was obviously how mitigation of temptation is in large part within the control of the potential victim. It is definitely a crime to take another’s cash. Yet, if one flagrantly leaves a sizable and recognizable amount of bank notes on one’s front step, is one not being foolish in thinking it will be there in the morning? Thieves will be thieves, but you can lessen your chance of being a victim.
          As far as this conversation is involved, the main focus is on how the accuser is so well protected, that those so ill-intended can and will use the opportunity to punish those they dislike by putting them through the process of being accused. They will do this under false pretense since the odds of personal cost is low.
          “Rape Culture” is yet another situation where misguided feminists attempt to gain even more advantage. You know. It’s like trolling. Trolls are always unable to answer their false claims, yet they troll because they can just change their avatar name, hide their history from most and continue to peddle their propaganda.

          1. > Thieves will be thieves, but you can lessen your chance of being a victim.
             This is ridiculous. How far will you go for this? Avoid all black people because they are more likely to be commit crime? Never help a classmate with schoolwork because they might get a better grade than you and thus get a better job? There are thousands of possibliities every day where you can blame yourself for not protecting yourself enough. As I said, we all have personal responsibility for our physical actions. No one is forcing you to have sex with a girl that’s dressed promiscuously–in fact, you are submitting to your base instincts and are no better than a beast if you do so. You have the ability to control yourself. Use it.
             > The relative damage between each offence (and that will vary depending on the contents of one’s purse) does not deter the fact that both are equally a coercive asset grab at the expense of the victim.
             Did you seriously? Rape is not a “asset grab.” In the context of this comment, which is raping a girl because she’s dressed promiscuously, it is a traumatic incident that could stick with her forever. I have been assaulted before. The moments where she (yes, she, acts of violence are equally bad no matter the gender that perpetrates them) held my head down and pulled my hair and slammed it against a wall were terrifying. I thought I would die. And that’s without violation of my personal space.
             Oh, and don’t forget that the rates of pregnancy is the same for rape and consensual intercourse. The purse analogy does not hold because the psychological effects are not the same. The owner of the purse may be sad that their property has gone, but that can be made up. A rape victim in this context will remember it forever. (26% of all rape occurs with strangers, as stated by the US Bureau of Statistics, which is much higher than both Australia and the UK.)
             >As far as this conversation is involved, the main focus is on how the accuser is so well protected, that those so ill-intended can and will use the opportunity to punish those they dislike by putting them through the process of being accused.
             First, the accuser is not well protected. Come to any police department saying you’ve been raped and most of the time, the most you’ll get is a polite look. And that’s after you’ve built up the resolve to report it, because due to the attitudes of others (like the people on this site) they are fearful of the consequences, may blame themselves, etc. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rape-a-lack-of-conviction
             And in case you haven’t noticed, people who accuse other people of rape don’t automatically do it because they have a vengeful motive. If you could try and understand their point of view, they may even be reluctant to report the rape because of its effect on the accused.
             http://researchtobedone.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/for-those-who-dont-understand-schrodingers-rapist/

          2. > The relative damage between each offence (and that will vary depending on the contents of one’s purse) does not deter the fact that both are equally a coercive asset grab at the expense of the victim.
             Did you seriously? Rape is not a “asset grab.” In the context of this comment, which is raping a girl because she’s dressed promiscuously, it is a traumatic incident that could stick with her forever. I have been assaulted before. The moments where she (yes, she, acts of violence are equally bad no matter the gender that perpetrates them) held my head down and pulled my hair and slammed it against a wall were terrifying. I thought I would die. And that’s without violation of my personal space.
             Oh, and don’t forget that the rates of pregnancy is the same for rape and consensual intercourse. The purse analogy does not hold because the psychological effects are not the same. The owner of the purse may be sad that their property has gone, but that can be made up. A rape victim in this context will remember it forever. (26% of all rape occurs with strangers, as stated by the US Bureau of Statistics, which is much higher than both Australia and the UK.)

             In the eyes of the law, a felony is a felony. The magnitude of the felony is reflected in the severity of the penalty. That varies depending on the case.
             Rape is as much an “asset grab” as any other violation of private space or property. Do not try to dismiss the traumatic nature of property theft, trespassing, violent battery, or any other felony merely because it isn’t called “rape”. Furthermore, it was not said or implied that there is equal trauma. The CONTEXT in which the purse grab was used as a simile was clear. It is YOU that is attempting create this false sense of equal trauma in order to refute it.
             Also, the contents of a purse may be one of a kind and not “made-up” (just as a violation of one’s body cannot be undone).
             It is you that attempts to create this misrepresentation that a purse theft is the same in all respects to sexual assault. That isn’t the context of the original statement, nor is it what was being refuted. Straw-man arguments are what those holding indefensible positions use. Please.
             Your statistics purposely do not address the percentage of false rape accusations (and the trauma, damage and psychological affects they have on the victims of these false allegations). An interesting parallel is in how YOU employ false accusations in hopes to sully your opposition. Fortunately, it doesn’t do much damage to your opponents (mainly because they can easily show how vapid those claims are).

          3. >As far as this conversation is involved, the main focus is on how the accuser is so well protected, that those so ill-intended can and will use the opportunity to punish those they dislike by putting them through the process of being accused.
             First, the accuser is not well protected. Come to any police department saying you’ve been raped and most of the time, the most you’ll get is a polite look. And that’s after you’ve built up the resolve to report it, because due to the attitudes of others (like the people on this site) they are fearful of the consequences, may blame themselves, etc.

             The process may or may not be absolutely congenial to the accuser (although, without some evidence, your claims that it is as arduous as you say is rather dubious) but that is hardly anything compared to what the wrongly accused has to go through and there is a lot of documentation of this (that is what is really the issue).
             This is no different than any situation where the accuser is intentionally insincere. If it is perceived that one is unlikely to suffer any punitive measures if the accusation is subsequently shown to be false, there is little deterrent to proceed. The number of documented false claims should be a clear indication that the perception is one of little consequence.
             The problem has never been with real sexual assault cases. It is with the abuse of the system. You know, just like trolling to promote biased views based on selective cognition in lieu of really trying to understand an issue.

             And in case you haven’t noticed, people who accuse other people of rape don’t automatically do it because they have a vengeful motive. If you could try and understand their point of view, they may even be reluctant to report the rape because of its effect on the accused.

             This was never said or implied. You are introducing this false premise that your opposition is saying or implying that a fair proportion of rape accusations are motivated by vengeance.
             The point is that those who DO intentionally employ false rape accusations ARE doing it out of malice. That this malevolence goes largely unchecked in many cases is the point of this thread.

          4. >As far as this conversation is involved, the main focus is on how the accuser is so well protected, that those so ill-intended can and will use the opportunity to punish those they dislike by putting them through the process of being accused.
             First, the accuser is not well protected. Come to any police department saying you’ve been raped and most of the time, the most you’ll get is a polite look. And that’s after you’ve built up the resolve to report it, because due to the attitudes of others (like the people on this site) they are fearful of the consequences, may blame themselves, etc.

             The process may or may not be absolutely congenial to the accuser (although, without some evidence, your claims that it is as arduous as you say is rather dubious) but that is hardly anything compared to what the wrongly accused has to go through and there is a lot of documentation of this (that is what is really the issue).
             This is no different than any situation where the accuser is intentionally insincere. If it is perceived that one is unlikely to suffer any punitive measures if the accusation is subsequently shown to be false, there is little deterrent to proceed. The number of documented false claims should be a clear indication that the perception is one of little consequence.
             The problem has never been with real sexual assault cases. It is with the abuse of the system. You know, just like trolling to promote biased views based on selective cognition in lieu of really trying to understand an issue.

             And in case you haven’t noticed, people who accuse other people of rape don’t automatically do it because they have a vengeful motive. If you could try and understand their point of view, they may even be reluctant to report the rape because of its effect on the accused.

             This was never said or implied. You are introducing this false premise that your opposition is saying or implying that a fair proportion of rape accusations are motivated by vengeance.
             The point is that those who DO intentionally employ false rape accusations ARE doing it out of malice. That this malevolence goes largely unchecked in many cases is the point of this thread.

          5. > Thieves will be thieves, but you can lessen your chance of being a victim.
             This is ridiculous. How far will you go for this? Avoid all black people because they are more likely to be commit crime? Never help a classmate with schoolwork because they might get a better grade than you and thus get a better job? There are thousands of possibliities every day where you can blame yourself for not protecting yourself enough. As I said, we all have personal responsibility for our physical actions. No one is forcing you to have sex with a girl that’s dressed promiscuously–in fact, you are submitting to your base instincts and are no better than a beast if you do so. You have the ability to control yourself. Use it.

             First, an important point:
             DO NOT attempt the loaded question fallacy (especially one involving racial profiling). If one agrees to the profiling, you slyly accuse them of impractical extremism. If one disagrees you proceed to accuse them of contradiction. By applying the parallel to racial profiling you attempt to poison the former choice, as agreeing with it would imply a racial prejudice. This type of tactic is both underhanded and desperate. Resorting to it betrays that you realize you have no real foundation. However, this latest attempt at a refutation will be torn down because it deserves nothing less than a public mauling.
             The important point is that the mitigation of vulnerability is not meant to be an infallible path. You are essentially employing the “perfect world” fallacy. That is to say, “if the solution is so involved, and even if such efforts were taken, no guarantee is possible, then we should not even attempt to apply one”.
             It should be clear that one cannot avoid a determined thief, but one can certainly decide to walk a safer path. As such, we can effectively avoid most of less represented but greatly harmful group of miscreants. You can disagree with all of us all you want, but you will find that this is an expectation in the eyes of society and the laws that coalesce that framework.
             It is also understood that in the cases where a woman is provocatively dressed in the wrong places at the wrong times, she is not likely practicing the principles of pre-emption. Most misguided feminists will then attempt to refute this by saying “women should be able to express themselves freely without fear of unwanted attention”. Consider that one also has the freedom to express their dislike of biker gangs while walking past a dozen Hells Angels. The gang may even be wrong for the subsequent beating that may occur. Did that stop the beating? Is one practicing prudent conduct? Sure. The “law is on your side”… but so is the life-support system if and when you come out of the coma.
             Let’s look at the case when neither party is capable of consent…
             Society gives you the right to express your femininity, which includes provocative attire. Is it prudent to do so in front of those that are easily aroused (Don’t even try to deny that basic response from young men. You are living in a Pollyanna world if you don’t think that men get aroused). The truth is that those who do so are fully aware of the implications. It is no different than blowing the aroma of freshly baked bread past hungry humans and then expecting them to not want a slice. When both parties do not have their best cognitive skills at hand, things may happen. Why is it that you wish to put ALL the responsibility on the man and not the woman?
             The part misguided feminist don’t want to discuss is that women are fully aware of the power of femininity display, and have no problem with the gratification of flaunting it. They conveniently forget that society gives women the power because we will protect you from harm where we can.
             They also conveniently forget that empowerment of feminine attraction is not meant to be abused or done at the expense of frustrating many men. It’s also not meant to be done when you voluntarily give up your ability to make good decisions. Many not only forget this point, they use it to further their feelings of power over others. This is the critical point. Read it till you understand it.
             This doesn’t mitigate sexual assault, but it does not remove the culpability of the assailed.
             YOU have the ability to not tease or entice others to the point that you endanger yourself. Use it.
             (Or continue to believe that “men should be in control” will defend you from what the Chicago Chapter of the Hells Angels will do to you when you tell them how Harley Riders are all a bunch of little pussies).

          6. >The point is that those who DO intentionally employ false rape accusations ARE doing it out of malice. That this malevolence goes largely unchecked in many cases is the point of this thread.
             I do agree that this happens. However, my main point is that there’s no evidence to suggest that this composes a statistically significant proportion of all rape claims, and that it’s dangerous to believe this, or encourage others to believe this, because it de-emphasizes the trauma and actual harm the victims go through. There. That’s my point.

          7. >YOU have the ability to not tease or entice others to the point that you endanger yourself. Use it.
             You don’t think we don’t realize this? I do what you say here. I don’t dress “promiscuously” or whatever, or walk the streets at night–even if I like that particular dress, or if that street is a shortcut to where I want to go. It’s not because I made that choice freely. It’s because I fear what would happen to me if I don’t.
             Men don’t have that fear.
             Here is my ideal world: people, of both genders, have the freedom to not be judged and taken advantage of simply because of what they’re wearing. People take responsibility for their actions, and are aware of the societal context in which they occur.
             What I dislike about the ideal world that the readers of this website seem to encourage: in this world, it is perfectly all right to blame the woman, say that it was her fault for dressing sluttily or unfairly blaming them or whatever. In this world, the fear I mentioned before is tantamount. It’s just not a healthy, respectful, sexual environment. And it is one where the actual victims of rape are overlooked.
             Now, because I seem to have assumed yours: what is your ideal world?
             (Small note:
             >They also conveniently forget that empowerment of feminine attraction is not meant to be abused or done at the expense of frustrating many men.
             Men do this too–with cologne, or displays of macho-ness. I don’t see the fundamental difference between feminine and masculine attraction, and why one gender has to fear unwanted sexual attention more than the other. That’s all.

          8. >Your statistics purposely do not address the percentage of false rape accusations (and the trauma, damage and psychological affects they have on the victims of these false allegations).
             Of course. I’m not de-emphasizing that. But it works the other way around too, you see?
             http://freethoughtblogs.com/entequilaesverdad/2013/08/25/one-reason-why-false-rape-allegation-statistics-are-so-high/
             http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/08/23/i-am-a-false-rape-allegation-statistic/
             please read these. and try to understand the bigger picture.
             There are not enough false rape accusations to justify an entire overhaul of the rape reporting system or how potential rape victims should be treated.

          9. >YOU have the ability to not tease or entice others to the point that you endanger yourself. Use it.
             You don’t think we don’t realize this? I do what you say here. I don’t dress “promiscuously” or whatever, or walk the streets at night–even if I like that particular dress, or if that street is a shortcut to where I want to go. It’s not because I made that choice freely. It’s because I fear what would happen to me if I don’t.
             Men don’t have that fear.

             While you now state that women “realize this”, you implied otherwise by repeatedly placing the ENTIRE onus on the man in the scenario. It has already been mentioned that you clearly describe the situation in extremes where responsibility is not shared, but necessarily that of one party or the other. Examples of this are numerous on this thread. Actions speak louder than words that one had to be manoeuvred into using (which was important to demonstrate).
             Men don’t have that particular fear? No, not that particular one in most cases, but they are equally in jeopardy of harm should they not exercise some practical sense of safety awareness. Do not think that because there isn’t an exact parallel, that there aren’t other similar situations for the opposing sex.
             Any person, man or woman would be as wary of potential trespass or harm if they are too cavalier in their attitude. It’s no stretch of the imagination to realize that “it’s a jungle out there” so erring on the side of caution is prudent.
             I may like my F360, but I’ll take the Suburban down to the bad part of town. It shouldn’t be fear. It should be a healthy respect for the reality of the world we live in.

             Here is my ideal world: people, of both genders, have the freedom to not be judged and taken advantage of simply because of what they’re wearing. People take responsibility for their actions, and are aware of the societal context in which they occur.

             Even in a personal Valhalla, most of us do not adorn ourselves in costume just for ourselves. There exists an element of desire for an anticipated reaction from others that influences our presentation. That we only wish that attention from qualifying individuals is the key.
             Just like artwork, it is an expression of the artist, but as it is oft postulated, “If a tree falls in the forest, does anybody hear?” There is satisfaction in creation, but it is usually an incomplete experience to the creator if there are no observers. It is the free and independent will of those observers makes the pursuit of perfection beyond the mistaken path of solipsism.
             Again, responsibility, even in that idealized society, can and will be shared. It is quite possible that you see and understand this, but cannot admit, in the context of provocatively dressed woman, that women do not absolve responsibility for their conduct simply because there are bad individuals lurking in the shadows. It’s not ALL one parties fault or the others.

             What I dislike about the ideal world that the readers of this website seem to encourage: in this world, it is perfectly all right to blame the woman, say that it was her fault for dressing sluttily or unfairly blaming them or whatever. In this world, the fear I mentioned before is tantamount. It’s just not a healthy, respectful, sexual environment. And it is one where the actual victims of rape are overlooked.

