Misogynist meetings to be held across the world

[Hygro]

Look, I wasn't aware of the context at the time.

But then useless posted some more context and now it is I who wasn't aware of the context.

 

[useless]

But then useless posted some more context and now it is I who wasn't aware of the context.

What do you think of the dude now and those who criticise him? I already knew a bit about this scumbag rapist, but i understand that not everyone does/did.

 

[Farm Boy]

Even if you hate him(and you should) he's probably doing something of a service by getting the whole, "rape should be legalized on private property" bit(literal or not) out there as a thing.

Look, I get it. It's wretched and wrong. But it shouldn't be shocking. It's how much of the world actually works. The PRC is rising. It's pretty damned patriarchal. I had a week of very confusing but fun drunk conversations with both men and women when I was lucky enough to vacation, and this line of rationale(don't go back to his place if you aren't down, don't get drunk with him alone if you aren't down, neither will be considered rape - for example) isn't merely similar, it's flat identical. It's just that they'll say straight out that's how it works rather than it merely being functionally how it works(much of the time). The more you know. All that.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

In what context is advocating the legalisation of rape on private property in any way acceptable? Or in fact, in what circumstance would rape EVER be acceptable on private property?

Getting this out of the way first, I never said that rape ever WOULD be acceptable on any property, private or otherwise. So I'm certainly not going to defend a rather offensive strawman position that I never took.

Second, according to the interview with Roosh that I posted on page one, he says that he was never actually advocating for it in the sense of "this should actually be the law". He was bringing it up as a hypothetical possibility to try to get people to think about the fact that women, who are supposed to be empowered with full agency, could do more to protect themselves by making smarter decisions. He was saying essentially "imagine if rape was legal on private property, what decisions would women make differently than they do now in order to protect themselves?" His point being, that they could start making those same decisions more often NOW, without rape being legal, and it would prevent a lot of rape from ever happening.

Now, maybe he's said other things elsewhere that contradict what he describes in that interview. If so feel free to post them, I'd be happy to take a look, I don't even like the guy so I'd be glad to read examples of him being a douche.

Edit: Also, yes, let's please stop dragging the MRM into this. Roosh is NOT an MRA, he would be the first to say he's not an MRA, and in fact he's on record in several places badmouthing the entire concept. MRA's and PUA's are two completely different groups.

 

[Nexlev]

Roosh claims his rape piece was intended similar as A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift. However, Swift's piece was written to mock attitudes towards the poor. I don't think Roosh intended to mock attitudes towards rape.

I think it's more likely he wrote the piece as outrage clickbait, since that is the general theme of the website. Also I believe he sincerely thinks that many public rape accusations are false (he has written this as well) and that on some level he thinks his proposal would prevent false rape accusations.

 

[useless]

So im supposed to believe Roosh truly has the well being of women in mind when he made that absurd "legalise rape on private property" claim, even though he's shown by his behaviour and by his own words that he has no problem with raping women, regardless of what precautions they take; that no means "yes"? That's insane reasoning not even getting into the fact that many women probably DO take precautions, but then again Roosh goes out of his way to get women drunk so he can exploit them.

Why should anyone give him the benefit of the doubt?

Also, why can't we discuss the MRM in conjunction with Roosh? The dude is a part of the manosphere, even if he's not formally in it. MRA's and PUA's may be "different" in their intentions, but they both share a distinct dislike and hatred of women.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Even more: Rooshv is told even over fifty times “NO !!!” by girls and still he forces until he obtains sex with them

Second post because I also wanted to cover this. I dunno about 50 times, that sounds like hyperbole to me, but it IS a fact that no doesn't always mean no. Communication is more than just verbal, especially with women, who tend to rely on nonverbal communication more than men do. A "no" while she retreats from you to the other end of the couch is not the same as a "no" while she continues passionately snogging you. Depending on the circumstances, depending on the individual woman, depending on other cues, "no" can mean "no", or "no" can mean "not right this minute, but let's keep doing what we're doing and see where I am in 15 minutes" or it can mean "no, but maybe if you try a little harder" or it can mean any number of other things. Every woman is different, and it's just a fact that many do feel pressured to "play hard to get" due to social conditioning, they don't want to be thought of as promiscuous so they put up token resistance even when they fully intend for it to happen.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

So im supposed to believe Roosh truly has the well being of women in mind when he made that absurd "legalise rape on private property" claim, even though he's shown by his behaviour and by his own words that he has no problem with raping women, regardless of what precautions they take; that no means "yes"? That's insane reasoning not even getting into the fact that many women probably DO take precautions, but then again Roosh goes out of his way to get women drunk so he can exploit them.

