rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


Standing Outside a Window With a Boombox Is Rape Culture
#26

Standing Outside a Window With a Boombox Is Rape Culture

Its always "rape" to a girl when the guy doesn't get her wet.

Pretty sure there is a solid correlation between writing articles like this, false rape accusations and the woman's menstrual stage.
Reply
#27

Standing Outside a Window With a Boombox Is Rape Culture

Quote: (08-17-2014 12:33 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

The future is "male brothels" where women can hand pick who they want to fuck for a small hourly fee. Only then will the world be free from rape culture.

So, a regular club where women get to pay their entrance fee?

Sounds feasible.
Reply
#28

Standing Outside a Window With a Boombox Is Rape Culture

Quote: (08-18-2014 07:59 PM)germanico Wrote:  

Quote: (08-17-2014 12:33 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

The future is "male brothels" where women can hand pick who they want to fuck for a small hourly fee. Only then will the world be free from rape culture.

So, a regular club where women get to pay their entrance fee?

Sounds feasible.

Sure. You preselect all the men that can work or hang out there. All guys that are 8+ and financially secure. Charge women $20 at the door plus they pay for drinks for a "chance" to kick it to a guy.

You have some private rooms in the back where women can pay for extras. Why not.

Team Nachos
Reply
#29

Standing Outside a Window With a Boombox Is Rape Culture

Quote:Quote:

“Don’t let the dancing teacups fool you — this narrative is part of a dangerous cycle playing itself out in relationships nationwide,”

[Image: loldaddy.com-1331000499.jpg]

Quote: (03-05-2016 02:42 PM)SudoRoot Wrote:  
Fuck this shit, I peace out.
Reply
#30

Standing Outside a Window With a Boombox Is Rape Culture

On the subject of crying "rape" and rape vs. pickup...

As the culture wars ratchet up feminists are using tactics to defame their perceived adversaries, even branding others as “rapists,” a serious allegation bearing life-altering implications but often based on little to no evidence of any actual rape having taken place.

In some cases, people will embarrass themselves publicly by deliberately misconstruing a man’s words or actions in order to tarnish his reputation. One of these disingenuous propagandists is the Roosh-obsessed white knight doxxer and self-avowed fat feminist “cat entertainer” David Futrelle, who published a sensationalized headline with the query: “Are Roosh V’s ‘Bang’ books how-to guides for rape?” This is a clichéd gimmick whose sole purpose is to capture an audience, offering no information of value beyond a cheap insinuation, which the ensuing article does nothing to answer or substantiate.

Mr. Futrelle, the answer is no. Pickup is the pursuit of sex with a willing partner. Rape is forcible penetration of an unwilling victim. A PUA focuses his attention upon women of legal age, using words and gestures to locate, seduce, bait, entice, beguile, trick, lure or steer these girls into willingly participating in consensual sexual acts. Force and coercion have nothing to do with pickup, and would ruin the encounter, the fruits of which must be consensual, and freely given, in order to have value. Running game and writing about it attracted Roosh an audience, and his career has evolved as he explores the implications of living in a culture where horny, assertive men can bang a large number of random, willing sluts just by introducing themselves and performing a few simple tricks. Now that women are liberated from the control of their fathers and husbands, they are choosing voluntarily to have sexual intercourse with strangers, and pickup is merely the recognition of this pre-existing reality.

One of the hallmarks of extremist SJW tactics is this deliberate misuse of the English language. The word “toxic,” has been re-defined from “having the effect of a poison” to “causing unpleasant feelings,” a significant watering-down of the word's symbolic power and significance, creating an opportunity for the zealot, like a weasel, to use a word with serious negative connotations to hamfist an equivalence with some petty mischief or an insult of far less gravity. Peacefully sharing one’s opinion to a willing audience becomes “toxic mansplaining.” Greeting a stranger while waiting for a train becomes “street harassment.” A spoken insult or a perceived slight becomes “gendered violence.”

Such words, which have been made cliché and stripped of their meaning by SJWs also include: “problematic," which used to mean "difficult" or "hard" but has been applied by SJWs to designate "behavior that is socially unacceptable or makes me feel uncomfortable." Finally, the oft-repeated "woke" refers simply to a party-line adherent of SJW dogma, whom may or may not possess a rather mundane mind, even though the term itself evokes a connotation no less profound than the Hindu state of nirvana, and the 17th century Enlightenment, the movement that carried humans out of the “dark” ages into the current period of advanced scientific and technological civilization.