             It’s all in how the terms are couched. It IS perfectly sound to place some responsibility in the party that is assaulted if they do not take reasonable steps to stay out of situations where they may be harmed. That does NOT imply full responsibility. Even in a completely passive role, say being a passenger in a car, not wearing a seat belt will likely result in more injury should there be a collision. The driver (or other driver’s) may still be responsible for the collision, but you will bear some responsibility for the increased bodily harm.
             In the same respect, just because sexual assault is a felony, does not mean people throw caution to the wind. “I have no fault, not even partial fault because I was just exercising MY freedom of expression!”
             To point out that responsibility to apply reasonable safeguards is that of everyone is not to be surreptitiously constructed as encouraging “rape culture”. It isn’t. If it were, it would be like saying reinforcing the virtues of wearing a seat belt is encouraging “collision culture”. (Pre-emptive for the smart-azzes out there that think they have a counter to this analogy…Yes, collisions are largely not intentional, but that isn’t the context in how this is being paralleled.)
             Actual rape victims have just as much stake in eradicating this “rape culture” propaganda as those victimized by false claims. It is not just that the penalty for sexual assault is high, real victims go through a huge amount of qualification BECAUSE there is a higher than admitted prevalence of false claims not because there isn’t. There is serious examination BECAUSE there are those who abuse the system.
             A society where it is understood that the responsibility for crime prevention is owned by all who are capable does not “overlook” true victims. Just where is this coming from?

             Now, because I seem to have assumed yours: what is your ideal world?

             Lol… let’s see… My idealized world involves lots of hot babes dressed as provocatively as possible, fast cars, steaks that are synthesized so no cow was sacrificed, French Fries that aren’t bad for your health in excessive quantity, alcohol that doesn’t make you completely blitzed, big guns without the time in the gym, oh… and did I mention the hot babes? Hmmm… sounds like a typical Hip-Hop video.
             As in your idealized world, if the dynamic of independent free will is introduced, it will still not be utopian if one is expecting their solipsistic desires to be fulfilled. It is that the world, even if it is idealized, doesn’t revolve around them that causes so much anger and frustration in spoiled small children and misguided feminists. Remove that delusion and see the world with the clarity.

             (Small note:
             >They also conveniently forget that empowerment of feminine attraction is not meant to be abused or done at the expense of frustrating many men.
             Men do this too–with cologne, or displays of macho-ness. I don’t see the fundamental difference between feminine and masculine attraction, and why one gender has to fear unwanted sexual attention more than the other. That’s all.

             Men apply the behaviors that they learned to be attractive women (Yes, when they explicitly tell you they like your scent and when they make it a point to touch your arms, it’s pretty easy to figure out). It is whether men abuse those abilities to the point that they place themselves in immediate peril is the question.
             You don’t see the fundamental difference between feminine and masculine attraction… yet you have just defined how men apply sensory enticement, of which one clearly differs from what a woman would use (“macho-ness”)? That contradiction alone is enough evidence of insincerity. You DO recognize and see the differences.
             While unwanted sexual attention is more feared by women, unwanted stalking (real life stalking, not the sterile Internet variety) is just as unsavoury to men. This is why smarter men don’t lead the wrong women on. The sexes will have differing levels of vulnerability in any given type of trespass. The sexes are fundamentally different… That’s a notion that practically all misguided feminists NEED to ignore in order to maintain their delusions of legislated androgyny.

          10. >The point is that those who DO intentionally employ false rape accusations ARE doing it out of malice. That this malevolence goes largely unchecked in many cases is the point of this thread.
              I do agree that this happens. However, my main point is that there’s no evidence to suggest that this composes a statistically significant proportion of all rape claims, and that it’s dangerous to believe this, or encourage others to believe this, because it de-emphasizes the trauma and actual harm the victims go through. There. That’s my point.

              That there is no evidence to suggest that false claims represent a statistically significant proportion of all rape claims is FALSE. As you have provided links to a feminist blog site in another reply as evidence of this is telling. The clearly biased and surreptitiously conjured opinions contained in that tripe is what people use to nurture their delusions about the abuse of rape accusation.
              In the first link:
              http://freethoughtblogs.com/entequilaesverdad/2013/08/25/one-reason-why-false-rape-allegation-statistics-are-so-high/
              …the author smugly quotes “2-to-8 percent” (likely and loosely based on the 1996 FBI report) as the rate of “unfounded” cases. What she is doing is the usual misrepresentation of cherry-picked numbers. In this way, she attempts to play down the real magnitude of the prevalence of false rape claims.
              She even links people to the Wikipedia page (see the link “two to eight percent” in her blog) because she probably knows those looking for affirmation of “rape culture” will not read any further than that. However, that Wikipedia page links the reader to an important discussion on the subject by Bruce Gross (search for Bruce Gross in the reference list for “False Rape Allegations: An Assault on Justice”) (*Note:I don’t supply too many direct links in a single response as it sometimes plays havoc on the Disqus engine.)
              If you read the ENTIRE article by Bruce Gross, you will get a better picture of how often false allegations occur for rape. The numbers are probably more than 20% of the time (with indication that it may be substantially higher than that). Have a closer look at the study that involved polygraph devices. The results are alarming.
              As far the oft quoted “2-to-8%”, that refers to cases that are so well discovered that they are immediately throw out as not even valid to start a claim. Note too that the rate was shown to be 4 times the average of other types of claims. That should be a clue as to the how much contempt some have for the legal process.
              What “rape culturists” love to ignore too is that of the remaining 92-to-98%, many eventually fail at some stage in further examination. In other words, they too were actually FALSE claims. Just because a claim was filed, didn’t make it true… but rape culturists like to think that they all are. Yes. That is selective cognition of the facts.
              So, your “point” isn’t really supported by the facts.
              As far as it being dangerous to believe how high the real rate is… no, it is dangerous to be selectively ignorant of how high the rate of false claims are to fuel a campaign to give even more license for people to commit fraud as a means to punish others.
              Does call out and reducing false rape claims de-emphasize the trauma and harm real victims go through?
              How? Does pulling a fire alarm falsely down play the suffering of those in a burn ward? Does reporting false insurance claims erode the cost of real ones? The answer is clearly NO to all of these questions.
              If one seriously wants to fairly represent the ordeal of true victims of sexual assault, then one HAS to be against the occurrences of false claims, especially at the level that is being detected.

          11. There are not enough false rape accusations to justify an entire overhaul of the rape reporting system or how potential rape victims should be treated.

              All of this is covered in the response above.
              However, it should be emphasized that the rate of false accusation is a lot higher than some misguided feminists like to promote. Considering the level of trauma that a victim of false accusation has to endure (and without any effective legal recourse) even a small number of false claims should be enough to instigate some clear measures to protect the falsely accused. This need not be an “entire overhaul” (that again employing “the perfect solution” fallacy again), but it should augment the existing system with some measure in ban of publication as well as effective and enforced penalty on false claims.

          12. >However, it should be emphasized that the rate of false accusation is a lot higher than some misguided feminists like to promote.
              Is it high enough to justify what I have stated? Answer the question.
              >Considering the level of trauma that a victim of false accusation has to endure (and without any effective legal recourse) even a small number of false claims should be enough to instigate some clear measures to protect the falsely accused.
              What about the victims who were actually raped and ignored because the police thought they were false accusers? Which is precisely what happened to the girl in the article I gave you. It goes both ways.

          13. >What she is doing is the usual misrepresentation of cherry-picked numbers. In this way, she attempts to play down the real magnitude of the prevalence of false rape claims.
              One could say that you also cherry picked numbers.
              >If you read the ENTIRE article by Bruce Gross, you will get a better picture of how often false allegations occur for rape. The numbers are probably more than 20% of the time (with indication that it may be substantially higher than that).
              From the article:
              “The term “unfounded” is not a homogeneous classification and, to date, there is not a formalized, accepted definition of “false rape allegations.” Certainly, the designation of false accusation should not include those situations in which the accuser was raped but unintentionally identified the wrong person as the alleged perpetrator. The definition of false allegation of rape cannot be limited to the situation in which the victim recants the accusation. There are women who were truly raped but for any number of reasons choose to recant. On the other hand, there are women who were not raped but do not recant their accusation.”
              Note that he does not offer any sort of solution to this. He just sort of acknowledges. Keep this in mind as he states more data .
              “Although there is no doubt that false rape allegations occur, it is extremely difficult to determine what percentage of rape reports is intentionally false. ”
              “Twenty-seven percent (27%) of these complainants admitted they had fabricated their accusation just before taking the polygraph or right after they failed the test. ”
              Of course, you are taking it on faith that these law enforcement officers at all stages of the process are perfect human beings who could not possibly have influenced these results by, say, threatening the accuser or anything like that, or having gender bias of any sort.
              “There are a range of other reasons why women made false allegations of rape. For some, it was to meet the overwhelming need for attention often associated with Munchaussen Syndrome or Borderline Personality Disorder. In those cases a specific suspect was seldom identified. ”
              So… if officers know this, and then know that the accuser has BPD or the accused is wealthy or the things that the author of this article states so confidently are signs of a lie, then they can just skip the rest of the process. Because it’s likely that she’s lying, right? And we are all really tired and just want to go home.
              You cannot deny that this doesn’t happen, because police detectives are not perfect, nonjudgmental, completely non-biased human beings.
              I would really like a study on that.
              “This, in turn, frees the false accuser from the need to fabricate additional lies and the demands of being confronted by the alleged assailant.”
              So this states that people who were actually raped by strangers are mostly likely just lying.
              “Unlike the true victim, false accusers may seem comparatively indifferent or nonplussed by their injuries.”
              has this guy even heard of shock???
              ” Similarly, the injuries of false complainants seldom involve permanent injury or disfigurement.”
              And true victims’ injuries do? That is not true.
              >According to the Innocence Project, since 2000 there have been 156 cases of post-conviction exonerations based on DNA testing, an untold number of which involved sex crimes (Innocence Project, 2008).
              156 out of.. uh.. the hundreds of thousands of actual rape victims?
              >Even should a charge be filed, in most jurisdictions filing a false report is only a misdemeanor.
              Which can also destroy someone’s life.
              > Before this can happen, guidelines would need to be established regarding the definition of a “false rape accusation”
              This is exactly the point. Once we can actually define what a false rape accusation is, we can do things about it. But because the definition is so, perhaps, /inherently/ blurry and controversial depending on the values system of the person being asked (we have vastly different interpretations, for example) it becomes easy to abuse. That’s why the current system insists on protecting the victim.
              Once we get past this definition, we know have to determine by what evidence is someone a false accuser. This may involve rape kits (which are not always effective), interviews (which may be traumatic to the victim and can turn into interrogations), etc.
              Of course, if you find a foolproof method by which this can be all carried out, and we all agree on everything, then of course we should enact more punishments for false rape accusers. And I would be right there with you.
              But currently, you cannot convince me that you can find such a method, or that it even exists. Thus, I find the societal detriments of any alternate method to far outweigh its potential benefits, because this new standard of punishing false accusers (which may not be false) can be so easily abused to turn against the victims, who now have nothing to defend themselves with should their accusations be deemed “false.”

          14. >Men don’t have that particular fear? No, not that particular one in most cases, but they are equally in jeopardy of harm should they not exercise some practical sense of safety awareness. Do not think that because there isn’t an exact parallel, that there aren’t other similar situations for the opposing sex.
              Not exactly one that leads to rape. Which is kind of the point here.
              >. It shouldn’t be fear. It should be a healthy respect for the reality of the world we live in.
              Call me an idealist, but except for the 1% of psychopaths that exist, I think that we can all live to respect another person’s personal space, regardless of their behavior.
              >Even in a personal Valhalla, most of us do not adorn ourselves in costume just for ourselves. There exists an element of desire for an anticipated reaction from others that influences our presentation.
              I guess I am not most people then. I do not want to be objectified. I just want to be proud of my body and show it without other people automatically deeming me a slut. Is that so much to ask for?
              > There is satisfaction in creation, but it is usually an incomplete experience to the creator if there are no observers. It is the free and independent will of those observers makes the pursuit of perfection beyond the mistaken path of solipsism.
              Not all artists will agree on this. In fact, it’s important to know your audience, but you should never be creating anything “for” them. Artistic vision is deemed original in part because it shocks and may challenge viewers’ perceptions. Artists do not give a damn what the viewers actually think. However, you are assuming that those who dress provocatively do so solely so that they can extract some sort of predictable response from the viewers. False analogy.
              >That does NOT imply full responsibility.
              There we go. We agree.
              >Yes, collisions are largely not intentional, but that isn’t the context in how this is being paralleled.
              But /intention/ is the key point here. That rapists had the intention to rape. If they didn’t, and couldn’t control it, then of course we would take all necessary precautions. It’s th fact that they made a choice to do it that makes it possibly avoidable. That’s why that’s a false analogy.
              >There is serious examination BECAUSE there are those who abuse the system.
              So you’re saying false rape accusers are punished for their crimes. Okay.. sort of contradictory.
              >A society where it is understood that the responsibility for crime prevention is owned by all who are capable does not “overlook” true victims. Just where is this coming from?
              Except that people will abuse the system. Always.
              As to your idealized world comment, I meant in the context of rape legislation. As usual, you dodge my questions.
              >It is that the world, even if it is idealized, doesn’t revolve around them that causes so much anger and frustration in spoiled small children and misguided feminists.
              I’m pretty sure feminists wouldn’t object to that (source: I am a feminist, and I don’t object to that.) I’m not sure what “doesn’t revolve around them” means. I am taking it to mean that issues are always about them, which, again, feminists are supposed to be concerned with women’s rights, the same way that MRA’s are concerned with theirs.
              > It is whether men abuse those abilities to the point that they place themselves in immediate peril is the question.
              Or whether they cause the recipient to place themselves in peril. Unless you are about to pull women-on-men rape statistics that say they form a significant proportion of all rapes, men don’t often lead themselves into that situation–are not capable of it. So recognize this difference, instead of letting all the blame of the statement “women are responsible for this” go to the women involved.
              >While unwanted sexual attention is more feared by women, unwanted stalking (real life stalking, not the sterile Internet variety) is just as unsavoury to men.
              So women are more likely to stalk men? Citations please.
              >The sexes are fundamentally different…
              Of course they are biologically different. What I assert is that in terms of how we react to situations and our innate human nature, we are not.

          15. >What she is doing is the usual misrepresentation of cherry-picked numbers. In this way, she attempts to play down the real magnitude of the prevalence of false rape claims.
              One could say that you also cherry picked numbers.

              Lol. You could “say” anything you want. However, proof of such assertion is another matter.
              You are regressing into more and more childish tactics as that would be called an inapplicable parroting attack and it rarely works when you cannot provide any evidence of your opposition doing this (whereas it has been pointed out in your “arguments”).

              >If you read the ENTIRE article by Bruce Gross, you will get a better picture of how often false allegations occur for rape. The numbers are probably more than 20% of the time (with indication that it may be substantially higher than that).
              From the article:
              “The term “unfounded” … accusation.”
              Note that he does not offer any sort of solution to this. He just sort of acknowledges. Keep this in mind as he states more data .

              He is identifying how the term “unfounded” is exploited by the surreptitiously minded. Such identification does not require a “solution”. It is like noting when people miscalculate their taxes. The miscalculation exists regardless of an offered recalculation. What is your point?

              “Although there is no doubt that false rape allegations occur, it is extremely difficult to determine what percentage of rape reports is intentionally false. ”
              “Twenty-seven percent (27%) of these complainants admitted they had fabricated their accusation just before taking the polygraph or right after they failed the test. ”
              Of course, you are taking it on faith that these law enforcement officers at all stages of the process are perfect human beings who could not possibly have influenced these results by, say, threatening the accuser or anything like that, or having gender bias of any sort.

              Right. Do they not teach the principle of Occam’s Razor in first year anymore? Please.
              The last time I checked, Polygraphs are machines and do not possess emotions. They are not perfect, but they are consistent. The fact that, when faced with being tested by such an impartial device, 27% admit to fabricating their accusations is telling. The human failings of the officers have nothing to do with it. Just HOW much denial are you living in that you cannot admit this?
              Even if there were no POLYGRAPH, just WHERE is it suggested that the interrogation team needs to be perfect or near perfect in order to properly assess a claim? WHERE? You are really clutching at straws here. Your arguments have devolved into sheer illogical drivel. Really.