Why should anyone give him the benefit of the doubt?

Also, why can't we discuss the MRM in conjunction with Roosh? The dude is a part of the manosphere, even if he's not formally in it. MRA's and PUA's may be "different" in their intentions, but they both share a distinct dislike and hatred of women.

This is supposed to be an RD thread, do you have any actual arguments to make to back up any of this? This whole post consists of "he's said and done other things in the past that are despicable, therefore he must be wrong now too" combined with a healthy dose of "I don't like these two movements, therefore they're related because... reasons." Engage with the actual subject matter please.

If you don't trust that Roosh is telling the truth about what he meant by these statements due to things he has said or done in the past, fine, that's your decision. But don't try to make like that means your interpretation of his words is the factually correct one. If you can show me statements he's made that directly contradict his explanation of what he meant then please feel free to do so, but don't try to tell me that his own explanation of his words is wrong because of completely unrelated statements he's made in the past.

 

[useless]

Given he continues to promote this sort of behaviour, why shouldn't i criticise him? His claim of wanting to promote being safer due to the concept of legalised rape on private property is contradicted by the fact he has gone out of the way to have sex with people who couldn't normally consent.

When he literally stops being a rapist, apologises for the harm, damage and crimes he has committed, stops defending rape apologia and generally stops being a terrible person, i will stop criticising him.

Also, the Manosphere are all related to each other, they feed off each other, Roosh advertises just as much to MRA's as he does PUA's, because there's a degree of overlap.

 

[Ryika]

Second post because I also wanted to cover this. I dunno about 50 times, that sounds like hyperbole to me, but it IS a fact that no doesn't always mean no. Communication is more than just verbal, especially with women, who tend to rely on nonverbal communication more than men do. A "no" while she retreats from you to the other end of the couch is not the same as a "no" while she continues passionately snogging you. Depending on the circumstances, depending on the individual woman, depending on other cues, "no" can mean "no", or "no" can mean "not right this minute, but let's keep doing what we're doing and see where I am in 15 minutes" or it can mean "no, but maybe if you try a little harder" or it can mean any number of other things. Every woman is different, and it's just a fact that many do feel pressured to "play hard to get" due to social conditioning, they don't want to be thought of as promiscuous so they put up token resistance even when they fully intend for it to happen.

That's exactly the problem, isn't it?

A man who thinks no always means no has a high likelihood to never get laid.. ever. Playing "hard to get" and waiting for the man to "prove that he's interested" is one of the main strategies of women to find out who's "worth dating" and who's not.

That's the main "problem" with dating in my opinion, a man always has to find the sweet spot between not giving up at the least bit of resistance and not missing the clues of a serious no. Many men quite literally "don't know when to stop" - because of inexperience, mixed signals and... well, probably also their own sexual drive obscuring clear vision.

The day women give a clear yes or no at the very beginning and stick to that decision is the day "sexual harassment" as a byproduct of the dating game is going to be a thing of the past.

 

[Senethro]

That's exactly the problem, isn't it?

A man who thinks no always means no has a high likelihood to never get laid.. ever. Playing "hard to get" and waiting for the man to "prove that he's interested" is one of the main strategies of women to find out who's "worth dating" and who's not.

That's the main "problem" with dating in my opinion, a man always has to find the sweet spot between not giving up at the least bit of resistance and not missing the clues of a serious no. Many men quite literally "don't know when to stop" - because of inexperience, mixed signals and... well, probably also their own sexual drive obscuring clear vision.

The day women give a clear yes or no at the very beginning and stick to that decision is the day "sexual harassment" as a byproduct of the dating game is going to be a thing of the past.

oh my goodness

 

[useless]

Women are under no moral or legal obligation to give men sex, no matter how desperate said men are. Maybe men should show some more restraint and maturity, but then again with PUA/MRA teacher's like Roosh...

 

[Farm Boy]

That's exactly the problem, isn't it?

A man who thinks no always means no has a high likelihood to never get laid.. ever. Playing "hard to get" and waiting for the man to "prove that he's interested" is one of the main strategies of women to find out who's "worth dating" and who's not.

