[El_Superbeasto]

I think that deep down there is a little nugget of wisdom in this article, so far as you should watch out for your friends to minimize the chance of them catching a rape charge over some irresponsible drunk chick with buyer's remorse. By that I mean, talking some sense to your boy - not throwing your body between him and the chick - if the chick is obviously obliterated. Unfortunately, it seems like some losers will just use this as an excuse to cockblock their betters.

[RouteBackwards]

I read a scientific journal last year that outlined seduction as rape.

It's when I learned you guys were all rapists.

I don't know why I stick around here, I think I have Stockholm syndrome.

[Basil Ransom]

"Common sense rule 1: If you see a man, that has clearly crossed over from game to plain aggressive... step up. You're going to do him and her a favour."

Fuck that, I'm not putting myself at risk just because some tart got herself in a pickle. I may or may not, but it is definitely not my obligation. When the state looks kindly on just vigilantism and women defer to men in public matters, maybe we can rethink that. Until then, not my problem.

[Courage Reborn]

I usually stay in my travel section lane, but this is the most offensive thing I've read in a long time.

I'm long out of college so it won't affect me personally. But the victims are the normal young men who would have otherwise gotten lucky here & there before this campaign. It won't be game over, but it will cost them bangs for sure.

This campaign is calling for confrontation which leads to fist fights, at minimum. The young men on campus should fight back. Organize a red pill group of their own. Identify participating white knights, and make life living hell for them. Roll to parties together. There is strength in numbers. Neutralize would-be "shot blockers".

State sanctioned cock blocking is a terrifying thought for the future of mankind. If men keep giving in to what women think they want, sooner or later there will be no babies born.

Maybe I'd feel different if I had daughters, like this lawyer guy. I'd prefer they be with a natural alpha than an average opportunist. But the problems this will cause for future generations of sons would be a net detriment. Either way, I'll probably move the family to eastern europe...

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(02-11-2014 04:20 AM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

"David E. Sullivan, a district attorney in western Massachusetts, prosecutes about a dozen sex crimes a year at five area campuses, including the University of Massachusetts and Amherst College. He is also the father of three daughters, and it scares him to think that, as numerous researchers have documented, nearly one of five women is sexually assaulted during her college years. “Can you imagine if you told parents there was a one in five chance that their daughter would be hit by a bus? No one would send their kid to college.”"

How fucking stupid is this guy? He oversees 30-50 THOUSAND students (UMass Amherst has 27k) and gets a dozen (presumably ALLEGED) sex crimes a year. 12/50000 =/= 1/5. If anyone should know the deal about sexual assault, it should be him. But this dude is plain retarded.

I highlighted the above discrepancy in the numbers, which this DA is too blind to see.

But I wanted to point out that a good reporter would have spotted this and questioned the numbers and Mr. Sullivan about why they don't match. This isn't reporting, it's advocacy. Had this been about any other subject, an editor would have noticed the gigantic mismatch in numbers and sent the reporter back to figure out what's going on.

So is it 1 in 5? Or 2 at 5 area campuses (12 in 75,000?). Even factoring in the ones that don't go to trial, this is a glaring mistake.

[All or Nothing]

(02-11-2014 12:45 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

I would contend that there's a difference between cock blocking (i.e. just walking up and intentionally blowing someone out, which I think all of us have dealt with) and preventing things that we feel are wrong.

Also, this is a bit of pissing in the wind, but I wouldn't be shocked if the lower campus rape totals are a function of fewer men on campus and (perhaps) limited proliferation of game.

Are you a real life white knight?

Just mull this idea over for a second.

Maybe just maybe, the vast majority of men do not want to rape women, and are not violent drunks.

Maybe just maybe, the 1 in 4 statistic is taken from a study that is designed in a way to blow the actual amount of rape that is occurring completely out of proportion.

Oh wait, it is not just a maybe, the 1 in 4 statistic was purposely designed to paint men as violent rapists.