              “There are a range of other reasons why women made false allegations of rape. For some, it was to meet the overwhelming need for attention often associated with Munchaussen Syndrome or Borderline Personality Disorder. In those cases a specific suspect was seldom identified. ”
              So… if officers know this, and then know that the accuser has BPD or the accused is wealthy or the things that the author of this article states so confidently are signs of a lie, then they can just skip the rest of the process. Because it’s likely that she’s lying, right? And we are all really tired and just want to go home.
              You cannot deny that this doesn’t happen, because police detectives are not perfect, nonjudgmental, completely non-biased human beings.

              So, let’s see… at some point in an interrogation, it is discovered that the plaintiff is lodging a false complaint. Not LIKELY, but it by due process, it is a false complaint (usually due to contradiction, clearly ludicrous situations, etc… you know, like how poor arguments are dismantled). According to you, authorities should CONTINUE the process to the end as if it were still a valid claim.
              Right. We should all waste taxpayers money and law enforcements time this way. Let’s just accuse them of being tired and wanting to go home while we are at it.
              While we cannot say it doesn’t happen, it is the rate that such things happen that is the matter. Why not say it could be that everybody is suffering from temporary insanity while interrogating a plaintiff. After all, it you can’t rule it out.
              What? Are you really like eight years old? Your reasoning is getting ridiculous. Please.

              I would really like a study on that.

              Sure. If you believe that prevalence of faulty or intentionally reluctant police interrogation is the cause for most claims being dismissed, feel free to show us the research that this is happening. Seriously, one can suppose that it is due to alien mind-control… but as it is also not likely the case the onus is on those who make these claims to prove it.

              “This, in turn, frees the false accuser from the need to fabricate additional lies and the demands of being confronted by the alleged assailant.”
              So this states that people who were actually raped by strangers are mostly likely just lying.
              “Unlike the true victim, false accusers may seem comparatively indifferent or nonplussed by their injuries.”
              has this guy even heard of shock???

              Are you suggesting that those who are in the profession of interrogation plaintiffs and suspects alike largely do not have the skill set, training and experience to recognize the effects of shock? One would think that the Bruce Gross would have some acumen in determining the abilities of those whose job it is to determine the validity of criminal allegations.
              You are merely arguing that the highly improbable is masking all the evidence of the probable.

              ” Similarly, the injuries of false complainants seldom involve permanent injury or disfigurement.”
              And true victims’ injuries do? That is not true.

              Draw the Venn diagram. While you are at it, understand that the if injuries sustained while resisting physical assault are not exhibit to match the given recollection, claims become rather dubious in the estimation of the adjudicator. You know this and are looking for “special” situations (which would be corroborated by other information gathered at the discovery anyways. Seriously, thinking that most dismissed cases are in error because of some possible example is ludicrous.

              >According to the Innocence Project, since 2000 there have been 156 cases of post-conviction exonerations based on DNA testing, an untold number of which involved sex crimes (Innocence Project, 2008).
              156 out of.. uh.. the hundreds of thousands of actual rape victims?

              That’s very sly.
              This is the kind of coyness that those with an agenda always try to put on. That’s 156 cases where DNA evidence is either subsequently gathered, or somehow was still available, AND that someone is still incarcerated or protesting the undue punishment.
              It isn’t 156 out of all the vast number of actual rape convictions. It is 156 out of the numerous false claims that, nearly always involving political pressure, resulted in a conviction. Consider that if DNA was collected for all cases in the past (and it rarely was because of obvious reasons) there would be a lot more cases that would be overturned.
              Even without DNA evidence, many cases didn’t result in a conviction for all sorts of other valid reasons.
              Even so, if the penalty for rape was capital punishment, would those 156 wrongly convicted “felons” have any recourse? Yes. Ha ha, it’s such a small percentage compared to all the cases that were true, or believe to be true because there is no longer any DNA evidence. Heck hundreds of thousands of people die each day. What are another 156? Great excuse for a serial killer huh?
              Nice try at trivializing something that is actual quite critical.

              >Even should a charge be filed, in most jurisdictions filing a false report is only a misdemeanor.
              Which can also destroy someone’s life.

              According to that logic, it’s the same as equating running across a busy freeway blindfolded to some random stroll across your living room. One has a high odd of you not surviving while the other does not.
              You are ignoring the vast difference in probability cost of one conviction (that of a felony) versus another (that of a misdemeanor). That is a common but invalid ploy and we all would expect something a little more intelligent that this from someone so allegedly in tune with equality.

              > Before this can happen, guidelines would need to be established regarding the definition of a “false rape accusation”
              This is exactly the point. Once we can actually define what a false rape accusation is, we can do things about it. But because the definition is so, perhaps, /inherently/ blurry and controversial depending on the values system of the person being asked (we have vastly different interpretations, for example) it becomes easy to abuse. That’s why the current system insists on protecting the victim.

              You are taking what Bruce Gross wrote out of context. He suggests that guidelines have to be established to enable the legal process. It is because like any legal process, a structural template makes it far easier to administer and officiate. It isn’t because of the subjectivity of the plaintiff.
              Seriously, Ms. Wang, how do you read these things into documents that are so clearly presented? (Either you are truly that naïve, or clouded by personal bias, or you are misconstruing Bruce Gross’ article on purpose).
              The current system “insists” on protecting the victim because political forces worked it into place. We are now witnessing the folly of succumbing to such shortsighted and clearly biased policy.

              Once we get past this definition, we know have to determine by what evidence is someone a false accuser. This may involve rape kits (which are not always effective), interviews (which may be traumatic to the victim and can turn into interrogations), etc.

              Like it was just noted, the definition of fraudulent claim or perjury is already in place. What Bruce Gross suggests is a regulatory template so that criteria is formalize and consistent. It’s more about expediency than anything else.
              Yes, interviews.
              Whether it is called an interview, a discovery session or an interrogation, certain questions need to be answered. While this can be traumatic, it is part of the process. If someone accused you of a violent robbery, would you not expect the plaintiff to have to answer key questions in the course of an investigation? Yes, the victim may be sensitive as the felony may have actually occurred, but not perpetrated by you. In lieu of a third party witness, the victim’s testimony is key.

              Of course, if you find a foolproof method by which this can be all carried out, and we all agree on everything, then of course we should enact more punishments for false rape accusers. And I would be right there with you.
              But currently, you cannot convince me that you can find such a method, or that it even exists. Thus, I find the societal detriments of any alternate method to far outweigh its potential benefits, because this new standard of punishing false accusers (which may not be false) can be so easily abused to turn against the victims, who now have nothing to defend themselves with should their accusations be deemed “false.”

              Even in this discussion, no one has to convince YOU of that a method is practical and effective. This is the part that “rape culture” advocates don’t like to hear. It only has to be shown to the reasonable person in the audience that it is a sound.
              Besides, the current method of screening the accusations is effective in establishing doubt. It is that the penalty is not elevated to the equal one of being a felony that isn’t set in place yet. That is something “rape culture” fear advocates are fighting against. If the potential cost of falsely crying “rape” backfires into a felon charge against the plaintiff, it would be a set back against all those that wish to use it as a weapon against the opposite sex.
              Societal detriments?
              There in lays a DOUBLE STANDARD on your part.
              You are trivialize the plight of any wrongly accused “rapist” as a “small” price in the eyes of society, but will sabre-rattle incessantly against even a single women having her alleged rape case dismissed because the of how the interrogative process wrongly attributed it as false.
              Please tell us all how think this is nothing more than the pure sense of entitlement that most of us clearly recognize in those who advocate calling the current system a “rape culture”.

          16. >However, it should be emphasized that the rate of false accusation is a lot higher than some misguided feminists like to promote.
              Is it high enough to justify what I have stated? Answer the question.

              You ask, “answer the question” as if it were I that evades your inquisition. Nice try. It is demonstratively you that consistently tries to deflect away from what you can’t answer.
              Nonetheless, we will answer you request.
              It is justified and justified for these reasons even in light of what you suggest.
              Firstly…
              If you think that merely because something has allegedly low odds, no action towards remedying the situation is warranted, you are basing that on a faulty premise. The distinction between probability versus probability-cost cannot be over-looked. The former only inspects the chance of an occurrence. The latter takes the cost of the outcome into consideration.
              The personal cost of being wrongly accused of a felony and punished for it is very high. While you place the victim’s trauma on a pedestal as if no other bad event can ever come close to it, you attempt to trivialize the absolutely dismal experience a convicted rapist has to endure for the duration of his “vacation” in the big house. In fact, most revenge-fantasy self-appointed feminist freedom fighters hearts swell with glee thinking of the constant terror a “rapist” (even if he isn’t guilty) must live through for at least 5 years in prison.
              The odds of a heart attack occurring on a commercial flight are low too. Should we not have a code blue kit onboard because of that? Please. You need to take some REAL courses in college. Try probability and stats. It will help you understand this.
              Secondly…
              The ratio of conjured ones versus real claims are a lot higher than feminist zealots want anyone to hear about. Come on. Why do you think self-righteous individuals who hide behind “equality” (aka “femmies”) try to constantly shout down anyone that brings up this concept? You’d think that if the facts were so solid, one would not be afraid to have people attempt to tear it down. Strong foundations don’t need the shouting of “Misogynist!” the moment they “facts” are challenged.
              The information about this, why the 1-in-6 ratio is surreptitiously presented has already been presented to you. To pretend you do not see that is insincere. Again, just because a claim wasn’t throw out during initial discovery (and therefore officially labelled “unfounded”, does not AUTOMATICALLY mean it was “rape”. The POLYGRAPH test study is quite telling, and is something most “rape culture” believers don’t want anyone to hear about. All they want is everyone to think that anything ONLY cases that failed the initial stage are false (and even then, it was the test, not the plaintiff that is questionable). That is “feminist” mathematics for you.
              Thirdly…
              While you and like-minded “feminists” proudly wear the badge of Equality for all. To ignore the transgression of justice for what you deem to be the “few”, while caterwauling on about the injustice encountered by what are clearly dubious cases (all because you heard of this ONE case or this OTHER case where the justice system failed) is hardly “Equality”.
              You don’t want “equality”. You want YOUR WAY.
              Feel free to try and argue against this but be forewarned, if you misrepresent ANY part of this in a fallacious attempt to refute it, you will be called out on it.

              >Considering the level of trauma that a victim of false accusation has to endure (and without any effective legal recourse) even a small number of false claims should be enough to instigate some clear measures to protect the falsely accused.
              What about the victims who were actually raped and ignored because the police thought they were false accusers? Which is precisely what happened to the girl in the article I gave you. It goes both ways.

              You are implying that by instituting more commensurate penalty for defrauding the system, society creates a condition that ignores or perhaps worsens the condition of those where a rape allegation is deemed to be false.
              That is nonsense.
              Firstly:
              You are proposing that the system limit the effectiveness of discovery to determine if a claim is real (and therefore increasing the odds of false claims, and therefore false convictions), because, of the “trauma” it may put real victims through? Really. You’d think that one so victimized would endure some further hardship if it meant that real culprits face real justice. This is the telling of the surreptitious nature of such a position.
              It is the fraud artist (and especially those that KNOWING make false claims) that cries the loudest about the additional hardship. Few true victims are unwilling to be part of the process that enables real justice. We’ll address your linked story shortly.
              Secondly:
              Dealing with fraudulent claims is a fact of a non-utopian society (you fully realize this in your comment about how “people will abuse the system. Always.”) Yet, you feel that little is needed to address those who abuse the system with false claims, that those wrongly incarcerated are a “small price” to pay because things like “rape kits” and interrogations are difficult hours to pass (yes, please tell those who have spent 5 years for a rape they didn’t commit how “equality” minded that is).
              The truth is that seeking justice is rarely without work and effort on ALL parties involved. Yes, that INCLUDES the victim. To think that one is to be sheltered from all subsequent difficulty in the investigation because “I’m the victim” is plain old IMMATURITY. That doesn’t me we don’t take steps to make things as non-unpleasant (hey, a double-negative that is somewhat non-unapplicable. Lol), but it doesn’t mean we start thinking that the process is pain-free. That would be like thinking that getting wrongly shot in the leg means that subsequent recover should be completely pain-free.
              Thirdly:
              You are again employing the “perfect world” fallacy in thinking that it should be status quo as far as reforming the process and penalty against false claimants simply because the “effort” may mean unjust application.
              The goal is to improve the system overall, as well as remove miscarriage of justice. Taking steps to correct those travesties of false conviction is not to be done at the expense of victim experience. However, there should be zero tolerance for false conviction, not “acceptable travesty” because of the uncomfortable nature of interviews.
              Now, onto your supplied link…
              In any consideration of a claim, the veracity of the plaintiff’s recollection is critical to the evaluation. This will include the consistency of the story to the physical evidence as well as the consistency of a story at various intervals since the incident. If there are inconsistencies, then there will be doubt.
              It is interesting to note that few of those agreeing with the plaintiff note that she admitted to having a history of mental illness as well as having been hospitalized for attempted suicide in the past. Couple this with the fact that you are only hearing the story from this victim’s point of view and you should understand why it is highly dubious. Certainly the zealot crowd will shout “Misogynist!” at this statement, but when has the recollection of someone who themselves admit to mental illness been considered “absolute and unbiased truth”?
              Seriously, if you are to include an example of unjust dismissal of a rape claim, you should provide a case that is documented by official proceedings (much like the cases of overturned false rape allegations).
              At the very least, you should provide one that is documented by some one not mentally imbalanced. What do you think that does to your credibility?

          17. May you continue to promote the MRM on sites where your views will never be challenged. Please see the good in others.

          18. You definitely made me think about the other sides of the issue so that I now have a more completely understanding of it. Thank you.
              I hope you are more understanding now too, whether or not you’re willing to admit it.

       3. Bear in mind that general advice given to women on how best to avoid stranger rape is roughly analogous to advice toward children to ‘not play in the road’ and ‘not to talk with strangers, not to accept sweets from strangers, and most certainly not to get in the van with strangers’.
          Such advice was met with outrage and slutwalks to the effect that ‘cars ought not to hit children playing in the road’, and that ‘strangers ought not to danger children’.
          It’s a rather odd stance to take really, I mean women must surely be aware of the existence of prisons, the existence of those within who are there because they knowingly broke the law, yet seem to have convinced themselves that striding about a city in a brassiere holding a placard is going to reform the criminally minded into upstanding citizens who will from there on in not break the law and take advantage of them when they make themselves vulnerable.
          Bonkers really.

          1. Again, the difference here is that you have the ability to contorl your own desires. You might have the impulse to rape someone dressed promiscuously, but the morally-conscious side of you should still recognize that that is NOT OKAY. Do not try to blame the victim for an act which you could have prevented by simply controlling yourself. If you don’t, then you are no better than an animal.
             Let’s try this the other way: if a man was dressed promiscuously, would it be the man’s fault if a woman raped him?

          2. the difference here is that you have the ability to contorl your own desires.

             So “strangers ought not to danger children.” then?

             You might have the impulse to rape someone dressed promiscuously, but the morally-conscious side of you should still recognize that that is NOT OKAY.

             For a start I have no impulse or desire to rape anyone, thank you very much, nor, as far as I can tell, is it even the slightest bit implied in my comment.
             Secondly you seemed to have missed this section of my comment – “I mean women must surely be aware of the existence of prisons, the existence of those within who are there because they knowingly broke the law” – rape is a crime, people who commit crimes are called criminals, criminals generally don’t respect the law which also means they very likely don’t respect your bodily integrity. Criminals prey on those weaker than themselves, those that are temporarily incapacitated, those away from witnesses.
             Seems a fair comment to me that if someone is wishing to reduce their chances of stranger rape then taking measures such as not getting inebriated to near comatose levels, not taking shortcuts down dark alleys, and not going out alone and doing both of the above while wearing little more than dental floss is sound advice.
             Alternately we can stamp our feet about there being nasty people in the world, and that no matter how much we brow-beat the nice guys, the nasty guys just seem to carry on existing.

