Post: #26

(02-19-2015 02:04 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Basically, the difference between Gen X and Millennial Girls is a greater capacity for doublethink, and the direction of the loathing. The 90's girls loathed outwards, the 10's girls loathe inwards. Don't believe one word of the empowerment mantras that dribble from their mouths, because they sure as hell don't. Rawdog them, dump them, they'll think it's what they deserve and pass the bitterness on to the next man.

Sounds about right. I have a defunct tumblr blog from high school (mainly about music, became a little "tumblr famous" off it too). Scroll through a tumblr feed and you quickly realize all of these Millennial girls on tumblr fucking hate themselves. Of course all teenage girls hate themselves to some degree and even on tumblr feminists are in the minority, but what's funny was their was a direct link between how feminist or SJW they were and how often they'd post about their self-loathing and mental health problems.

Post: #27

(02-19-2015 12:01 AM)komatiite Wrote:  I mean, if you are a guy and you have enough knowledge of old posts/books from years ago, that probably suggests he has gone just as deep into the words of Roosh as myself or any of your other loyal readers... Yet the guy clearly saw nothing in your words he could relate to, and his hatred for you continues to grow.

I just can't understand if you are a male, with two testicles dangling between your legs, how one couldn't relate to or agree with anything you have written. Mind boggling...

Youve got to have a certain foundation before youre able to actually digest this stuff and use it for your own benefit. YOu have to have:

a) some type of positive past masculine foundation either from family members or friends.
b)A high sex drive which = desire to get with women
c)a realization that there are a LOT of women out there = a LOT of possibilities For example, starting in High school I met lots of girls but didn't know how to get them with me (didnt figure that out till college)

I would get "crushes" on girls, and realized that if girl z didnt work out there's girl b then girl c d e f etc and I began to realize "wow, there's LOT of girls out there, Ive ha girls who liked me but I either didnt realize it or here was something else blocking me(problems at home and shitty friends)

When I got to College, this exploded, I mean everywhere you walk there were cute and hot girls, and they were all nice and wanted to talk to you!

I "accidentally" stumbled on some pussy a couple of times in my freshman year and really wanted to get more and more and more, I mean there were SO MANY hot girls walking around and I apparently had the looks (I was told by girls that I was good looking but my lack of game made me think otherwise)

I basically went on a journey, at the end of my first year in school I found the mAsf boards learned and practiced, got frustrated etc, then found a guy named Player supreme and listened the shit out of his podcasts over and over until I finally "Got it." I also realized what he was saying directly corresponded to how the men in family were for the most part as I was growing up, and it all connected and I had my "AHA!" moment. Having that background helped me absorb it better. Then by the middle of my second year in college and beyond. . . .was just a blast, slaying chick left and right, I had this one dude tell me "man you always have two girls on your arm a lot"(it was only two times but that guy was some super born again Asian christian dude who fawned over his overweight white girlfriend) So I know that was the little voice in his mind talking probably telling him "Hey wtf are YOU doing" Hell, I even had guys get jealous and try to talk themselves up around me lol. I had this one cute asian chick pretty much follow me around while I was at work since we had some flings going on here and there.

A LOT of guys don't have the foundation to even understand what women want even if its in their face, OR they don't have the background to act like the "Jerks" that their hot female friends are fucking.

This causes anger, they become game denialists, they know something is wrong but cant free themselves of it, they're jealous and hopeless at the same time, yet they have too much pride to actually ask/search for help This plus the nature of the internet, with its countless echo chambers and ability to be completely anonymous allows these people to associate their anger with those who have what they want but they feel can never achieve. Maybe they have tried to get with girls but failed a lot because they couldnt build that masculine persona for themselves.

Someone on the forums said earlier that "people who find game and the truths about women are already there anyway, they just needed a little push to clear the hazy fog of societies' lies out the way"

I'd say this is one of the reasons also, I think a lot of these guys haven't had enough heartbreak/rejection/failed tries/successful friends to observe to grow that strong desire to get women.