These two articles put the statistic under closer inspection:

Researching the "Rape Culture" of America

The Campus Rape Myth

Here is a juicy quote from the first article:

Quote:

Koss and her colleagues concluded that 15.4 percent of respondents had been raped, and that 12.1 percent had been victims of attempted rape.[9] Thus, a total of 27.5 percent of the respondents were determined to have been victims of rape or attempted rape because they gave answers that fit Koss's criteria for rape (penetration by penis, finger, or other object under coercive influence such as physical force, alcohol, or threats). However, that is not how the so-called rape victims saw it. Only about a quarter of the women Koss calls rape victims labeled what happened to them as rape. According to Koss, the answers to the follow-up questions revealed that "only 27 percent" of the women she counted as having been raped labeled themselves as rape victims.[10] Of the remainder, 49 percent said it was "miscommunication," 14 percent said it was a "crime but not rape," and 11 percent said they "don't feel victimized."[11]

Even IF the women interviewed thought that they had not been raped, they were still counted as raped in order to boost the statistic.

The 1 in 4 (or 1 in 5) statistic has been proven to be false repeatedly. Yet, 30 years later, these feminists are still using falsified statistics to put men in America under a bad light and to push their anti-male programs into mainstream society.

Men need to wake up.

[Bertrand Maverice]

Quote:

Mr Martel then stated at the next party he attended, he saw the same individual whom he had previously "shot blocked", and that individual proceeded to pummel his face.

[Suits]

(02-11-2014 12:58 AM)BootNootly Wrote:  

Quote:

When he suggested a threesome, she declined. “No way you can handle all this,” she said.

You go girl!!!!!!111!!!!!

[Truth Teller]

(02-11-2014 01:25 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 12:45 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

I would contend that there's a difference between cock blocking (i.e. just walking up and intentionally blowing someone out, which I think all of us have dealt with) and preventing things that we feel are wrong.

Also, this is a bit of pissing in the wind, but I wouldn't be shocked if the lower campus rape totals are a function of fewer men on campus and (perhaps) limited proliferation of game.

Are you a real life white knight?

Just mull this idea over for a second.

Maybe just maybe, the vast majority of men do not want to rape women, and are not violent drunks.

Maybe just maybe, the 1 in 4 statistic is taken from a study that is designed in a way to blow the actual amount of rape that is occurring completely out of proportion.

Oh wait, it is not just a maybe, the 1 in 4 statistic was purposely designed to paint men as violent rapists.

These two articles put the statistic under closer inspection:

Researching the "Rape Culture" of America

The Campus Rape Myth

Here is a juicy quote from the first article:

Quote:

Koss and her colleagues concluded that 15.4 percent of respondents had been raped, and that 12.1 percent had been victims of attempted rape.[9] Thus, a total of 27.5 percent of the respondents were determined to have been victims of rape or attempted rape because they gave answers that fit Koss's criteria for rape (penetration by penis, finger, or other object under coercive influence such as physical force, alcohol, or threats). However, that is not how the so-called rape victims saw it. Only about a quarter of the women Koss calls rape victims labeled what happened to them as rape. According to Koss, the answers to the follow-up questions revealed that "only 27 percent" of the women she counted as having been raped labeled themselves as rape victims.[10] Of the remainder, 49 percent said it was "miscommunication," 14 percent said it was a "crime but not rape," and 11 percent said they "don't feel victimized."[11]

Even IF the women interviewed thought that they had not been raped, they were still counted as raped in order to boost the statistic.

The 1 in 4 (or 1 in 5) statistic has been proven to be false repeatedly. Yet, 30 years later, these feminists are still using falsified statistics to put men in America under a bad light and to push their anti-male programs into mainstream society.

Men need to wake up.

I am not a white knight. Divest yourself of that notion. The campus rape myth is just that- a myth. That doesn't stop its propagation nor does it stop the incessant "rape!" accusations from women who don't fully remember things that happen. I've written articles mentioning how college campuses give men something that basically equates to "no touching women when they're drinking." I find those ideas repugnant.