          3. Except that they’re not just some mythical “evil.” 70% of rapes are caused by someone the victim already knows. They are not the other–they are people who made poor choices, who at the crucial moment couldn’t control their bodily impulses.
             >For a start I have no impulse or desire to rape anyone, thank you very much, nor, as far as I can tell, is it even the slightest bit implied in my comment.
             Most people don’t. That’s what makes the 70% statistic particularly surprising. So unless you’re a psychopath, which affects maybe 1% of the population and are thus incapable of recognizing morals, you (addressing everyone here) belong to the 99% of the population who do not consider themselves rapists and thus have the responsibility to not have sex with someone who’s inebriated or being promiscuous. If they are inebriated they are incapable of giving consent, as simple as that.
             >Alternately we can stamp our feet about there being nasty people in the world, and that no matter how much we brow-beat the nice guys, the nasty guys just seem to carry on existing.
             Think about this. You are enabling them to continue existing by supporting the articles on this site. Rape culture doesn’t exist? Great! Their beliefs are affirmed. They can just continue to do whatever they’ve been doing–after all, you guys have got their back if they even say one tiny thing about how the girl was promiscuously dressed. I mean, it’s clearly her fault, right?

          4. you guys have got their back if they even say one tiny thing about how the girl was promiscuously dressed. I mean, it’s clearly her fault, right?

             If that is what you believe.
             However for myself I note that even if I accidently leave my car unlocked and it gets stolen that despite myself not taking basic precautions to defend my property it will be still be taken seriously as a criminal act of theft. Quite why you interpret advice toward preventative measures as being encouragement to engage in the act said measures aim to prevent is beyond me.

             Rape culture doesn’t exist? Great! Their beliefs are affirmed.

             What beliefs? Rape can exist independent of an associated culture. We don’t talk about a murder culture do we? Why I bet the overwhelming majority of murder victims knew their killer too.

             and thus have the responsibility to not have sex with someone who’s inebriated or being promiscuous.

             Well, best get one thing in the open, I do have frequent sex with people ‘being promiscuous’, in fact I am likely being promiscuous at the very same time! Once upon a time I thought this was mutually agreed consensual sexual activity, however I now know that I am in fact a rapist. Apparently.
             Is this further proof of how feminism is further defining all sex as rape? Or just a slip?
             Shockingly I’ve also had casual sex with someone who was three sheets to the wind (while I myself was pretty pissed up), and while they seemed quite enthusiastic at the time and in the morning, I now know that once again, I’m a rapist. Apparently.
             This is where the danger that ‘rape culture’ brings to the table lies, two equally drunk adults go to bed together and engage in what at the time was mutually agreed sexual activity, but come the morning and should there be regret or even a tinge of shame in the heart of the women… RAPE!
             Should the guy feel shame or regret well, he can just fucking put up with it and chalk it up to experience.
             Places an awfully large burden of responsibly on the shoulders of men, and removes an equal portion of responsibility from the shoulders of women. And as this link from the OP provides this is the end result:-
             http://kidstrangelove.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/the-i-didnt-rape-you-text/

          5. >However for myself I note that even if I accidently leave my car unlocked and it gets stolen that despite myself not taking basic precautions to defend my property it will be still be taken seriously as a criminal act of theft. Quite why you interpret advice toward preventative measures as being encouragement to engage in the act said measures aim to prevent is beyond me.
             Again, we have the ability to control ourselves. It is not okay to take advantage of anyone sexually, regardless of how they are dressed or how are drunk they are. Period.
             >What beliefs? Rape can exist independent of an associated culture. We don’t talk about a murder culture do we? Why I bet the overwhelming majority of murder victims knew their killer too.
             No, but rape culture enables people to remove responsibility from themselves and generally lessens the seriousness of rape itself. It helps encourage the kind of environments where misogyny and sexism grows, like this site.
             >Is this further proof of how feminism is further defining all sex as rape? Or just a slip?
             I never said that. I said that if someone is so drunk that they CANNOT VERBALLY GIVE CONSENT because they cannot even think clearly, which is your responsibility to judge by the way, then it is your responsibility to refrain from having sex with them. If they are just as enthusiastic the next day and sober, which they probably will be, why not wait until then? Same applies to clothing. Women are NOT “asking for it.”
             >Places an awfully large burden of responsibly on the shoulders of men, and removes an equal portion of responsibility from the shoulders of women, while also replacing the lost responsibility with power. And as this link from the OP provides this is the end result:-
             You do know that the same attitude that you hold is common among law enforcement, which means they don’t take rape cases very seriously. So I guess the women who were actually taken advantage of, who didn’t have the mental ability to give consent at that time, are just overlooked amid it all. If that’s the world that you want, then so be it.

          6. You do know that the same attitude that you hold is common among law enforcement

             There’s a very good reason for that.
             Being under the influence of either drugs or alcohol is never regarded as mitigation for a person’s actions committed while under said influence, unless it can be proven that their being under the influence was against their will. The law regards you as being responsible for getting yourself into such a state, and thus responsible for any actions you undertake while your judgement and/or physical abilities are impaired. This holds for drunk driving, drug-fuelled crime, and yes, even rape. The problem with ‘raped by consent being retrospectively withdrawn come the morning’, is that it allows for women to be granted mitigation for their actions while drunk. It uniquely in law allows them to plead ‘it was the beer and not me’, which is normally in all other case met with ‘but it was you who drank the beer in the first place’.
             It is that common sense position, that only you are responsible for whatever state you are in, which is what you are butting up against. There are consequences to one’s actions, if I drink myself to such a state where I pass out in the street, then I am not going to have a happy ending to my night.
             As much as I’d like everyone to not steal my stuff and fuck about with my unconscious body, quite possibly even raping me for shits and giggles if I pass out close to the gay scene, I know full well the buck stops with me for being such a bellend and getting into that state in the first place.

22. Does anyone else believe that the witch hunts were just 17th century culling of ugly feminists.

    1. which trials were propagated by 17th century moral relativists. er, feminists, whatever

23. i hate this rape culture horseshit because i can buy a framed picture of Muhammad Ali at the mall but can i buy one of the infinitely more badass Mike Tyson? hellllll no

24. I guess I missed the law where drunk people are not “held to the same standards” as sober people. From what I know, when it comes to rape cases, inebriation does not change the outcome.
    The laws to protect accusers of rape are really there to protect VICTIMS OF RAPE. Ya know, people who got raped. People who are attacked and forced to have sex. Actual rape. That’s what it’s there for. No, it does have built in caveats for men who probably won’t get falsely accused. I’m sorry you are scared of getting falsely accused of rape. Women are scared of getting raped.

    1. A woman is Way way more likely to get raped than a man is to get falsely accused of rape. Maybe you can find some Wikipedia links and articles about tv shows to support that stat

       1. http://sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf
          http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303460004579192040826366178
          http://www.cotwa.info
          Here you are. And, if they were so low, people wouldn’t report it.
          Wikipedia and TV shows aren’t valid sources. You should have learned that in grade school.

          1. Good links, thanks. Let India’s experience stand as an example of what women can do if given the freedom to destroy.

       2. Any rape accusations should be view and investigated on facts. If a woman says she was raped and there is no sign of serious bruising or anything looking like she tried to resist, it should be viewed with INITIAL suspicion until more evidence can be obtained to see the whole picture. After viewing the hard evidence and facts of the case, If there is SUFFICIENT doubt that a rape occurred then charges should not be pressed. Going on a woman’s word that she has been raped should not be enough to arrest anyone. FACTS and EVIDENCE and reasonable doubt are the standard.

    2. Shut up woman.

25. Women are the majority of voters in the usa, this country was bound to decline since giving women the right to vote. Women should have their right to vote rescinded. It won’t matter once Saudi Arabia takes over America with al qaeda in a few hundred years men will be on top again. Women don’t want to fight in the army and once all men are turned into pussies and the alphas who take all the risk and keep the country running leave America will be like as scarface describes, one big fat pussy just waiting to be fucked.
    The problem isn’t feminist anymore they are just a lost cause, what we should focus on is spreading the red pill to more men. Because it is really that 1-2% of men who have lots of influence on society who are white knights, the judges, the politicians etc who are scared of women and make and uphold these divorce rape laws and don’t punish women for false rape accusation.

    1. In Saudi Arabia, a 19-Year-old gang rape victim was sentenced to receive 200 lashes and 6 months in jail for the “crime” of indecency (for being in a car “with a strange male,” a man with whom she was actually acquainted) and for speaking to the press. There was no contest as to whether or not an actual rape happened, as the men were convicted as well.
       That is what happens when men are afraid of women. A society that doesn’t allow women to vote are afraid of women. If you have to take some “pill”, even if metaphorical, to feel like a man who dominates over women, chances are that you afraid of women.

       1. How do we know this 19 year old was really a rape victim? Did she drink alot of alcohol before being raped or smoke a big blunt?
          Normally its innocent until proven guilty until of course its a rape victim, then we all must believe the woman because women never lie about rape.
          Frankly, I can’t blame the Saudis, even if your claims are true. the indeceny crime was proven because she admitted to it, she should not be above the law because she claims a worser crime was done to her.
          If I go get drunk and jump in a stolen car the law won’t say ok hernanday you were drunk so its cool. No they will say you were an accessory to car theft. If after I get out the car I get knocked out. Well yeah being knocked out is worse than having your car stolen but is someone going to say that I should be off the hook for stealing cars. Of course not.
          Whenever dealing with feminist, all one needs to do is reverse the argument to a similar scenario involving males. If the same standard doesn’t apply don’t feel sorry for the girl.
          Men are falsely convicted of rape all the time, half of the innocent project guys freed on dna were convicted of rape and murder.
          If they rape they should go to jail.
          I am to fear saudi arabia because by your logic, when a man rapes a woman he goes to jail. But when a woman breaks a law she is also punished. That is actually far more just than what occurs in America.
          She should be lashed because if she wasn’t in the car with strange men she wouldn’t have been raped. You claim she knew the rapist very well, well if she knew he was a rapist she shouldn’t have got in the car. How can you know someone well and not know they are a violent criminal. I’d think I’d know if someone was a bank robber or drug smuggler.

          1. A Saudi Arabian woman must be accompanied by a male guardian — typically relative — at all times in public. That is the law she broke.
             No, even in accusations of rape, the accused is supposed to be considered innocent by the courts, and that is often the case.
             She admitted to casually seeing a man without a chaperone in order to explain what she was doing there when she was attacked. If she was caught without being raped, chances are she would not get such a brutal sentence. Girls in middle eastern families are often killed by their parents for dating men. These incidents are called “honour killings”. That’s how it is in a world where women are feared to be their own person.
             If you were punished more for getting knocked out afterward than if you weren’t knocked out, because getting knocked out was taboo or whatever, that would not be fair, either.
             In a Western court, if there WAS such a law as that in Saudi Arabia, the woman’s experience would be considered as something to REDUCE her punishment, not to increase it. And no judge would give you a harsher sentence because you managed to get knocked out after stealing a car.

          2. You could reverse a feminist argument but then you would be living in a world where women actually run the show and you, as a man, would be fighting for the right to vote and to stop actively *justifying* that right.
             Men may be mistakenly convicted of rape a lot of the time, but not all of the time and not even half of the time (for which you slipped in “murder”). FBI reports from 1996 consistently put the number of “unfounded” rape accusations at around 8%.
             Not all men who rape women in Saudi Arabia go to jail and as a man you are allowed to go wherever you want by YOURSELF. It is just for you so long as you are a man.
             It wasn’t a stranger. It was an old schoolmate from high school. He didn’t rape her. Two other men came later and attacked the two in the car.

          3. You’re a mangina.
             She broke the law and got punished for it. She got what she deserved. Except you leave half the times the mothers are behind the honor killings. I have no sympathy for her, Saudi Arabia has better laws than the usa because usa is a feminazi nation, it is just the reverse but not as extreme.
             In Saudi Arabia a woman gets flogged for being with a man without a chapperone and in america a man gets flogged and court puts his testicles on a scrotum strecther. The scortum stretcher a-frame is a far more cruel punishment than being flogged,

          4. Women do run the show because they control manginas like you.
             Have you ever considered that woman gained the right to vote about 40-50 years before many men in this country?
             Women had the right to vote before the following groups of men
             -Native Americans
             -African American
             -Latino Americans
             -Men who couldn’t afford the poll tax or who had any fine
             -Men not registered for the selective service
             -Residents of DC
             -Poor white men
             -landless or non-property owning white men
             -Men over 18 and under 21
             -Men in uniform deployed overseas
             Funny how in this grand ole patriarchy that women be one of the first groups to get full suffrage.
             You are right that some men rape. False rape reports are 8% but the devil is in the details. If 100 rapes occur in town X and only 10% of rapes are reported as the feminazis claim. Then 10 rapes are reported. But since the false rape accusation rate is 8%, then 8 of those reports are false accusations!
             The reality is most rape victims have little to no incentive to report leigtimate rape and men have little incentive to rape, resulting in a low rape rate despite the fact that american women get drunk beyond belief and so do american men. The rape rate is so low.
             men should be allowed to go wherever they want because they aren’t the ones making all the false rape reports.
             Your story keeps changing and is wholly unbelievable. First it was this man she knew raped her now its some strangers in an ally chased her down beat them up and her. Even if it occured so what, they are in jail, what do you want to do about it? The saudi justice system worked, it punished everyone who was responsible.

          5. Mangina—is that some kind of chest pain??
             No one deserves to be lashed and jailed for meeting up with a guy. I didn’t leave out the mothers. I said PARENTS not just the father. It’s not the same in the USA as in Saudi Arabia. Men aren’t killed out of honour for meeting a girl unaccompanied by a chaperone.
             I never heard of men’s testicles literally being stretched. Is that in Arkansas?

          6. The groups you specify aren’t specific to men, except for the military type groups where women were ALSO excluded from anyway. The other groups are other disadvantaged groups that include women. Being a man was never a disadvantage in itself. Nor is it today, despite your personal feelings and those who whine about it with you.
             One of six U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape (compared to 1 in 33 men), and as you say the numbers are underreported. Drunk women aren’t in a position to give consent nor is drunkenness an excuse to rape someone.
             I’m not changing any story. You made assumptions based on a summary and I just filled you in on the details to correct your errors. Here, look: http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/19-year-old-gang-rape-victim-to-receive-200-lashes-and-6-months-in-jail-in-saudi-arabia/

          7. Mangina is what you are, we all know you’ve never seen a vagina.
             She deserved to be lashed for putting herself in a dumb situation, stupid people should be beat and if their parents don’t do it the government should.
             Men are killed all the time for meeting a girl just ask Travis Alexander’s family
             Then you are out of touch, the family courts of america regularly roll out the scrotum stretcher on an A frame where a man’s scrotum is stretched to its limit and he is often imprisoned too following this judicial exercise.

          8. Poor white men and men deployed overseas aren’t specific to men now? Now I know your crazy and hate men.
             Women are not required to register for the selective service and that is specific to men. Women are not excluded from the military, plenty of them are there and some even get medals.
             The majority of women have had more rights than men in America historically speaking and some men (rich upperclass whites) have had historically the most rights but this ended 100 years ago. Between Affirmative action that pretends white women are a minority to displace white men unnecessarily from the workforce, women have had more rights. Paris Hilton would be hired over the son of a white sharecropper in the american south at affirmative action because she has a vagina. But who really has been more disadvantaged historically? Rich Waspy women, or poor white southern men?
             Being a man isn’t a disadvantage, the laws and communist courts that unfairly discriminate against men do disadvantage men.
             Men rarely get alimony, or sole custody or get child support payments. They are often ordered to pay excessive child support payments when it would make far more sense to just give the child to the richer parent so the child could have a better standard of living. This is what common sense nations do. Communist nations however say women deserve the child so that they don’t have to work.
             There is no way for me to argue that on in 6 women have been “attempted” rape, wth does that even mean? There must be an army of rapist running around at night with big fancy outfits and it is invisble to me.
             Drunk people aren’t in a position to give consent. The real issue here is alot of times men and women behave stupidly both get drunk, both have sex. But it is the women who turns around and cries rape. This is a double standard. Drunk women can’t consent ok, but drunk men can’t consent either. So you have 2 people raping each other. It is the bias law that chooses to prosecute men over women because it assumes falesly men can’t be raped by women. By your logic 2 drunkies having sex are raping each other. What logic does it make to send just 1 party (men) to prison.
             I’m not really interested in the case, the rapist is in jail, the girl was punished for her behaviour, its a win win.