For a lot of men who don't have that masculine background growing up and still developed game, that's because their desire was just so strong, it immediately overpowered all that societal bullshit, which brings me to another issue:

Porn and masturbation. A lot of people(talking about the men) have been growing up with porn at a too early of an age. Their young minds become warped with drug-like stimulation. Eventually they just get pacified so much that their raw desires diminished and they dont automatically exude the masculinity needed to break thorough the bullshit of societal programming. I never had this much easy access to porn as most of these guys do, even in college. The thought of downloading a lot of porn from Kazaa seems retarded, I mean once you've seen one tit on your screen youve seen it all. I preferred real life to that. Also there was some stigma to porn:

There was this one asian dude I knew who had 4 TERRBYTES of porn on his computer in 2003! that much porn was just mind boggling, and everyone thought he was some weirdo and even though he was buff no girls ever wanted anything to do with him, they could feel his weirdness.

Now, people do nothing BUT watch porn and masturbate, they grow up with it, and become pacified and weak because of it(I think porn watching is bad before the age of 26, period). These people "know" they can never get a girl as good looking as the computer or if they do they have to be rich good looking a jerk etc etc. and these people aren't even close to being ready to close that gap, then they see us, the "Jerks" and want to take it out on US for "ruining women by not being a nice guy" when most smart people realize, being "nice" doesn't get you laid, it gets you used.

These guys have been used and lied to and they can't get out. and its so ingrained and solidified by porn/masterbation that started at an early, brain-formitive age, that they just arent even close to seeing it. so they just believe if they spout of the feminist bottom line, they can get laid and someone alieve their problem, only its with fatties and uglies. The good looking ones still ljbf them, so really, were the only ones they can lash out at, emotion takes over, and the insults fly, as the brain is just shut off.

Basically these guys have taken too much soma and are just tooo far gone at this point.

Post: #28

Love the posts here on the Millennial generation - I am getting it all in severely toned down doses in Eastern Europe - but I still notice that the younger girls are highly different from the 30yo ones.

The social programming seems to continue very well in the next stage on to a Brave New World kind of society.

________

As far as Roosh's post is concerned - we all know that it is more of a satire piece despite the fact that it would most certainly reduce false rape accusations to zero.

But it brings to light an interesting fact about the male or human psyche:

Would men really rape girls in spades if it were legal?

You can take the example of animal cruelty and torture. In most countries despite some token laws against it you are usually punished via a monetary fine even if it is proven beyond doubt that you horribly mistreated a small furry animal - a dog, a cat etc. In most countries in the world there are no repercussions whatsoever.

Why are such cases of animal cruelty rare, just because 99,999% of men could get away with it? Why is there no epidemic of men torturing cats and dogs?

The answer is simple: Most of us are not lunatic psychopaths and we don't like to inflict real pain to someone. And that is why rape itself is repugnant to most men. We prefer a girl to be ecstatic and euphoric and not fearful and in pain. Feminists and their entire rape paranoia is just a bunch of bull from top to bottom.

Post: #29

(02-19-2015 05:34 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  As far as Roosh's post is concerned - we all know that it is more of a satire piece despite the fact that it would most certainly reduce false rape accusations to zero.

I don't agree.

While the tone of the piece pokes fun at feminists, I think it's a good idea.

The reality, is that if a woman cannot trust a man not to rape her, she has no business being alone, unescorted, in his home.

I don't agree with the "make rape legal" line as I'm sure none of us do, but the idea did occur to me a few months ago, that entry into a man's home should qualify as consent.

This would eliminate the problem with regret-rape accusations and other issues.

Also, if we believe that adult females are legally responsible for the decision to get behind the wheel of a vehicle while under the influence, we can also make her responsible for entering a man's home, even if intoxicated. If she knows what it means to get behind the wheel of a car, surely she can take on the legal responsibility of understanding that entering a man's home is legally the equivalent of choosing to have sex with him.