As men, we need to take steps against this, but we also need to work in reality. The reality that exists isn't the one we want, but we have to deal with it. Men are fucked if they have a rape claim against them. Most college rape claims are investigated with the idea of "he's wrong, she's right."

When I said "preventing things we think are wrong," I meant stepping in and preventing someone who's obviously drunk from going back with someone who's completely sober. I meant preventing things like forcibly taking someone back.

I've been white knighted in the past and completely blown out. Both of us were sober. Why did the guy do it? Because he felt as though he was saving her from the guy teasing her and having a good time with her, rather than prostrating himself before her and telling her how pretty she is, etc.,etc.

[Dusty]

These femcunts and white knight mangina's conflate "lowered inhibits" with "lack of consent."

No matter how drunk you are, you don't do things you are dead set against doing. When drunk, I can not be talked into: murdering, robbing a bank, engaging in homosexual buggery, incest, etc. As long as I am conscious, I make the right choices about matters such as my examples (i.e., I say "no"). So how is it tipsy girls can be coerced into doing things against their conscious?

Now my inhibitions might be loosened, and I might do things I regret, like banging a fattie. If I do, I am entirely responsible for my actions because I am still capable of saying no.

[Walderschmidt]

If this ever seriously catches on, this will be one of the final nails in the coffin of the 'higher education' bubble.

~Wald

[darklightdispatch]

(02-11-2014 12:13 PM)redbeard Wrote:  

I'd love to see a ROK article about why women shouldn't drink. A nice, domestic, feminine woman has no reason she needs to "take a load off."

I think I remember reading that, prior to feminism, alcoholism in women was very rare.

[darklightdispatch]

Women, or anyone else, can't expect protection without being obedient. This is an extreme example of the have their cake and eat it too thing that feminists are always on. They want to be equal with men, competitive with men when its convenient and then go in the exact other direction and feel entitled to men's protection regardless of their own irresponsible behavior. Fucking absurd. The real sad part is the "men" who buy into this shit.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(02-11-2014 03:43 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

These femcunts and white knight mangina's conflate "lowered inhibits" with "lack of consent."

No matter how drunk you are, you don't do things you are dead set against doing. When drunk, I can not be talked into: murdering, robbing a bank, engaging in homosexual buggery, incest, etc. As long as I am conscious, I make the right choices about matters such as my examples (i.e., I say "no"). So how is it tipsy girls can be coerced into doing things against their conscious?

Now my inhibitions might be loosened, and I might do things I regret, like banging a fattie. If I do, I am entirely responsible for my actions because I am still capable of saying no.

Really good point. Let me build on it: lots of people get drunk specifically to lose their inhibitions and allow them to do things they otherwise wouldn't, like have sex.

The cockblocking going on here might piss of the women as much as the men, since they're often out drinking with the intent of getting wild.

Also, I'm surprised no one has posted pictures of the Mother Superior cockbloocker mentioned in the story, Lena Ngor. Since I'm a nice guy, I'll refrain from that or making jokes about how even John Lennon would have run screaming...

[darklightdispatch]

Convincing all these girls that, rather than having a somewhat regrettable lay, they are lifelong victims and survivors of pretty much the "worst crime ever" sure as fuck isn't doing them any favors. It's making something that rightfully would be sort of embarassing but forgettable into a major, identity-defining emotional trauma. Feminists can always be counted on to make life worse for other women, first and foremost.

[Jaydublin]

I wonder if they will teach them to defend themselves also because I can see this turning quite a few average guys turn into white knights only to get fucked up.

[Private Man]

Here's a dialog that has many themes to be explored. The scenario is that of two attractive college sophomore girls who are talking on a Sunday afternoon:

Girl 1: "I can't believe I didn't hook up with that basketball player last night at the party... he was so tall and so hot. I wanted him to ravage me!"

Girl 2: "I know how you feel. I did about five shots and not a single hot guy even talked to me, just a bunch of creepers and rapey dudes... ewwww. I blew them off. Don't they understand they're creepers and rapey?"

Girl 1: "I don't get what's happening this year. Last year was awesome. It was really easy to hook up with hot guys.