          9. So a mangina is someone who hasn’t seen a vagina? Is that what you are saying? I don’t see what that has to do with what we are talking about anyway.
             She just met up with someone to see a photograph or something. It wasn’t a big deal or anything that would be described as stupid.
             Travis Alexander was killed by his ex-girlfriend. That is different than him getting killed by his family for hanging out with a girl unchaperoned.
             If you are talking about a literal judicial scrotum-stretching, I think that would violate the 8th Amendment.

          10. Poor white men are in the same poverty category as poor women. Men deployed overseas fall into the military type group I mentioned in which women were ALREADY excluded in the time period that was being discussed.
              You don’t know anything about me nor have you said why you would think that of me.
              You are mixing privilege groups. A poor southern man has an advantage over a poor southern woman and a rich waspy man has an advantage over a rich waspy woman. All else being equal, a man has privilege over a woman.
              The legal system may be unjust for men in a lot of domestic cases, but that’s a separate issue.
              A richer parent isn’t necessarily a better parent. It’s been traditional that a women is paid child support and has primary custody because the woman often raises the child at home.
              Attempted rape is when the attacker used force to try to vaginally penetrate the victim but failed to do so. The 1-in-6 figure is from http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims
              It’s not common for women to take sexual advantage of drunk men but it can and does happen. It is rare that the man will report it, if that happens at all. Most drunken sex probably doesn’t count as rape. It is usually when the woman normally wouldn’t have sex with that person when sober and only did so because of impaired judgement or inability to successfully assert their boundaries in the face of aggression. It is the sole aggressor that is charged with the crime, which is almost always male. Mutual sexual aggression would most likely be considered consensual.

          11. Getting killed by an ex-girlfriend who was practically his family it is no different really to be killed by your liv ein girlfriend or step father is that really better than being killed by your wife or parents?
              Should have asked for the photo to be sent to by email, twitter, pinterest or the 5 million other sites that are just people posting photos.
              Non-sense, ever seen guantanmo or hear about the cia black site prisons. That probably violates the 8th amendment too like warrantless wiretapping, sneak and peaks, and the collection of “meta data”. If you have not noticed the government doesn’t follow the constitution in USSA. They just do what they want.
              In fact the US government only stopped the prison guards from beating the male prisoners in the late 1980s and using enforcers so that they could use the race gangs to terrorize everyone in jail and makesure you never get out….alive.

          12. Women have the advantage of being able to serve and benefit from military status while simultaneously not being forced into the draft. In otherwords all the upside and none of the downside.
              Poor southern men do not have an advantage over poor southern women, because poor southern women have far more access to resources. Men have no advantage over women of the same class, they have less.
              Poor southern women can spunge off her husband and then go work and get money on her own and say the old “whats mine is mine and whats his is mine”.
              The poorer parents isn’t a better parent if they cannot provide for the child on their own.
              The woman raises the child so she can collect money and spend money without working. The majority of the spending is done by women but the earning done by men, men are oppresed by women because regardless of how much they earn, women will spend most of it.
              Can’t have it both ways, you can’t blame one drunken party over the other. If drunk people can’t consent then either both are rapist or none are.
              Its untrue the sole aggressor is the male, alot of the time it is the female, she just doesn’t remember because she was too drunk
              There is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt when 2 drunk people go and have sex if it was consent or not, drunks are just unreliable in nature. It is your sexist view that paints men as capable of consent when drunk but females as weak and incapable which is the problem. Which is actually Ironic because women WANT a man who is sexually aggressive because they dislike being rejected and don’t like taking risk anyways. Almost no woman if asked will say they want to be the sexual aggressor in the relationship, they want to be thrown down and ravaged by a strong he man and many women indeed have rape fantasies books like 50 shades of grey are all about that kind of shit.

          13. I didn’t say that one kind of murder is better than another. The subject of this discussion has to do with oppression of women. There is no culture of death by ex-girlfriend, like there is of so-called honour killings.
              Not everyone has Internet access, not that it is relevant.
              Prisoners held by the military and the CIA most likely undergo cruel and unusual punishment but it is done in secret unlike something that would known in a family court.

          14. If women were accepted into the military during the draft, they would have most likely been drafted. Men aren’t at risk of being drafted today unless the laws change.
              Poor southern men can also sponge off their wives and work and say the same thing.
              In the traditional family setting, money is earned to support the household and the woman stays home to raise the children. Men are not oppressed because they support families out of choice. It is harder for a woman to have a family AND have a career.
              99% of the time the sole aggressor is male (Greenfeld, 1997).
              I never said that men are capable of consent when they are drunk. I said, “Drunk people aren’t in a position to give consent.” There is a difference between unwanted aggression and rough sex. You can’t be excused from raping someone because you thought that’s what they secretly wanted.

          15. Men are at risk of being drafted, they have to register for the selective service or they can be denied basically every “right” that other citizens have from voting to student loans, they can be imprisoned, fined up to 250k, any federal aid, grant, loan or benefit would be denied, barred from all federal jobs and benefits, driver’s licenses and id cards.
              America is in a world wide war on terror that has now lasted longer than WW1 and WW2 combined. A draft was brought up around the height of the war in Iraq, and we are really one more war, whether it be iran or china or some other shit hole from a draft as the army is stretched beyond its limit. Men are at high risk of being drafted.
              Poor Southern men can in theory spunge but it is very rare, women usually just leave those type of men. A house husband is extraordinarily rare in the long term. I have never really heard of it often, the whole women’s social circle from friends, family etc would pressure her to leave the man if he was continually unemployed or was a “house husband”. Your argument is quiet disingenious.
              Woman choose to have a family and a career and the reason they choose it is because of their high amounts of spending they want more money than the man can provide, simple as that.
              Your source is not readily available to me nor could I find such a book therefore it is not credible. With the millions of articles on the net one ought to be suspect of such a claim.
              men are oppresed they do not choose to support families out of choice the law makes them and the law will force them to pay alimony and child support, that is not a choice. Men have no say in whether a baby can be had or not, no say in abortion, no ability to opt out. Well you might say well men can close their legs. I just find it odd a so called feminist like you would argue that because whenold men say young women can close their legs instead of having abortions and birth control they cry sexism. So either allow both sides or no sides to opt out.
              Most men are raised by women, taught by women and these women oppress them and shame them into falsely believing that if they don’t go out and start a family and get married they are bad men or immature, these men will spend their whole lives being slaves and bossed around by women. Even George Washington got nagged nagged nagged by his wife and bossed around by women.
              In light of the current American laws its impossible for any man living with a woman to be free. Because she can just call the state to lock him up.
              One cannot always know when aggression is unwanted vs wanted. Actually if you rape someone and they want it, it isn’t rape. The confusion comes from women who go home to men’s houses where they both get drunk then decide after the man was a loser because of what her friends told her or because she regrets it or because the man didn’t call her back fast enough and she feels used or because she is on some kind of anti-psychotic meds or suffers some kind of mental disease which 1 in 3 Western women suffer mental issues
              “Women are more likely to have been treated for a mental health problem than men (29% compared to 17%)”
              http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/help-information/mental-health-statistics/men-women/

          16. The military is voluntary. There is no risk of being drafted and if the draft came back, women would most likely be subject to it as well since they are now permitted to serve.
              I didn’t say that house husbands were common, but my point is that although men are not oppressed as a whole, I guess you can say there is a minor case here where men are also oppressed by male-dominated society that looks down on male housekeepers.
              I think that most women would prefer to have a career to become financially independant rather depend on some man. Even so, they face issues with income inequality, sexual harassment, and types of discrimination that men don’t need to worry about.
              Both mothers and fathers are held responsible, by law, for their children.
              Most boys are raised by men AND women. You again make my point for me. The pressure to conform to pre-set gender roles is oppressive to both men and women. When women are allowed to be like men, men are allowed to be like women, and men can still be considered men and women women and if they want to be both, neither, or the other, then so what, gender identity and gendered behaviour shouldn’t be something against which to discriminate.
              Women can’t just call the police to lock up a man for no reason. Malicious women can easily fabricate reasons, so you do need to be careful.
              If you are not sure if aggression is wanted or not, you can always ask, and if you don’t want to ask it is always safe to assume that it is not wanted.

          17. The military right now is voluntary, in the event of a draft it is not.
              There is a risk of a draft because we are in the longest, largest biggest war, which many have doubbed world war 3 in American history. Only because the voluntary forces are so large and advances in technology are we not having a draft. America is one attack away from a draft. If Kim Jong Un decides to drop a nuke on Japan tomorrow, which he has threatened, 100,000-150,000 us forces are dead and we need a draft.
              Women have the option to serve, but given that they are not required to register for selective service it is highly unlikely they;d be drafted especially after the supreme court ruled in the 80s they didn’t have to be drafted.
              A house husband would be closer to liberation than a house slave male who has to work until he dies to support a woman. Men as a whole are oppressed by the matriarchy, in fear of being called creeps, losers, bums or names from females.
              Male dominated society do not look down upon men who choose to stay home and let women do the work…. female society does. When America was a male dominated society in the 1800s and a man could still beat his wife, they typical rich empowered man, had a bunch of slaves or indentured servants or low paid workers doing all his work. He just stayed at home and did nothing. Do you think the major plantation owners and slave masters were out toiling in the sun? Of course not, they were all house husbands.
              It is the female dominated society that looks down on male housekeepers and house husbands as lesser. Women will make fun of other women if their man isn’t some big shot and brag about who husband makes more money and how they spend their husband money.
              Most athletes wives divorce them when they stop playing sports because they hate house husbands even if they have enough money to not work, the female matriarchy doesn’t accept a man who has made his money and wants to enjoy it. He must be a wage slave for the women. The woman enslaves the man. The man goes to work and makes most of the money, while the female takes his paycheck and spends most of the money. I worked in retail as a teen, the manager told me its called target because we TARGET HER, the adds are aimed at women because they do 80% of the spending.
              Just like in slavery the slave master occasionally buys the slave something nice so that the slave doesn’t get too grump and revolt. So the woman lets the man buy a nice car or a big screen tv but he won’t get to enjoy it too much.
              Funny how the man cave is relegated to places like the garage or the basement, the worse parts of the house. While the women gets the kitchen, the main floor, the rooms.
              Most women are looking for a pay day, they only work when they can’t hit mr. bigg.
              Women do face issues of income inequality but not of income inequity. Most women want kids. They have 2-3 kids in their 20s 30s and take off 2-3 years from work. Then they want to come late and leave early so they can spend more time with their kids. In otherwords they are paid less because they work less. If I as a single unattached man, decided I wanted to take 2-3 years off to go travel and then come in late and leave early, I would be passed over for promotions as well because I am not there. Women who have no kids are earning on average more and they are also employed more.
              Men who choose not to get married face the suspicion of being gay and irressponible or immature and lose out on promotions too.
              I suspect non-white men face more discrimination in the workplace than white women. In fact the only group I ever heard openly say they hate any group has been white women complaining they hate men.
              men face discrimination in the workplace because it is assumed they must be paid more so are hired less.
              Mothers are not held responsible by the law.
              Father cannot pay child support because loses his job for no fault of his own= goes to jail
              Mother cannot pay for children because she loses her job for no fault of her own = gets welfare checks so she can pay.
              This is the female matriarchy in action. The government doesn’t say ok if you can’t afford child support we give you some welfare money to help out.
              most boys are not raised by men, not with the huge aount of single mothers. If you really want to move to a post gender society then stop harping on gender. Actually domestic violence laws are so grossly in favour of women that police are often ordered in many counties states and nations like california and australia to lock up the man no matter what.
              The main reason men are stupid is because they are raised by women, taught by women and indoctrinated by the female matriarchy.

          18. The decision to exclude women from front-line combat and selective service was made by men, not women, and so it is one of the few disadvantages of being a man but it is not a fact of sexual oppression of men.
              I don’t know where you get this matriarchy that would call stay-at-home husbands bums. A LOT of women would rather be the ones to earn a living while the man cooks, cleans, and takes care of the kids. Historically, it is men who did not want this to happen.
              There have been a lot of studies that show that women get paid less for doing the exact same amount of the exact same type of work as men.
              In 2010 the median income of fulltime year-round workers was $42,800 for men, compared to $34,700 for women. Worldwide, the fulltime employment rate for men is 34%; it is 18% for women.
              Your claim that mothers are not held responsible by law is easily refuted. Many are dealt with in the courts for charges of negligence.
              Fathers don’t go to jail for being unable to pay child support. It is only when they refuse. And I don’t know about the jail part.
              I agree that the legal system is unfair towards men where domestic cases are concerned.
              The main reason men are stupid is that because people are stupid and that includes women. Women’s stupidity also drive men crazy. It’s a two-way street, even if you only see one-way signs.

          19. Women gained the right to vote in 1920s. Women are the majority of the electorate, no law can pass without them consenting and agreeing to it. Women were excluded from selective service and the draft but alloed to serve in the army, they oppress men not the other way around. Women think men are so stupid that we won’t recognize a turncoat who is anti male just because he is male because that is how women think. Any time a women are ready to sell you out, they always get a man to do the dirty work. If a woman wants to kill her husband, half the time she will go get some man to do it.
              Your confusing men with patriarchy. There are for more men who are feminist than part of any patriarchy as most men spend their whole lives bossed around by their mothers, female teachers, girlfriends and female bosses. The laws are so slanted in favour of women and women are always viewed as victims to the extent that a man who isn’t a feminist will have a dificult time.
              Women get paid less as an accumulation of missing years of work, studies demonstrate women who don’t have kids actually outearn men and have higher incomes and get more promotions esp. in gov’t thanks to affirmative action. The reality is women are draining the resources so much so it has created a financial crisis becuase tax payers spend hundreds of millions training female doctors, lawyers, etc. who by their 40s decide they want to spend time with their kids and not 80-95 hours at work.
              The median income is irrelevent, if I take time off in my 30s my income will be lower too. I will miss out on promotions. Men also take the riskier jobs and tend to be the ones leading the most successful startups so its no surprise really they earn more on average and median.
              Women choose to work part time more so they can be with their kids, its a choice they make, a prioritization, its has nothing to do with discrimination. Do you really think a major employer could pay women less for being women? Former employees in hr, who are mostly women anyways would just take all the documents on the last day of work and head straight to feminazi lawyer inc and sue them silly. Do you realize that it makes no sense to claim women’s low pay is from male patriarchy when it is female feminist running the entire hr departments?
              Women can go to jail for negligence but they get to claim post partum depression and a series of other “mental” diseases that gets them soft sentences. No judge gives a shit what mental disease a man has if he neglects or abuses his children… he is just an asshole who should go to jail forever.
              Answer to the fact that woman who can’t pay get welfare, and men who can’t pay get jail.
              Sadly it is not a two way street. When women became the majority in the 1920s of voters it became a 1 way street to female matriarchy hell. Any man in a position of power must go home and respond to his bitch wife, and bitch women voters. Instead of inequality being replaced by equality or gender blind system you got reverse patriarchy or matriarchy.
              And even if women were paid less, you realize women do 80% of the spending? 80% of the money goes through their hands so it really doesn’t matter how much a man earns because his wife or girlfriend will find a way to blow more than half his income

          20. I know the difference between men and patriarchy but the patr- part of the patriarchy refers to men. And yes, some women take advantage of the patriarchy to do their malicious bidding, which is a good argument AGAINST the patriarchy.
              Women get paid less because they are valued less, sometimes fairly and a lot of times unfairly. This has been shown in numerous studies.
              The median income is relevant when you speak of averages and you were.
              Women choose to work part time because their husbands refuse to stay home and take care of the kids and they refuse because of reasons related to patriarchy. I don’t think that HR departments are systematically run by feminists.
              You haven’t yet referred me to any sources that show that men who are too poor to pay for their kids are imprisoned for being too poor. I’m not going to accept that statement at face value.
              Even IF women do 80% of the spending, men BY FAR do the lion’s share of the hoarding of money. If women could KEEP their husband’s money, they would. In the middle east, they do this by exchanging their inheritance with gold jewelry.
              I think you are putting too much emphasis on certain kinds of women and dysfunctional relationships, whether it be from personal experience or lack thereof. Not everyone is out to get everyone else. Men and women often struggle TOGETHER against a patriarchy which NO ONE controls. It’s just there but many support it, often by denying its existence.