That's the main "problem" with dating in my opinion, a man always has to find the sweet spot between not giving up at the least bit of resistance and not missing the clues of a serious no. Many men quite literally "don't know when to stop" - because of inexperience, mixed signals and... well, probably also their own sexual drive obscuring clear vision.

The day women give a clear yes or no at the very beginning and stick to that decision is the day "sexual harassment" as a byproduct of the dating game is going to be a thing of the past.

No. Human interaction is more complicated than that. There is no end for sexual harassment or missed signals. These are things you decide how to deal with in society. Things you work at reducing, they're not things you "win" against. They'll persist.

No today is not always no tomorrow. But it's still no while it's no. That should be clear enough. But it's not. Much sex is consented to after sobering up. It was still rape while it was rape, but then it no longer is.

No easy answers man. People won't have it. They don't work that way.

 

[Senethro]

That's exactly the problem, isn't it?

A man who thinks no always means no has a high likelihood to never get laid.. ever. Playing "hard to get" and waiting for the man to "prove that he's interested" is one of the main strategies of women to find out who's "worth dating" and who's not.

That's the main "problem" with dating in my opinion, a man always has to find the sweet spot between not giving up at the least bit of resistance and not missing the clues of a serious no. Many men quite literally "don't know when to stop" - because of inexperience, mixed signals and... well, probably also their own sexual drive obscuring clear vision.

The day women give a clear yes or no at the very beginning and stick to that decision is the day "sexual harassment" as a byproduct of the dating game is going to be a thing of the past.

I'm still struggling with this idea that women are ultimately at the fault of their own sexual harassment.

If only they communicated clearly...

Wow.

 

[Kyriakos]

That's pretty much the crux of his ideology. The anti-feminism flows out quite naturally.

I feel dirty for effectively having effectively endorsed this kind of thinking on CFC. It isn't rational thought, it's a disease. It's narcissism at its finest.

That sounds more like a troll rather than any serious statement, though. I mean one would have to be downright cretinous if he actually thought he will set up local 'tribes' for this plan.

I still wonder why such trolls get so much publicity online. Maybe it is a "heh, even i realise that sounds dumb, so i is smarter/more decent than this person", but ultimately i think it is a circle-jerk.

The rape allegations are serious, though, and must be looked into.

 

[Ryika]

No. Human interaction is more complicated than that. There is no end for sexual harassment or missed signals. These are things you decide how to deal with in society. Things you work at reducing, they're not things you "win" against. They'll persist.

No today is not always no tomorrow. But it's still no while it's no. That should be clear enough. But it's not. Much sex is consented to after sobering up. It was still rape while it was rape, but then it no longer is.

No easy answers man. People won't have it. They don't work that way.

That's certainly true.

I'm still struggling with this idea that women are ultimately at the fault of their own sexual harassment.

If only they communicated clearly...

Wow.

Oh look, another one of these people who make things up in their mind and then treat it as if that's what has been said!

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Many men quite literally "don't know when to stop" - because of inexperience, mixed signals and... well, probably also their own sexual drive obscuring clear vision.

You've also forgotten the fact that men are something like 4 times as likely as women to be on the autism spectrum, a condition not famous for enhancing one's ability to read social cues.

No. Human interaction is more complicated than that.

Which is exactly the point. Human interaction IS more complicated than that. A lot more complicated than that. Which is why criticizing Roosh for daring to say that "no doesn't always mean no" is ridiculous, because he's 100% right. Humans in general, under most circumstances (not just sexual ones) are very bad at just directly saying what they mean, social situations have a LOT more nuance than can be covered by a simple "no means no" slogan.

 

[Farm Boy]

For bonus fun points Ryika, did you just agree with me that a subsection of our population intentionally causes, then retroactively eliminates, criminal sexual activity that victimizes them?

 

[Nexlev]

Nobody who has had sex with Roosh has made a rape accusation against him.

 

[Ryika]

For bonus fun points Ryika, did you just agree with me that a subsection of our population intentionally causes, then retroactively eliminates, criminal sexual activity that victimizes them?

Well, I'm not sure about the "intentionally causes"-part, but yes, it seems like a subsection of our population is perfectly fine with having had sex while too drunk to give meaningful consent and then not consider it "rape" because they don't feel abused (or rationalize it away with "Well, I got drunk, right?") in certain situations although by definition it would certainly fall under that banner.