Similarly, these SJWs will deliberately mischaracterize men’s actions, so that a friendly, non-sexual touch becomes a "grope," and actual contact with a woman's shoulder is reported as contact with her "chest." There is this creeping, imperialistic quality to the propaganda strategy, as if they are trying to see how far the facts and the meanings of words can be twisted in order to offend the sensibilities of their desired audience without coming across as obvious bullshit.

Another of these often-abused epithets is the word “rape” itself. It will be lodged even at men who aren't being alleged to have performed any sexual act whatsoever, but merely told a joke or stated an opinion. If you find that surprising, there's this story about a boy who cried wolf that you should hear.



Some feminist writers, like Lindy West, have tried to argue that a joke cannot be funny if the victim of a rape is at the butt end of the joke. Sadly enough, rape victims will generally have had their butts handled in a manner that they never actively endorsed. [Image: banana.gif] It is stunning and absurd to witness an attempt to draw an impenetrable, universal boundary around something as ill defined and subjective as the funniness of a joke. That doesn’t somehow render not-funny each and every conceivable joke about it. A joke was funny if people laughed at it. That’s its value: nothing less and nothing more than pure entertainment. If a joke is funny in and of itself, then it was worth telling, and it made the world better for having been told. If a rape joke triggers and infuriates the thought police who have taken it upon themselves to dictate what jokes people can and cannot tell, then it was absolutely worth telling.

You may not like a certain comedian, and it is your every right to ignore them, but your plastic horn-rimmed glasses, your literate allusions, and all the Ivy-league diplomas in the world do not per se give you the last word on the objective value or quality of the humor in such-and-such joke. This is the sort of elitist condescension that will rile up the low-brow elements of a population and get them registering to vote. Now who has made the world worse?

Furthermore, a person's self-avowed status as a victim, and their intention to publicly re-tell and harp on about their traumatizing experiences, does not function as some sort of trump card in every argument or discussion about what is or is not appropriate to discuss in the public arena. If such testimony is useful at all, it is as the substance of a police report. But since I am not the police, and neither can I personally relieve a rape victim of her PTSD, and since a premise only needs to be uttered once in order to be added to a discussion, it's of little value to repeat your rape story over and over, except as a device for shouting down or drowning out my speech, in which case I'll gladly just go and talk to somebody else.

Get a therapist or go smoke some weed if your trauma makes it painful for you to listen to a person's speech and yet you're unable or unwilling to divert your attention or respond peacefully. Life is short, you're an adult, and nobody has the duty to protect your fragile ears from what others might speak or write. Gracefully enduring discomfort is a skill that all successful humans must acquire, and it isn't the "patriarchy's" fault, but rather a fact of life in all times and places where humans reside. The only limit on a speech act should be if it incites imminent violence, otherwise if you don't like it, you can always just fuck off somewhere else and have a nice day. You don’t own the commons.

Feminist writers fixate on the PUA’s awareness that a woman will often say "no" several times before engaging in a consensual sex act, or playfully rebuff a man’s advances. When they write about it, SJWs get all worked up as if they have found the smoking gun that proves we are all predatory rapists. But everybody knows that women will often play hard to get and tease her suitors. Ignoring this obvious item of common knowledge, the feminists betray their lack of seriousness and authentic concern, and clearly demonstrate their thin propagandism.

Nevertheless, this particular subject should be put to rest once and for all, so let us address it. If I were to have sex with a girl who had said no (perhaps several times) before granting access to her puss, is that her shit-testing me, teasing me, is it inappropriate/rape(y) or is it something else? I surmise the answer is: it depends. Every case will be different. Pay attention to her behavior. Are her actions congruent with the words that are coming out of her mouth? If a girl’s refusals don’t involve obvious disgust or displeasure, and she isn't putting her clothes back on and walking away, it’s conceivable that she might not be super interested, but perhaps she isn’t actively disinterested either. Perhaps courting the woman's favors will yet yield a successful notch. Reading a woman’s behavior—including indicators of interest or disgust—is essential knowledge in the art of pickup.