          21. You simply describe any bad as part of the patriarchy because your view is patr=men you hate men and all men are bad therefore any bad is from patriarchy. Women would not have the ability to “Take advantage” in a patriarchial system. In a patriarchal system men are allowed to legally beat women for disobeying them like children.
              Women are paid less because they take more time off. If they are valued less it is because the employer recogizes a single woman with 3 kids under 10 isn’t going to work an all nighter.
              The median income was irrelevent because no matter how much men earn more than women, women spend more then men. Even if all woman earned zero and all men earned 1 million. If 800k per household was spent by women it would be obvious who is really in charge and that the patriarchy is a myth. In a patriarchal society women can’t even go to the mall by themself. Our society is matriarchal, women are a majority, the laws are bent in favour of them.
              Feminazis are experts in trying to say everything is men this ro men that, but last I checked affirmative action doesn’t include white men, but it does include white women.
              Most HR are indeed feminist and are as well women, very few men in hr.
              Women choose to work part time, and you admitted it. Men don’t make them do anything, it is a choice. They recognize why work hard when I can just make the man do it and spend his money. Women never ask men if they want to work part time, because if they did alot would, alot of men would enjoy watching maury and jerry springer and being i their pijammis at 2:pm
              I will refer you to the court house and the hundreds of thousands of men who have been arrested for failure to pay child support due not to non-compliance but no income. There are so many cases, google is your friend, use it.
              Most women are shortsighted and lack the intelligence to save money, they are more concerned about keeping up with shelly and their circle of friends and having nice clothes than saving money, they wouldn’t know what to save for. After all when money comes from daddy and husbands their whole life why save? You misunderstand the nature of western women, they have no reason to save they get 80% of the houshold money and choose to blow it on purses and jewellry at michael kors.
              Some middle eastern societies like jews are matriarchal, some like the arabs are patriarchal.
              There is no patriarchy in the west, they are matriarchal societies were the laws favour the women, women are the majority in college, workplace, voting booth. Women live longer and are allowed to retire at the same age. They benefit from protection of the armed forces and can serve in them but are not required to be forced into their death through the draft.
              The patriarchy is just a boogey man, it doesn’t exist, if it did it would get sued silly and have its balls put out on the same scrotum stretcher that men who get divorced rape and child support raped by the women’s divorce court does.
              Saying not everyone is out to get someone is true. Most men go through life foolishly blind to the matriarchy, falsely believing in a patriarchy when women live longer and spend more money than men. But women are plotting and scheming, they are thinking how to land a big dumb man and get his money spend it and ruin him and move on to the next victim.
              Women pressure men to marry them, saying if you don’t marry me I’m leaving. Then when men marry women go and file 80% of the divorces. So after they have sucked the man dry for as much as possible they throw him away. because he has outlived his use and now it is time for the courts to divorce rape him and put him on the scrotum stretcher.

          22. “patr” comes from the LAtin word for “father”. There are different kinds of patriarchal systems.
              Women who work the same hours are paid less. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States
              I googled for “men who have been arrested for failure to pay child support due not to non-compliance but no income.” and didn’t find anything. I just want to know what is YOUR source?
              You sound like a bitter and hurt boy. I hope that you work out your issues. I’m sorry that you see the world the way you do and feel the way you do. Send your mother my regards.

          23. “The statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked, as long as it qualifies as full-time work”
              Which is my point exactly, women take less risk!
              -If you look at the most dangerous jobs, you don’t see fashion model, fashion designer, hair care pro, and eyelash maker, its taxi driver, cop, logger, miner etc. job women want to have no part in because its not cool and trendy.
              -Women are paid less because they have less experience, skill, choose lower paying occupations, have less education and hours worked
              -Frankly you are a troll and cannot be believed, your vile anti-male hatred and misandry and your androphobia is dripping off your fangs to the point you cannot even acknowledge what shows 17.8 million items in search.
              -https://www.google.com/search?q=man+goes+to+jail+for+failure+to+pay+child+support&oq=man+goes+to+jail+for+failure+to+pay+child+support&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.9808j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
              http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44376665/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/unable-pay-child-support-poor-parents-land-behind-bars/#.UsdDbdLue70
              Thats right men are not even afforded the constitutional right of the presumption of innocence, under the nazi matriarchal court you are presumed guilty until proven innocent.
              “The ability of judges to jail parents without a trial is possible because failure to pay child support is usually handled as a civil matter, meaning that the non-custodial parent — or the “contemnor” in legal terms — is found guilty of contempt of court and ordered to appear at a hearing.
              He or she is not entitled to some constitutional protections that criminal defendants receive, including the presumption of innocence. And in five states — Florida, Georgia, Maine, South Carolina and Ohio — one of the omitted protections is the right to an attorney.”
              It is the only criminal proceeding were you are denied a lawyer, but they call it a civil proceeding despite the fact that if you lose you go to jail because they want to deny your other rights of a guaranteed lawyer if you cannot afford one, because if you can’t afford child support payments you can’t afford a lawyer so the prosecutor can shit all over you and breach all your rights.
              “Critics of incarceration without representation had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would end the practice in its ruling in Turner v. Rogers, a case involving a South Carolina man who was repeatedly jailed for up to a year after failing to pay child support.
              But the court ruled 5-4 in June that poor parents are not entitled to a court-appointed lawyer when facing jail for non-payment of child support. Instead, the justices said, states should use “substantial procedural safeguards” to ensure that those who have no means to pay are not locked up.”
              Patriarchal, really, gimme a break, a patriarchal system that says men have no right to a lawyer.
              “A 2009 study by the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan policy think tank in Washington, D.C., found that only half of the child support debtors in California prisons had reported income in the two preceding years. And the median net income of the others was a mere $2,881.
              65 percent of paycheck taken
              Geraghty, the Southern Center for Human Rights attorney, said part of the problem is that courts often order poor parents to pay too much for child support in the first place, increasing the likelihood that they will fall behind on payments.”
              No surprise there
              “Military veterans, who often struggle to find work when they leave the service, appear to be particularly at risk.
              Lance Hendrix of Adel, Ga., an Army veteran, said he fell behind on child support for his 4-year-old daughter after he left the service and couldn’t find work.
              “I was arrested and I went to jail and they asked me all sorts of questions,” said Hendrix, who also is a plaintiff in the Georgia lawsuit. “I was never told I was under arrest. And I was never read my rights. So I did not know what rights I had. Of course, I’ve seen all these movies, but half that isn’t true.”
              Not having a lawyer in a civil contempt hearing increases the likelihood that the parent will be jailed, even if he or she is not guilty of “willfully” defying the court’s order, say critics of the policy.”
              Yeah men have so much rights, they fight in the military being shot out while women eat bon bons and spend 80% of the income, to come home and be arrested because the matriarchy doesn’t want veterans to get jobs and won’t hire them so they can throw them in jail.
              ““In the absence of counsel … it appears that the opportunity to raise the defense is often missed, and large numbers of indigent parents are wrongfully imprisoned for failure to meet child support obligations every year,” according to a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the Turner case by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.
              The deck is further stacked against the delinquent parent because the state often acts as the plaintiff, seeking to recover the cost of providing public assistance to the child, Geraghty said.”
              In otherwords, your being sued by the state and the state is deciding the case, I’m sure you will get a fair trial. that is like suing Exxon Mobile for an oil spill and the judge is an Exxon Mobile employee.
              O yes I’m a hurt wittle boy, your shaming language is so damaging to my my wittle male ego you hurt my wittle male feelings.
              I’m glad your demonic self is showing its true colors as a true murka whale demon beast indeed.
              My mother doesn’t take regards from you because she doesn’t take regards from bastards and whores which is what you are .

          24. I know that these injustices happen against men but for them you weep and for a woman who was caught without a chaperone and jailed and beaten you say that she deserves it.
              I am not trying to shame you. If you are not hurt, then why are you so angry?

26. OT.
    Anyone live in Montana and want to go tell this judge “boys do not hit girls” is no longer an acceptable standard because of the inherent, sexism, discrimination and bigotry it implies?
    http://www.crimesagainstfathers.com/usa/Forums/tabid/362/forumid/260/threadid/9402/scope/posts/Default.aspx

    1. At least give this judge credit for not taking extreme punitive measures that our country’s more liberal judges in America would have gladly meted against this poor boy. Let’s face it, this judge is the best we can do given the current rotten state of this country. Tell the good people of Montana, to stay in Montana. I live in a major metropolitan liberal cesspool with its accompanying beta-mangina roided police, white feminist corporate spoilt whores, ghetto savages, weak sycophant white liberal men and I know very well what “justice” here looks like for real men.

27. By the way, Andrea Dworkin died in 2005. Good riddance.

28. Best RoK article ever.

29. “Feminists want to protect women from the consequences of false rape accusations. They want rape accusers to remain anonymous, while the accused has his reputation publicly destroyed before any trial has taken place.”
    In the USA, at least, the publication of the names of those accused of rape while the accuser remains anonymous is a result of policy decision by the press, not a matter of law. The “rape shield laws” only cover what can be admitted in court, they do not trump freedom of the press in the USA.
    The thing is, this actually makes it easier to change than if it was law.
    Here’s what you can do about this:
    1. Whenever you see an a press article naming someone accused of rape but leaving the accuser anonymous, leave a comment pointing out that this article SHOULD NOT HAVE NAMED THE ACCUSED because the accused has not been convicted of anything, and also point out that this was a deliberate decision made by whoever published the article.
    2. Point out that naming the accused will make it easier to find the accuser by doing internet research, and that it would most likely be better for the accuser also if the accused remained anonymous.
    3. Find the accuser and name them.
    THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT:
    4. in cases where BOTH the accused and the accuser are left anonymous leave comments praising the integrity of the author and publisher. IN THESE CASES DO NOT TRY TO FIND OR PUBLISH THE NAME OF THE ACCUSER, EVEN IF THE ACCUSATION SEEMS RIDICULOUS. So, for example, the attempt to find the name of the accuser in the Ohio State University public sex/false rape allegation case was misguided because they left the accused anonymous.
    If the manosphere as a whole can follow these steps consistently for 2 years, I predict general US press policy will change so that both accuser and accused are left anonymous in reporting of rape cases. That will have a ripple effect of making rape reports in the press less sensational, and diminishing feminist rape hysteria.

    1. Unless the victim is a serial false-accuser, it’s not helpful to say who they are. Someone accused of ANY crime is usually made known, not just alleged rapists. This helps witnesses to come forward to either to help defend the accused or to help convict ACTUAL criminals who SHOULD be dealt with as such. It’s not a good idea to reveal accusers as this can lead to future victims of REAL crimes from coming forward.
       IF it turns out to be a false accusation, then all steps should be taken to clear the accused’s name. IF the accusation was done maliciously, it may be also helpful to reveal the accuser. If it was simply a mistaken accusation, it’s unfortunate but it does happen. The accuser in that case doesn’t need to be dragged through the mud. It may seem unfair but that’s how the justice system works, and for good reason. The hysteria isn’t so much in false accusations of rape and talk of rape culture, as it is in some perceived epidemic of malicious women ruining men’s lives by saying that they raped them when they were drunk or whatever.
       If there was a widespread culture of taking advantage of unlocked cars, even if it’s just going for joyrides on lack of explicit consent of the cars’ owners or whatever, then we could also say that was a “car-theft culture” and you might hear some automobile aficionados of the Ferrari-red-pill-popping “driversphere” complaining about false accusations of them stealing a car when they were just parking it because the car’s owner was drunk or something like that.

       1. Naming the accuser in cases when the accused is named puts the press on notice that the accused cannot remain anonymous if the accuser is named.
          It also keeps things more balanced. In my view the BEST outcome is for both parties to be anonymous until the case is settled in court, but if one of the parties is named it is better that they both be named.

          1. The problem with identifying the accuser in any case is that it discourages other victims from coming forward. The best outcome is whatever is conducive to convicting actual rapists and whatever exonerates the falsely accused with minimal damage, ideally no damage, to their reputation. In the case of actual rape, it is often better to identify the accused to bring forth witnesses. In the case of the falsely accused, it’s best for all parties to be anonymous. There’s never a good time to identify the accuser except if maybe they are compulsive false-accusers, which would be rare if that happens at all. It’s terrible when the media unfairly destroys someone’s reputation. The least they could do is emphasize when someone is innocent, but that is a separate issue. The WORST thing to happen is for no justice to be served in cases of actual rape. Yes, that is worse than if someone is falsely accused, not that it makes it okay in any way, either, but that’s how the scales of the justice system are currently balanced.

          2. 1. compulsive false rape accusers are real:
             http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2358759/Leanne-Black-finally-jailed-FIVE-false-rape-allegations-ex-boyfriends-years.html
             2. False rape accusations make real rape accusations harder to prosecute.
             3. Making it impossible for the accuser to threaten the accused’s reputation with a false accusation (because the accused will remain anonymous until the case is tried) removes ONE of the motivations for a false accusation – the accuser may be trying to force the accused into a settlement for the sake of protecting the accused’s reputation. Removing this motivation, which disproportionally hits celebrities, wealthy people, athletes, politicians & the like will tend to desensationalize press coverage of rape accusations. That would be good for EVERYONE involved in any kind of rape case.

          3. No, it’s in everyone’s interest in an open justice system that someone who is accused of ANY crime to be identified so that other victims and witnesses can come forward. Rape is not special in this regard. False accusations of rape is lower than that of many other crimes. Reports of actual rape are also very low and it wouldn’t help to make the accused anonymous. The balance has to be struck between false accusations ruining lives and actual rape ruining lives and the latter is far, far worse in its impact. Being accused of rape isn’t the same as being raped. That’s just how the criminal justice system works: the victim has the right to be protected and the accused has the right to defend themself. And most men who are accused of rape actually committed the crime. For the few cases that make it to court, 63% of defendants are found guilty. In 2008, over 80,000 females were reported to have been raped by males. Naming the accused has proven to help bring these men to conviction and it would be an injustice to have let them go to save the odd one out who was falsely accused for whatever reason.

       2. You want the press to understand that if they name the accused (aka the ALLEGED victim), people will use that information to find & publish the name of the accuser. Basically you want to create a situation in which the only way for the accuser (aka the ALLEGED victim) to remains anonymous is to keep the accused anonymous also.

          1. I agree that the media should take more responsibility and care when publishing details of the accused’s identity but it is not a symmetrical situation and it is always important to protect the alleged victim while at the same time respecting the presumed innocence of the accused, whether or not THEIR identity has been made known.

30. Good luck getting laid, you’re all misogynistic dicks. And you need to re-evaluate your life choices if this is what you’re getting angry about.

    1. Good luck with the usual ad hominem instead of discussing the topic. Calling people names are what little children do. You need to realize your lack of maturity if you are trolling since the prejudice of “rape culture” is quite apparent.

    2. kekekekekek

31. “Rape Culture hysteria drives a wedge between the sexes, reducing trust and intimacy, and accelerating our society’s decline into atomized, adversarial cynicism.”
    Yep.

    1. The *reality* of rape culture drives a wedge between the sexes. Those who unwittingly support the denial of rape culture also drive that wedge. It’s not meant to reduce trust and intimacy. Those who wish to casually joke about rape or condone aggressive sexual conduct aren’t really looking for trust and intimacy other than to abuse it. By actually listening to what is said without getting so defensive about and taking this so personally, you can either decide that it DOESN’T apply to you and go on doing whatever it is you do, or you can think about what you need to do yourself to engender trust and intimacy with others. Denying that there is such a thing a rape culture isn’t going to make you appear all warm and cuddly all of a sudden.