Girl 2: "I even saw cute freshman girls getting nothing last night."

Girl 1: "You know what was weird? That basketball player was about to start making out with me but some guy whispered something to him and then the basketball guy just wandered off."

Girl 2: "He got cockblocked by a guy?! It must have been a creeper or a rapey dude who said something.

Girl 1: "No, it was someone else on the team! What the fuck?!"

Girl 2: "There's something going on on campus this year... I don't know what. I mean, like, seriously. How's a girl supposed to get laid when all the hot guys aren't doing anything with us?"

Girl 1: "There are always the creepers and rapey guys."

Both: "Ewwwwwww!"

[j r]

Another funny thing about this is that this is essentially intervening in situations where girls might otherwise do something slutty. It is, however, not OK to slut shame, so they have to pitch it another way. So, anti-slut intervention becomes anti-rape intervention.

It's a neat trick when you think about it.

[StrikeBack]

I just looked up the photos of the heroes in the article.

This appears to be a campaign of "Since we're not getting laid, NOBODY is allowed to!"

[dads]

(02-11-2014 12:31 PM)soup Wrote:  

I agree women are not evolved to be in bars, or to smoke, get tattoos etc.

If I ever start a bar the only women that will be there will be the servers and they will all have tip wear heals and tight dresses or skirts, and I will have rule that they can only get hired if they have the right proportions- long legs, nice ass, tits, face, etc.

Ha, good luck with that. I can see the Jizzabel article now, "Misogynistic Restaurant Owner Forces Servers to be Prostitutes".

[dads]

(02-11-2014 12:37 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Insofar as sexual assault is a problem, it comes from men who depend on liquid courage for their game, and then get out of hand from being too drunk.

The idea of bystander intervention has a tiny bit of merit - if you see your buddy trying to do something that will create a massive headache for him later, you might say something to him privately. But this article goes way way beyond that. Intervening with a strange man, who is probably drunk or violent or both, is apt to lead to a fight.

Corrollary: 'Bystander Intervention' is really male martyrdom. Push come to shove, women won't intervene, because they don't want to go up against a bigger opponent. So innocent men should risk their health to save some slut acting irresponsibly, which is the natural aim of modern feminism. Beta bucks, alpha fucks. And then the male martyr, possibly injured or dead, gets a pat on the head for a job well done. Scratch that - applauding a man will be considered tantamount to 'perpetuating the idea that only men can save women from danger' so incidents of 'male martyrdom' will be glossed over, lest people start to believe that women depend on men and men only for protection.

If he fended off the attack successfully, that is. If he failed to fend off the attack, I'm sure the feminists will find a way to conclude that the failed male martyr is in fact worse than the rapist.

This is the biggest point of all I think. I would bet that a majority of the "real date-rape" type situations come from betas who usually hold so much in throughout their lives, and only let it out when they drink. When they, their pent up testosterone gets released in the form of "liquid courage" and while the more beta of them tend to express this newfound courage by declaring unrequited love, some might choose to ignore the nuances that any player around here would tell you there are throughout the course of gaming a girl and go into straight caveman mode. There just can't be such a massive incongruity with how you deal with girls when you're drunk and when you're sober, which I'm sure is the case.

[dads]

(02-11-2014 01:12 PM)Courage Reborn Wrote:  

I usually stay in my travel section lane, but this is the most offensive thing I've read in a long time.

I'm long out of college so it won't affect me personally. But the victims are the normal young men who would have otherwise gotten lucky here & there before this campaign. It won't be game over, but it will cost them bangs for sure.

This campaign is calling for confrontation which leads to fist fights, at minimum. The young men on campus should fight back. Organize a red pill group of their own. Identify participating white knights, and make life living hell for them. Roll to parties together. There is strength in numbers. Neutralize would-be "shot blockers".

State sanctioned cock blocking is a terrifying thought for the future of mankind. If men keep giving in to what women think they want, sooner or later there will be no babies born.