If we legally define entering a man's home as a decision to have sex with him (although they might not and they don't have to), we take away all of the he said, she said.

Of course, the woman would be well within her rights to leave at any time. Just because entering the man's home would be consenting to sex, doesn't mean that she's consenting to kidnapping. The moment she tries to leave, she is removing consent. It's a bitch move for her to do this after getting you all hot and bothered, but everyone deserves this right.

If there is any evidence of force (bruises on wrists, other injuries not consistent with consensual sex), then the dude (or the chick, if a man had those injuries), would still be on the hook for a rape/kidnapping charge. I'm sure that no one here would have any problem with that.

(Of course, you'd have to be extra careful if you engage in any BSDM, but you probably should only be doing bondage activities that are going to leave bruises with someone you know and really trust, unless you are willing to take on the extra risk).

I'm in favour of such a law, because it would redefine enter a man's home, unescorted, as what it really is -- risky. (Although not nearly as risky today as feminists would like to pretend).

Women in the Anglosphere live in a delusion where they aren't responsible for their actions. Feminists encourage this delusion. (Teach men not to rape).

However, we all know that some men really are dangerous and rape does happen (although probably not as often as false rape accusations). If you don't 100% trust a man (or anyone bigger and stronger than you), you shouldn't be alone with him.

Modern law has often required that men PROVE that they didn't rape a woman, just so that women can feel more comfortable placing themselves in potentially dangerous situations.

Rape is heinous crime and absolutely should be punished severely.

But these grey area cases (where there is no evidence of force and the woman and man knew each other) seem like a different category altogether.

We could eliminate this grey area by defining entering a man's home as consent.

No more "he said, she said."



Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that you can insist on sex with a woman. I'm in favour of making the act of entering a man's home synonymous with legally consenting to sex.

By forcing women to acknowledge the risk of being alone with a man, we'll absolutely eliminate any confusion about intentions. It's win-win for both sexes.

Post: #30

(02-18-2015 09:37 PM)aSimpNamedBrokeback Wrote:  I think Roosh has a crazy stalker.

This is hilarious...so how is this woman going to "entrap" Roosh?

- get him to impregnate her and then try to ruin him with child support?
- file a false rape claim and hope he gets arrested?

Newsflash: You NEED US law for that bullshit to be effective. This chick travels the world like Cancun spring breakers have been to mexico.

Post: #31

(02-19-2015 06:34 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 09:37 PM)aSimpNamedBrokeback Wrote:  I think Roosh has a crazy stalker.

This is hilarious...so how is this woman going to "entrap" Roosh?

- get him to impregnate her and then try to ruin him with child support?
- file a false rape claim and hope he gets arrested?

Newsflash: You NEED US law for that bullshit to be effective. This chick travels the world like Cancun spring breakers have been to mexico.

It's wishful thinking with a dash of petty power fantasy.

"I'm going to get this rough, society-bucking badboy to desire me, have sex with me, cum in me, then empower myself by ruining him for the adoration of my SJW clique online!"

Chances are this chick is a husky, skrillex-haired fuggo Roosh wouldn't even take a second glance at in real life.

It's the equivalent of the scrawny, BO-reeking geek posting about how he's going to kick the shit out of the asshole alpha jock at his school and then get that guy's girl.

Post: #32

Pedophile dads can rape their own daughters with impunity, as long it's inside their own property. Let's free, Josef Fritzl!

A gay dude can order a plumber to fix the sink and legalize sodomize him by force, because the plumber voluntarily entered private property.

Bars and clubs would turn into even bigger cockfests because women would go out less; the notchcount for most men would decrease dramatically and you have to fight over the few sluts that are still willing to go home with a man. Seven's zero date bang recipe would be doomed to fail. Prostitution would skyrocket.

When ideology trumps rational thinking and basic understanding of the rule of law everyone loses.

The proposal is bollocks. I don't see how anyone would be happy in such a world.