       1. The irony is that Liberals/Feminists are the biggest deniers of rape culture, the Muslim rape culture that is.

32. crap crap crap. supposed to be “funny” I guess. But it is good to have a list of people who like this crap… for a future reference.

    1. I am on the list bitch, why would I be worried about someone knowing I read this article, and that I didn’t find any factual errors in it. Seems dead on to me. Like we have something to fear from you bitch.

    2. It’s no comedy to any Helvetes Hore, but it’s accurate and funny to a lot of others. The list of trolls now includes you. xD

33. Flooded By False Rape Allegations …
    http://www.angryharry.com/Flooded-By-False-Rape-Allegations.htm
    Incredible Rape Statistics …
    http://www.angryharry.com/Incredible-Rape-Statistics.htm

    1. I don’t see any sources for your claims.

34. “Feminists attack anyone who suggests that women avoid walking by themselves late at night, or in revealing clothing. In response to a mayor who suggested women take these reasonable precautions, they organized an international protest”
    This line in your article does not coincide with the wikipedia page you yourself reference. According to your reference:
    “The rallies began when Constable Michael Sanguinetti, a Toronto Police officer, suggested that to remain safe, “women should avoid dressing like sluts.”
    Very sloppy Roscoe!

35. I’m sorry. I just gave up when you said “no reason to fear male desire”.
    OLD WOMEN get raped. Babies. MEN. Get raped. It’s used as a weapon of war.
    So I suspect male desire has naff all to do with rape.
    Unless, you know things all the experts(mostly men) and the UN, don’t ?
    So. Well. Either the SMEs are all wrong, or your blog post is based on prejudice and outdated, disproven, conjecture.
    In short, I could eat alpahbetti spaghetti and defacate a better argument.

    1. Well, you’ve certainly shitted out an response. Is it a better argument? No. It’s just the usually ad hominem filled rant that trolls squeeze out when they know they don’t have a real argument.

36. Oh, I’m a married, heterosexual, un-ugly, military veteran .

    1. Nah, U just a troll.

37. Men can’t be trusted and every man is a potential rapist. This is actually one of the reasons I don’t get drunk and never have been pissed drunk.
    Feminists argue that it is wrong for a man to take advantage of a woman who does not have her wits about her. They’re right, of course, but this is men we’re talking about. They’re driven solely by self-interest and many are born without a moral compass. It would be more realistic to recognize that fact and work with what you’ve got.
    The problem with third-wave feminists is that they have more faith in men and give them more credit than they should. They should see men’s barbarism for what it is.

    1. Like most traits, dishonesty exhibits in varying degrees and is independent of gender. That a small amount of people are so untrustworthy and sexually motivated is why all must be cautious. It’s not because ALL are like that because they clearly are not. Your reasoning is flawed and likely intentionally so.
       You are projecting the well-demonstrated self-serving attitude of those who hide behind the name of “feminism” to promote their hatred and agenda for even more entitlement. That you must use the false reasoning that men are driven solely by self-interest is typical of the kind of lies that one tells people to generate fear and justify hostility.
       The problem with this type of thinking is that it preys on the weak-minded. Then again, that’s the target audience of dysfunctional hate-mongers. People should see this hatred for what it is.

       1. Hatred is the victim-blaming culture we occupy that causes most rapes to go unreported.
          Teaching women that men are fundamentally trustworthy, loving and honest i.e. patriarchal traditionalism, puts them at risk of abuse, abandonment with no resources or recourse, rape, and worse.
          A little bit of common sense (actually, a large minority of men will rape you or screw you over, cheat on you, etc. given the opportunity and your dependence on them) is absolutely essential. Misandry saves lives.
          The more extreme bra-burners of the 70’s had more common sense than the feminists today who want a dialogue with men.
          As an aside, I have a slutty friend who was roofied and raped by a guy she was going to have sex with anyway. I guess that wasn’t really about power and getting off on sex with an unconscious woman, though.

          1. Hatred is the victim-blaming culture we occupy that causes most rapes to go unreported.

             Realizing that people carry some responsibility in protecting themselves from harm by not allowing themselves to be drunken fools is not to be exaggerated as “victim-blaming”. Getting “roofied”? Sure no one is blaming the victim there. Getting drunk and making bad decisions? What? Like when bad things happen to the drunk, it’s everybody else’s fault but theirs?
             Selective cognition is thinking that it is. Exaggeration is calling any apportioning of fault as “victim-blaming”.

             Teaching women that men are fundamentally trustworthy, loving and honest i.e. patriarchal traditionalism, puts them at risk of abuse, abandonment with no resources or recourse, rape, and worse.

             The greater share of society, men and women, are fundamentally trustworthy. Each end of the spectrum exists in both sexes too. Teaching that most are trustworthy does not translate to ALL or practically all are that way. It is a distribution that has extremes at both ends. It isn’t one way or the other. That is the flaw in your position.
             No resources or recourse for rape or worse? Does the criminal code and justice system not exist? Have people not been convicted and punished for rape or worse? Are there no safe-houses for battered women? No victim services? It is very possible that you are denying the existence of a multitude of mechanisms to aid the harmed.

             A little bit of common sense (actually, a large minority of men will rape you or screw you over, cheat on you, or even kill you etc. given the opportunity and your dependence on them) is absolutely essential. Misandry saves lives.

             Right. You realize that a “large minority” is really an oxymoron.
             Your statement needs to be backed up with some citation as it varies greatly from the norm. This kind of paranoia is what fuels the delusional thinking that supports the notion of “rape culture”. There is a good chance your reply to this will be nothing more than more and more focused hostility.

             The more extreme bra-burners of the 70’s had more common sense than the feminists today who want a dialogue with men.

             The fact that you deem the desire to hear nothing but your version of the truth as “common sense” tells all of us that you actually realize that your “truth” is not as unassailable as you like to profess. Sure, you can believe whatever you want, but to think that it is valid because you refuse to hear why it isn’t is clearly closed-minded.

             As an aside, I have a slutty friend who was roofied and raped by a guy she was going to have sex with anyway. I guess that wasn’t really about power and getting off on sex with an unconscious woman, though. The only positive thing to come out of the experience is that she is now a misandrist with lesbian leanings.

             Those events are best dealt with by approaching the local authorities. Regardless of the reason why, becoming a man-hater is just giving in to hate. That hate is an irrationality that in the end hurts those that hold it within themselves. It is why so many who harbor such hate feel the need to spit it out at others in the attempt to get rid of it

          2. Sure, and women who get raped for wearing short skirts? Well, they had it coming too. They should take some responsibility for not wearing a burka on the street.
             Women who get roofied and raped by men they know and trust? Well, really, they should have KNOWN that was a risk. I mean, there’s no victim-blaming there, that’s just common sense!
             Right, bud?
             Oh, please. Citations are easy to come by. First of all, large minority is not at all an oxymoron. 30% of a population is a significant (read: LARGE) minority. And that is the percentage that cheats on their wives: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17951664/ns/health-sexual_health/t/many-cheat-thrill-more-stay-true-love/
             1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape).: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims
             1 in 5 men whose wives have cancer choose to abandon them, another large minority, compared to 2.9% of women: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110105401.htm
             When your chances of being cheated on, beaten by a spouse, raped, abandoned when you have cancer, etc. are fairly high and these are documented facts (not paranoia or delusion Mr. Gaslighter) that is what fuels the COMMON SENSE that women hold today that tells them to support themselves and not depend on a husband for their livelihood. Patriarchal traditional is a danger to women’s collective security, safety and future peace of mind. Like I said, common sense:)
             Women expecting or being prepared for feral behaviour from men is really just being sane. Misandry saves lives.

          3. Sure, and women who get raped for wearing short skirts? Well, they had it coming too. They should take some responsibility for not wearing a burka on the street.

             That’s not what was said and you know it. Typically, you need to purposely misrepresent what was said in order to mock it.
             As far as how one chooses to dress, everyone has the responsibility to be aware of not only what message they send out to the wrong elements, it also includes the message they send to others in general. The feminists meme is the egocentric one that thinks they have freedom to express themselves without consideration of how that expression is interpreted by others.
             That you need to resort to the exaggerations of entirely hiding one’s body is a clear indication that you likely get this, but cannot admit it.
             No one is arguing against rape being rape, so you can put away the alarmist indignation. Wearing a short skirt in the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time doesn’t lessen your chance of becoming a statistic. You can pretend that it had nothing to do with that all you want, but it really isn’t changing the attitude of the criminally minded.

             Women who get roofied and raped by men they know and trust? Well, really, they should have KNOWN that was a risk. I mean, there’s no victim-blaming there, that’s just common sense!
             Right, bud?

             Wrong, “buddette”. Clearly, WRONG.
             Where was it said or implied that women who get roofied and raped by men they know should have know it was a risk? Where? You are resorting to clear fabrication in order to put up a false defense. In fact, the exact words were (go check it, it has not been edited):
             “Getting ‘roofied’? Sure no one is blaming the victim there.”
             Your bias is clouding your ability to even read what people have written. This is common with the kind of zealous fundamentalism that supports misguided agendas like trying to call society a “rape culture”.

          4. Oh, please. Citations are easy to come by. First of all, large minority is not at all an oxymoron. 30% of a population is a significant (read: LARGE) minority. And that is the percentage that cheats on their wives: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/1795…

             It is an oxymoron, but whatever you say.
             The statement we asked you to provide citation on was:
             “a large minority of men will rape you or screw you over, cheat on you, or even kill you etc. given the opportunity and your dependence on them”
             By placing the notions together you purposely implied that this proportion are as a group perpetrating rape or screwing you over and cheating on you. The only action that is separated is that of “killing you” as it was given the condition of “and even kill”.
             This is critical, as you intentionally throw all these things together to create this monstrous impression of men in general. Why not throw in “will have teeth” too? That way you could say practically all men will rape or screw you over, cheat on you, have teeth and might even kill you. See how that works? I’m sure you do.
             Even so, let’s cover off each of your “citations”…
             First off is the rate of cheating.
             The request was for citations, and not op-eds that point to ONLINE surveys. Right, like that is the definitive measurement of something that is very dependent on how the survey questions are interpreted or stratified. None the less, let’s have a look at the results.
             Cherry picking such a good way to misrepresent isn’t it? Lol. You not only picked the higher result for men noted in the studies cited, you conveniently ignored that rate in which women admitted to cheating (and that it isn’t really that far behind). Couple that with the lack of WHAT actually constitutes “cheating” in the survey, and it is quite probably that the survey is biased (which is why more scientific and peer-reviewed citation was requested.)
             Verdict? NOT supportive that the implication is that men are the runaway champs on cheating.
             Next up, the (expected) subpoena of the “myth of myth” rape rate…

          5. 1 in 5 men whose wives have cancer choose to abandon them, another large minority, compared to 2.9% of women: http://www.sciencedaily.com/re…

             Just was “cherry-picking” again? The more telling statistic is that women instigate divorce far more often then men do, and have done so for many decades. Check out the spreadsheet link on this page:
             http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/10357829/Why-do-women-initiate-divorce-more-than-men.html
             for the actual reported number.
             Verdict? Your assertion is NOT supported by the overall numbers. It is women that are more likely overall (and by a good margin) to be the instigator in divorce (to which I am sure you will say it is because men are not worth staying with).

             When your chances of being cheated on, beaten by a spouse, raped, abandoned when you have cancer, etc. are fairly high and these are documented facts (not paranoia or delusion Mr. Gaslighter) that is what fuels the COMMON SENSE that women hold today that tells them to support themselves and not depend on a husband for their livelihood. Patriarchal traditional is a danger to women’s collective security, safety and future peace of mind. Like I said, common sense:)

             As far as “gas lighting” it is clear that you are the perpetrator, and are only attempting to falsely project that onto your opposition.
             This need to cherry-pick, misrepresent or wholly conjure “fact” in order to support your claims is a common trait amongst fundamentalists. What fuels this hatred for men is really nothing more than a deep-seated personal bias. This is why people need to find out-of-context anecdote to support their spurious claims.
             Believe whatever you want. However, you have yet to find any real citation that supports your ideas.

          6. Obviously your focus is merely self-interest (what motivates all men), so it’s futile to point out the uselessness in you defending male honour and integrity on a website that celebrates gaming women.
             Nevertheless, I’ll take it point-by-point. I intentionally chose the survey because of the large sample size and for the simple reason that people are less inclined to lie to an anonymous piece of machinery than they are to a person. “In the interviews, only 1 percent said they’d cheated during the past year. But the anonymous questionnaire showed 6 percent.” http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/200910/marital-infidelity-how-common-is-it
             Nevertheless, the male infidelity results are consistent with the General Social Survey and other “peer-reviewed” research you praise so much: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/07/24/relationshipstrategies/the-definitive-survey-of-infidelity-in-marriage-and-relationships/. Male infidelity is higher than female infidelity in every culture ever examined: http://anepigone.blogspot.ca/2010/03/infidelity-rates-by-ethnicity.html, it’s only the margins (by high much higher) that vary. You’ll notice that in the highest age group in the peer-reviewed research, the male infidelity rate is 28% – a large minority – compared to 16% for women.
             Like it or not, men ARE the runaway champs on cheating, and always have been.There is not a study or even survey out there that contradicts this.

          7. Your jargon is really boring me now. It’s called sarcasm, buddy. Perhaps if you had two brain cells together you would have correctly identified it.
             My god you are boring. Up at 3:45am replying, let me guess, unemployed divorced guy?

          8. Yes, of course women initiate divorce in general more than men do. I would never argue that. They are more likely to be abused, cheated on, and do the lion’s share of the domestic tasks: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-206381/Working-women-housework.html. In the absence of fiscal dependence, women get nothing out of marriage. They don’t even experience the lifespan gains that married men do and have no advantage in this way over single women, although they do drink more than they do, which is telling: http://www.livescience.com/22497-marriage-women-alcohol-consumption.html. Women fare worse fiscally than men do after divorce, but in spite of this are generally happy to be divorced: http://www.thestar.com/life/2013/07/11/marital_split_women_happier_after_divorce_study.html.
             A bad marriage is worse for women than it is for men: http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec01/badmarriage.aspx, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/15/marriage-stress-husbands-kids_n_3274978.html and women are more sensitive to marital quality than men are (a fact undisputed by psychologists). So they have more to lose by staying in a bad marriage than men do. The phrase ‘long-suffering wife’ was not coined for nothing. Marriage is a raw deal for women relative to men so it only makes sense that they would initiate divorce more. And to prove that marriage is a raw deal for women relative to men, men when they have nothing to gain (i.e. when their spouses are most helpless and least able to contribute) are 6X more likely to leave than women are. This says something about the overall quality and value of marriage to women. Women may as well be “married” to themselves. Men always are.
             It’s why they end life happier: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080729133605.htm

          9. You took issue with the findings of the rape study I referenced given the way the questions were phrased.
             OK, fine. Many subsequent studies (yes, they’ve been replicated multiple times) have rates which were in fact higher: http://www.resurrectionafterrape.org/media/Just%20how%20many%20women%20are%20raped.pdf.
             Although this is really irrelevant. The questions could be asked any myriad ways and the findings duplicated dozens of times (as has been the case); men will still deny that women get raped. It’s their nature to do so, because it is in self-interest.

          10. He could be from a different time zone ya know, internet and all that.
              Also, well done on moving on to shaming techniques, we’ll recall them should you decide to take issue with fat-shaming or slut-shaming.

          11. Nope, I take no issue with shaming. For instance, if I were a man, I’d be ashamed of my gender.

          12. Your jargon is really boring me now. It’s called sarcasm, buddy. Perhaps if you had two brain cells together you would have correctly identified it.

              Lol, too funny, “budette”. You’ve done what every overly self-assured defender of the Feminist realm does (including using inflated bravado as a rearguard action). It’s easy to throw out false notions based on feelings and cherry-picked fact. As usual, you are just deflecting away from what you cannot argue against.
              In this case, you were called out for basically and completely misrepresenting what was said in order to put out a mocking refutation. You cannot admit this fault so you resort to ad hominem.
              Not only has your position been exposed as indefensible, you now show you cannot even own up to your errors.

              My god you are boring. Up at 3:45am replying, let me guess, unemployed divorced guy?