Is it appropriate to approach an attractive woman in public? Yes, if the person is an adult, it’s OK to approach and speak to a stranger in public if that particular person or their legal guardian has not yet actively communicated that they want you to cease and desist. It’s public space, and we all have the right to say anything we want (within certain limits) and to whomever we want. That, of course, does not limit the audience from rendering whatever reply they desire, including telling you to go to hell or making fun of you, as petty as that may be. But that's all to be expected. Every man has the right to take his shot with a girl if he sees one he likes, including the right to experience rejection and learn to stomach it when he meets a woman that rejects him, which is inevitable.

A woman’s instinctual response to a sexual advance by an inferior male is often disgust or shock, which motivates her to reject the advance so that the two may both move on with their lives, hopefully finding more suitable mates. This disgust, commonly referred to as being "creeped out" is a regular function of human biology, and does not indicate that the male has committed a legal or moral transgression. Harassment, on the other hand, is the repeated attempt to contact a person that has already expressed the intention to avoid communication, a behavior that serves no purpose for a man interested in running good pickup game. It is not harassment simply to greet or converse with a person in pubic, even if the occasion was a PUA’s sexual interest.

Women, being the sex that carries and directly bears offspring, have much more at stake in a sexual encounter than does a man. Thus, it is up to the man to seek out a female willing to take on this burden on his behalf, and it is up to the woman to reject those males that they consider unsuitable for reproduction. This is the normal course of business in a species that propagates through sexual reproduction. That a rejection has occurred does not entail that the attempt constituted a crime or a moral transgression, no matter how disgusted or displeased the woman might feel in reaction to it. Quite the contrary, it is often an admirable feat of courage and strength for a man to approach and attempt to sexually reproduce with a woman who for all he knows may very well reject his advances. It is common knowledge that women will generally avoid overtly expressing interest in a man, since she wants to retain her image as a potential partner of high value, and weed out the men who are too timid or disinterested to approach. Many would avoid the risk of rejection that a sexual advance might cause. Thus, it is up to men to initiate new sexual relationships. That SJWs are attributing culpability or guilt to men who act on their natural sexual impulses smacks of Puritanism and a neurotic urge to repress healthy, normal behaviors.

A newbie PUA learns that a woman who is truly unwilling to communicate must be left alone, since to pursue her would be a waste of time, and might sacrifice an opportunity with a different, more willing partner. We learn that oneitis, or the unproductive preoccupation with a particular, unreceptive or unsatisfying female, causes a man's game to stagnate and lack results. To be sure, street harassment occurs when the perpetrator's object is to offend or humiliate a woman, but that is very different from pickup game, whose sole object is to form a consensual sexual relationship of greater or lesser duration.

On the subject of calling men out for consensual non-sexual contact... It is perfectly acceptable to be at a party or a public event and touch a person’s shoulders, whispering into their ear, or even playing with a child’s hair or planting a kiss on the top of her head. A feminist woman said that this type of contact is “reserved for close friends, family, or romantic partners,” which is obviously false. People who have just met will often whisper into other people’s ears or touch each others’ arms, backs, hips and shoulders at parties and public functions, all the time. This is not inappropriate contact, but completely innocuous. This is made obvious by the fact that it is not concealed or covert, but knowingly occurs within plain view of the public eye, including the gaze of friends and associates of the alleged victim and assailant.

Sure, you can harbor a personal aversion to this sort of contact, but you can’t assume that others will be able to read your mind and know this about you, especially if you are voluntarily putting yourself in a social setting and behaving superficially receptive to the conduct. It is your responsibility to avoid situations where physical contact can reasonably be expected to occur, or if such presence is unavoidable, to communicate and enforce your personal space at the time and place of the alleged infraction.

Body language is a valuable tool for communication, and so standing within reach of a person you are interacting with, or dancing provocatively in public, should be understood as communicating some willingness to engage in respectful physical contact between strangers. Feminism desires the sterilization of human interactions, and the removal of even benign conduct, for reasons that are not totally clear, aside from perhaps the alleged victim’s autistic phobias.

Alternatively, perhaps these women, as they enter the public arena, are finally feeling the same discomfort that all beta-males have encountered since time immemorial, at being in the presence of an alpha male and finding oneself oddly paralyzed and unable to reciprocate his dominant gestures. This discomfort does not mean that an immoral or even sexual contact has been made, but it is rather the natural and appropriate expression of dominance behavior in a social hierarchy, and the appropriate, corresponding stress or discomfort of the beta who receives the signal that he or she occupies a subordinate role. Rationalizing that regular alpha behavior is somehow illicit lets the beta member off the hook for his or her own understandably difficult feelings of hierarchical subordination.