Maybe I'd feel different if I had daughters, like this lawyer guy. I'd prefer they be with a natural alpha than an average opportunist. But the problems this will cause for future generations of sons would be a net detriment. Either way, I'll probably move the family to eastern europe...

I could see the New York Times article already... "Rape Gangs congregate around college campus's"

[The Lizard of Oz]

A lot of good posts on the thread.

But I don't think any of them quite capture what strikes me most about this: a terrible sense of the sinister and grotesque that emanates from all these goings-on on American college campuses.

Beyond all the well-rehearsed feminist lies about "rape" and "assault", what is so dreadful about this is how a rigidly inhuman and triumphant ideology is seeking to minutely monitor and police every last aspect of interaction between human beings -- especially in contexts when they have a chance to be free and relaxed, like a college party.

Whether it's training a new generation to put the most normal and trivial everyday interactions under a brutal "microagression" microscope, or encouraging young dudes on the same fucking sports team to do the most improbably unnatural thing in the world and become "active bystanders" that get in each other's way and devise nightmarishly grotesque diversionary tactics to do so ("hey there's this other -- non-existent -- girl that wants to talk to you") -- these initiatives, while less bloody-minded, have exactly same character as Communist camps in which children of peasants were trained to spy on their parents and denounce them for "hoarding" or other class sins.

What chills to the bone is this vision where normal life, instead of being normal life, becomes a terrible charade in which otherwise normal people are forced to act out the demented fantasies of an ideology -- and in what should be their most intimate and relaxed moments.

And this is the vision that is increasingly becoming reality on college campuses all over the US.

I can only hope that there are some young men right now, in US colleges and elsewhere, that will not take this lying down -- and that will also be smart in how they go about giving some necessary pushback.

[Slim Shady]

(02-11-2014 10:14 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

A lot of good posts on the thread.

But I don't think any of them quite capture what strikes me most about this: a terrible sense of the sinister and grotesque that emanates from all these goings-on on American college campuses.

Beyond all the well-rehearsed feminist lies about "rape" and "assault", what is so dreadful about this is how a rigidly inhuman and triumphant ideology is seeking to minutely monitor and police every last aspect of interaction between human beings -- especially in contexts when they have a chance to be free and relaxed, like a college party.

Whether it's training a new generation to put the most normal and trivial everyday interactions under a brutal "microagression" microscope, or encouraging young dudes on the same fucking sports team to do the most improbably unnatural thing in the world and become "active bystanders" that get in each other's way and devise nightmarishly grotesque diversionary tactics to do so ("hey there's this other -- non-existent -- girl that wants to talk to you") -- these initiatives, while less bloody-minded, have exactly same character as Communist camps in which children of peasants were trained to spy on their parents and denounce them for "hoarding" or other class sins.

What chills to the bone is this vision where normal life, instead of being normal life, becomes a terrible charade in which otherwise normal people are forced to act out the demented fantasies of an ideology -- and in what should be their most intimate and relaxed moments.

And this is the vision that is increasingly becoming reality on college campuses all over the US.

I can only hope that there are some young men right now, in US colleges and elsewhere, that will not take this lying down -- and that will also be smart in how they go about giving some necessary pushback.

Post is pretty spot on Lizard. But are there really going to be guys "revolting" against this. Frat presidents, etc have to kowtow to the feminists, and chicks because otherwise they are immediately labelled as rapists, rape apologists.

Women hold the key to sex. What this does, is brainwashes them. There will have to be external inculcation to change these terrible belief system. I don't see how this will be done from within. The concerted effort from the inside required, I just do not see happening.

[gringochileno]

(02-11-2014 01:27 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I have so much to say that I can't even say it.

Please write an RoK article or thread on this. Non-dickless men everywhere need to be warned that male cockblocking is likely to skyrocket in the near future and could use a practical resource to help them deal with increasingly aggressive interlopers. My amog game is admittedly one of my weaker points (I get the lion's share of my night game notches from girls out alone or with 1-2 female friends)--time to start paying more attention to it now that random bystanders are being encouraged to cockblock en masse.