              Boring? You are certainly welcome to yet another “opinion”. Fortunately, your estimation of things has been shown to be rather dubious.
              It is interesting how egocentric your comment is though. You do realize that the Internet is accessible around the globe, and that many do not work regular hours. Furthermore, depending on the approval process, posts may not appear at the time they are posted. It may be the wee hours of the night in your time zone when a reply is logged, but it may be high noon elsewhere.
              Regardless of the time, you are merely resorting to ad hominem as an attempt to injure since you are unable to compose a sound refutation. To bad it has no element of truth and is therefore as ineffective as your attempts at defense.

          13. Obviously your focus is merely self-interest (what motivates all men), so it’s futile to point out the uselessness in you defending male honour and integrity on a website that celebrates gaming women.

              ROFLMAO. The focus is in publically dismantling surreptitiously constructed “arguments” like yours as they are merely propaganda to promote misconceptions. In this thread, it is the misconception that there is a pervasive “rape culture”. You are only trying to take the opposition’s focus away from that.

              Nevertheless, I’ll take it point-by-point. I intentionally chose the survey because of the large sample size and for the simple reason that people are less inclined to lie to an anonymous piece of machinery than they are to a person. “In the interviews, only 1 percent said they’d cheated during the past year. But the anonymous questionnaire showed 6 percent.” http://www.psychologytoday.com…

              You should actually read your citations before you present them. You do realize that the link you provided really says that men and women really demonstrate a near equal propensity to cheating, don’t you?
              It goes on to explain why there is an initial discrepancy, and how it is linked to societal influences in Western society. You actually provided citation that defends what your opposition has been saying, and refutes your. Thank you!
              Oh, and cherry-picking the comment about the 6% vs. 1%… well that’s what the criticism was in the first place. You present “fact” without the critical details that put those facts in perspective. People should read the link you posted. It points to the evidence that both sexes have essentially equal rates of cheating (makes sense too).

              Nevertheless, the male infidelity results are consistent with the General Social Survey and other “peer-reviewed” research you praise so much: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/…. Male infidelity is higher than female infidelity in every culture ever examined: http://anepigone.blogspot.ca/2…, it’s only the margins (by high much higher) that vary. You’ll notice that in the highest age group in the peer-reviewed research, the male infidelity rate is 28% – a large minority – compared to 16% for women.

              Really? Male infidelity is higher than female infidelity in every culture ever examined?
              At least ONE source would disagree with you there. That would be the first source you linked all of us to above. LOL. In it, it clearly states:
              “In many non-Western cultures, anthropologists have found no gender differences in infidelity rates.”
              You use a survey sourced in the United States to represent “EVERY” culture? That would be your second serious error. This myopic view of the world aligns with the egocentricity of a lot of “rape culture” alarmists. The GSS was not intended to represent anything more than the “pulse of America”. Do not mistake information sourced from it to be anything representative of GLOBAL attitudes.
              While International data collection does exists as part of the ISSP, the author of the op-ed you sourced used the variables ETHNIC, EVSTRAY and SEX. These are from the GSS American set, and not representative of the ISSP set. Please do your own homework next time, before presenting such unsupportive “support”.

              Like it or not, men ARE the runaway champs on cheating, and always have been. There is not a study or even anonymous survey out there that contradicts this.

              No. It’s more, “Like it or not, men and women have the same carnal desires”. Practically all studies realize that surveys rely heavily on the honesty of the responder. That perceived anonymity seriously increases the apparent rate at which women report infidelity should be a strong clue that they are very conscious of image to peers in respects to cheating.
              Even the studies that you chose to represent your opposition to this LITERALLY say this (see that quotation from your first reference again). You can fool yourself all you want, but it is unlikely you can fool anyone that actually does any objective research in the matter.

          14. You took issue with the findings of the rape study I referenced given the way the questions were phrased.
              OK, fine. Many subsequent surveys (yes, they’ve been replicated multiple times) have rates which were in fact higher: http://www.resurrectionafterra….

              Have you not noticed an importance trend in the results you are using as support? While they can be seen as “subsequent” to Koss’ op-ed in 1985, they are still all subject to the broad definition of “rape” within the administered survey. To give you an OBJECTIVE clue as to how sensitive results are to this, have a look at findings of the NCWSV versus the NVACW. Based on differing definitions of “rape”, the reported rates differences are astounding.
              You are really using a circular argument in that these “subsequent” studies employ the same bias in order to justify a claim that has been well criticized for being sensationalistic. The problem too is that ANY criticism of this inflated rate is immediately met with calls of “Misogynist!” Do some research on why the 1-in-6 claim is not sound rather than merely scanning for some affirmation. You will find that the general public is easily fooled by repeated fallacy (which is why zealots resort to propaganda).
              Have a look at the trends on victimization rates in the past 20 years as reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. In particular, have a look at how a shift in methodology in 2006 created a distinct discontinuity. This is a strong indicator as to the dependency on the perception of the question being asked.

              Although this is really irrelevant. The questions could be asked any myriad ways and the findings duplicated dozens of times (as has been the case); men will still deny that women get raped. It’s in their self-interest to do so.

              Actually, that is the relevant and salient point.
              It’s that the question ISN’T being asked that differently in the survey results you reference is why the results are so similar. Again, have a look at how the results differ immensely between the NCWSV and the NVACW. The definition and the how nebulous that definition is perceived to be will completely change the results and that is what is noted.
              As far as “men will still deny that women get raped” is a falsehood. It is not denying women get raped, it is realizing that the definition of “rape” in a survey completely skews how responders answer the question.
              Just WHERE do “men deny women get raped”?
              There is NO way to misinterpret that deliberate falsehood. In fact, you attempt to slip it in to create this false sense of moral indignation. Nice try.

              Finally, who said anything about hatred? Pointing out that women need to be careful when dealing with men and work to be independent of men given their moral inferiority to women is not hatred, it’s prudence and objective fact.

              That’s about as weak an attempt of contrived innocence as it gets.
              Your initial post here:

              “Rape Culture” Was Manufactured To Wage An Unjust War Against Men

              
              was clearly and accurately identified as nothing more than a hate-filled rant. You said a lot to demonstrate hatred there and were not merely pointing out that women need to be careful when dealing with men.
              Moral inferiority?
              If people were to go by this conversation alone, the absolute lack of morals in your hate speech far exceeds the well-supported case against the agenda to label the Western world society as a “rape culture”.

          15. Right on. Time for breakfast!

          16. A1 Representing. That Lisa troll is getting pwned.

38. I’m surprised no one wrote about that nut Firestone. She just kicked the bucket. That delusional idiot advocated pedophilia.
    And here is something interesting about Gloria Steinem. One of the so called ‘second wave’

39. “If a person doesn’t want to have sex, they must ‘No’ firmly and clearly.”
    There’s a perfect get-out clause for the next rapist in court. ‘Terribly sorry, I thought it was ok, her “no” simply wasn’t firm enough.’
    ‘No’ must now reach a certain decibel level before it can be taken seriously.

40. Look. I’ve heard people say things like “a woman going out at night in skimpy clothes is like putting a steak in front of a dog”… yes well DO YOU KNOW WHAT? When I put food in front of my dog, he WONT TOUCH IT IF I TELL HIM NOT TO…. what do you have to say to that you fucking misogynists

    1. I fucked your dog because it was a better looking than you (especially in skimpy clothing. Hide your fat ol’ butt for dog-heaven’s sake).

    2. Too easy. Don’t know about misogynists and you came to the wrong place since there aren’t many here.
       The difference is that YOUR dog is YOUR dog. You don’t have either the right or even the ability to tease or torture other human beings in that way. You actually do not even have the MORAL RIGHT to do that to your dog, That’s just cruelty. You shouldn’t be allowed to own a pet. The world takes care of whether you can have a real relationship (omega’s do not count).
       Stop trying to spread your hate, troll.

41. This website is full of narrow minded bullshit. It seems to be written by insecure fools who were rejected by not only women but by their mothers also and therefore blame all women for their shitty lives when in fact it is all down to themselves being massive failures. I would wholeheartedly love to hear that horrible incidents happen to every writer on this website.

42. Let’s look at this another way. Let’s say that you’re out for the night with some friends, drinking pretty hard, and you stumble into a gay club. After a bit of dancing you go out into the alley for a smoke. There’s a guy out there who’s drunk too, and you share a cigarette, chatting about this and that, and he makes a pass at you. You laugh it off but he misreads the signals and gets a bit heavy with you. He’s bigger than you, and he doesn’t hear your slurred ‘no’, and stuff happens that you don’t intend.
    Now before you claim that that would definitely be rape, let’s look at the evidence. You were in a gay club dancing. You were drunk. You were laughing and smoking with the guy, which in women apparently counts as flirting. You didn’t manage to fight him off, and you didn’t say no loud enough. If this had happened to a woman, you would say that she was leading you on, that she ‘wanted it’. Do you see the difference?

    1. So after that one slurred “no” I never say no again? I never try to push him off? I never yell or scream? I just let him do whatever without any signs of resistance?
       If that’s the case, I can understand his confusion when I tell him a week later that he raped me.

       1. So the guy thinks you’re a tease, that you wanted it really. You still can’t see the comparison?

          1. In this situation you laid out, it is MY responsibility to communicate my feelings clearly. I failed to do so. Not only did I fail to do so, but I failed to do so for an extended period of time. I wasn’t drugged, I wasn’t unconscious. I was perfectly physically capable of repeating my “no” loudly, seriously, coupled with physically pushing him. But I didn’t.
             I had the ability to communicate better but I chose to mumble “no” under my breath once, and its HIS fault that he thought I was a tease?

          2. Don’t talk to Onion about responsibility, bro, she’s a woman and thus doesn’t ever take it or accept it.

43. What a bunch of wankers you ROK folks are. Tiny, pitiful little boys angry about your changing status (from Kings to just people – what a bummer). Grow the fuck up already.

44. Don’t even date passive feminists*.
    *Passive feminists are women who say they are not feminists but still believe in things like alimony, preferential treatment for women, quotas for women and so on.

45. I would like to clarify something about the “lowering the burden of proof” article that you linked.
    Basically the way the law is set up now says that a woman gave consent, unless it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the man raped her. So there can be absolutely no doubt at all in the mind of the jury that he raped her, it has to be at 100% proof.
    By changing to an affirmative defense of consent, it actually makes it easier for men to prove consent. However, affirmative defense need to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence–so they have so show it was more likely than not a certain thing happened. So in this scenario a woman has not provided consent until consent has been proven. If an affirmative defense of consent is asserted, it means they defense has to show it was 51% likely consent happened, and thus, he is not guilty. It is much easier to meet the 51% than it is to do beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Basically there are 2 problems with this.
    The first is that it ignores the “innocent until proven guilty” part of the constitution. What the article is asserting is that the victim shouldn’t have to prove that she wasn’t injured–or in other words, the government has to prove the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So in other words, the way it is in every other crime.
    The other main issue is that the kind of system the author of the article is discussing isn’t applied to criminal cases–only civil cases. However, rape is a criminal charge. So this system can’t apply.

46. At first i was like wtf…. till i started to actually read the articles…. and wow. I totally agree with most of this. Being a woman im a bit out in the left field but majority i totally get this.

47. ummm… as a psychiatrist (a doctor), I can tell you that rape is about power at least 90%+ of the time. Do you have any actual evidence or statistics to substantiate your claims? Its actually pretty amusing how limited your scope of logic is, “A real accusation would lead to either the first or third outcome, and
    so a woman who was actually raped should have nothing to fear.” Are you serious? How about physical retaliation? You have a lot to learn about the real world, sir.

48. I’m sorry but raped at 13 dressed like a tom boy by knife point is 100% a mans fault. It’d be nice if you’d touch on actual rape topics instead of just bashing feminism

49. I’m quite curious where you come up with the content for these articles. It sounds quite personal instead of factual? You’re totally leaving out male rape victims as well, surprisingly. Definitely still applies to Rape Culture and face the same abuse and unfair treatment. Actually, in this case, I think both sexes are screwed. The way people treat any and all rape victims is quite sickening and this outlook is really detrimental for everyone

50. You are having a laugh. I have come to this site as I wanted to find out for myself, the truth, about the ‘pro-rapist neomasculines’ that the media is discussing currently. I read the agenda and guidelines for the already-cancelled global meet up tomorrow and was relieved at the instruction and information I read. I have now come to this article and I am absolutely disgusted.
    Firstly, feminism is the push for EQUALITY, feminists do not hate men. Extreme feminists who advocate this are NOT feminists and this very basic point seems to have been missed entirely by the author of this piece.
    Secondly, how dare you trivialise the rape featured in the article? It is disgusting for you to liken it in the way you have and insult Ms. Dworkin in such a manner. How about men who have been raped? Is that trivial too? Or just when it happens to women who happen to be trying to better themselves and others as well as live their life after such an ordeal?
    Thirdly, you complain in other articles about what you say being taken out of context and giving you bad press where it is not warranted, so why go and do the same in this article? When feminists groups have backlashed against those suggesting women take precautions on a night out, they are not saying that it is sexist to suggest so, the motive for the backlash is not an outcry against sexism, it is because it is felt that people shouldn’t need to take precautions by dressing more conservatively, staying in groups etc.
    People should be able to wear what they want, no matter how exposing, as long as they are not in a setting requiring a certain dress code. If a guy wants to wear chaps and have his arse out, good for him. That doesn’t give anyone the right to touch him when he doesn’t want them to. However, I disagree with the backlash against precautionary instructions as I feel being cautious and staying in safe areas with a group is simply sensible, not solely to avoid rape, but just trouble in general. The only thing I agree with in the above article is the Ferrari analogy.
    Essentially, ROK seem to play the innocent when misrepresented in the media but are happy to misrepresent others? How hypocritical and the reason this is done is because feminism is a great cause, equality is needed and crucial. Get off your pretend high-horse and put your time to better use, not disgusting, ignorant (at best, deliberately misleading at worst) articles.

51. Nice article.

52. Meh, feminism won, by importing actual rape cultures. Enjoy!

53. Ever notice that those who push the rape culture narrative, well, don’t really seem to have to worry much about being on the business end of the same?

    1. they can only dream of getting raped

54. ” ***Trigger Warning*** that there will be pictures of feminists below. I apologize in advance to Return of Kings readers with sensitive stomachs.”
    Technically Andrea Dworkin was just one feminist although there is a theory that I do not necessarily credit that she was actually a composite of all feminists rolled into one, a literal embodiment of the feminist hive: something like the boss you have to defeat at the end of one of those zombie action shooters

55. “Adult women are not children, and it is fair to expect them to clearly communicate if they want something to stop.””
    I beg to differ. In the West this is one of the problems: many “adult” women these days are no more than children with boobs and pubic hair. Their bodies are developed but mentally they are like children. I have seen a 25 year old woman whine like a 10 year old. My jaw dropped when I saw it and I had to think, “How can someone be out in the real world but still covered in grade school bubble-wrap? ”
    Feminists are women who are still children whining about wanting to get their way in all things. They just need a good spanking and a time-out, with Big Daddy Hairy Armpits to show ’em who the boss is.
    They don’t make booze strong enough for me to bang Dworkin.

56. Excellent article. But don’t bother asking me to do the “gentlemanly thing” in a culture that doesn’t deserve my best. Hell, it doesn’t deserve my consideration (outside of what I must consider in order to protect myself from said culture.)

57. Feminism is a shit test. Use game to pass that test.

58. Rape accusations are woman’s way of displaying strength given to us that they lowkey envy.
    It works on a subtle art that you really can’t tell if its true or not
    Women’s power works because of male ignorance. Confusion is the name of the game. Confusion and emotions really
    All they need you to do is believe them. We give awards to actors and actresses because we believe them
    Women who pull this disrespect know this. As long as you believe what they say, the rest is easy
    https://fakephilosophy.com/

59. You’d have to be blind drunk to even contemplate any action with that fat blob ??
    http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/DWORKIN_ANDREA.jpg

60. Now rape cult is everywhere. Be paranoid about it.

61. Neo – Feminists invented rape culture. We who do not despise & truly like our Men are attempting to tutor our sons why this was invented. Truly disturbing was visiting our Son’s university campus & seeing frequent signage regarding “Rape on Campus.”

Comments are closed.