Misunderstandings around the ambiguity of the meaning of words and actions when unmarried men and women interact in public are precisely why women were tightly controlled in past eras, with women and girls protected by their fathers and husbands, and very little pre-marital sex or contact between unmarried members of the opposite gender permitted. There would be no grounds for such a complaint to arise, because the woman would not be in public where she would be exposed to strangers and risking the discomfort and hazards that might arise during the course of normal social interaction or consensual sex acts between strangers. Because a feminist woman has chosen a lifestyle that puts her in contact with the public, she must understand that she is entering a space where a certain amount of physical touch is normal and innocuous.

With the rise of easy access to abortion and contraceptives, more women in education and the workforce, and declining birth rates, women have taken their finances and their sexuality into their own hands, and have a corresponding responsibility to own their decisions, and communicate openly about their desires, rather than passively enduring discomfort during the course of an alleged incident, pretending to appear receptive and at ease, and then later on issuing a slanderous call-out via the internet, or worse. Now that she is no longer the ward of a male guardian, if she does not want to have casual sex, it is her own responsibility to make clear the intentions of a man she has just met and with whom she is about to participate in a consensual act. Otherwise, such women should be deemed not qualified, too unreasonable and immature, to participate in consensual sex acts with grown men, and she belongs back home under the watchful eye of her male relatives.
Reply
#31

Standing Outside a Window With a Boombox Is Rape Culture

If you stand out of your window with a boombox you aren't a racist, but you are a cunt.
Reply
#32

Standing Outside a Window With a Boombox Is Rape Culture

Quote: (04-08-2019 04:57 AM)flyinghorse Wrote:  

If you stand out of your window with a boombox you aren't a racist, but you are a cunt.

Imposing amplified sound on people who want peace and quiet has been rape since the invention of the Walkman.

“The greatest burden a child must bear is the unlived life of its parents.”

Carl Jung
Reply
#33

Standing Outside a Window With a Boombox Is Rape Culture

I have heard similar crap from females (no longer) in my social circle. Sanctimonious (and delusional) about how they know what men think, their motivations and intent. Explaining otherwise is 'supporting rape'.

Two minutes later you can overhear them gushing about some passage from Fifty Shades or some other 'acceptably rapey' crapola with another clueless twit. The hypocrisy simply does not register in their minds because they have no fixed values. Their feeling are the only moral yardstick they use. Yardstick could be longer or shorter tomorrow.

The stupid are unable to tell they are stupid. Metacognition and logical, comparative thinking are extremely rare.

05-23-2019, 11:15 AM - The moment the Roosh Forum died.
Reply
#34

Standing Outside a Window With a Boombox Is Rape Culture

Please, don't let her watch Straw Dogs or she will suffer a seizure.
Reply
#35

Standing Outside a Window With a Boombox Is Rape Culture

Quote: (04-09-2019 08:55 AM)saner Wrote:  

I have heard similar crap from females (no longer) in my social circle. Sanctimonious (and delusional) about how they know what men think, their motivations and intent. Explaining otherwise is 'supporting rape'.

Two minutes later you can overhear them gushing about some passage from Fifty Shades or some other 'acceptably rapey' crapola with another clueless twit. The hypocrisy simply does not register in their minds because they have no fixed values. Their feeling are the only moral yardstick they use. Yardstick could be longer or shorter tomorrow.

The stupid are unable to tell they are stupid. Metacognition and logical, comparative thinking are extremely rare.

It all depends on how much the "rapist" turns them on. If he's really nerdy and hideous, on the other hand, being within a twenty yard radius can be "felt" as rape. And you know it's all about what they FEEL.
Reply
#36

Standing Outside a Window With a Boombox Is Rape Culture

The original post on this thread was written way back in 2014 in response to something liberal commentator Zerlina Maxwell wrote.

What has Zerlina Maxwell been up to since she deemed all of pop culture "rape culture?" She been on TV telling white folks to "stop calling the police on black people!" (See link below.)

So, to summarize: In Zerlina Maxwell's worldview, normal male-female interactions are criminal, but actual criminal incidents should not be reported to the police. And then the left wonders why people they're stupid and evil.

https://twitter.com/zerlinamaxwell/statu...09?lang=en
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)