Luckily, I live in a Western country with a legal procedure that makes false imprisonment for alleged rape extremelly unlikely; so I don't even have to think about stupid shit like this.

Post: #33

Roosh, pretty sure you are just trolling right now.

Post: #34

(02-19-2015 08:42 AM)Flint Wrote:  Pedophile dads can rape their own daughters with impunity, as long it's inside their own property. Let's free, Josef Fritzl!

A gay dude can order a plumber to fix the sink and legalize sodomize him by force, because the plumber voluntarily entered private property.

Bars and clubs would turn into even bigger cockfests because women would go out less; the notchcount for most men would decrease dramatically and you have to fight over the few sluts that are still willing to go home with a man. Seven's zero date bang recipe would be doomed to fail. Prostitution would skyrocket.

When ideology trumps rational thinking and basic understanding of the rule of law everyone loses.

The proposal is bollocks. I don't see how anyone would be happy in such a world.

Luckily, I live in a Western country with a legal procedure that makes false imprisonment for alleged rape extremelly unlikely; so I don't even have to think about stupid shit like this.

Heh - the proposal was not to be taken seriously, but I guess it makes sense for the feminists to see someone like Roosh to be made in their poster-child of misogyny. We don't even have to discuss the ramifications of such a measure, since strictly speaking some very wealthy individuals could come up with fine loopholes and buy up entire cities (apart from owning most rural land, woods and even high-ways) only to declare any woman (or man) fair game who sets foot on their land.

You cannot legalize any such violent and criminal activity of course. But on the other hand you cannot let it go like that and leave women to do anything without consequences.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/...llegations

Here an article in which the author deplores the fact that 109 women in the UK were recently were prosecuted for making false rape allegations. Allegations which I might add could result in the man being incarcerated for years and his life destroyed. And those princesses still have the gall to complain about it! Women have to realize that some of those accused men are by far more powerful than it seems - especially in the UK which is still a global financial powerhouse of the world. They are not going to get a slap on the wrist.

When I read headlines like 109 women prosecuted for false rape allegations I think of the more than 109 men - probably even 5 times more who were incarcerated due to false rape allegations. Those buggers did not stand a chance and are getting raped for real now in prison.

Post: #35

See my signature.

On a more serious note, I thought it was pretty obvious that this was satire. As the top comment on the article says, "I see you've read Jonathan Swift, Roosh." Or something to that effect. On another slightly unrelated note.

I think a lot of the problems with the generation of the 90's onward is that they were the generation that became COMPLETELY divorced from any kind of great book in their educations. Sure, our grandparents didn't read much Plato or Dante in school, but they at least knew it was important and often went on to read it later in their lives. Their children, the generation of the 70's and 80's lost the tradition of the Great Books altogether and except for a select few, didn't give their children even a hint about the thousands of years of intellectualism and wisdom that came before.

Schools have done not much better, either. The only "old" books they read are to showcase some kind of social injustice (like Uncle Tom's Cabin, To Kill A Mockingbird, or The Jungle), while completely ignoring the most important works Western Civilization has produced. Ask any 15 year old the difference between Plato and Aristotle's philosophies 200 years ago, and you would have gotten an impeccable answer. Ask a college graduate today, and he'll go "lolwut me love play-doh."

It's no wonder kids are so bored in school. They have nothing to discuss.

Post: #36

(02-19-2015 09:21 AM)Krusyos Wrote:  Ask any 15 year old the difference between Plato and Aristotle's philosophies 200 years ago, and you would have gotten an impeccable answer.

Okay, this is a step too far. 200 years ago most kids were spending all days working in the cotton mill or on the farm. You're dreaming if you think anybody but those in the upper class got a good education, let alone a good classical one. Even in America most children weren't educated past elementary school until the 1920's.

Post: #37

(02-19-2015 09:36 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 09:21 AM)Krusyos Wrote:  Ask any 15 year old the difference between Plato and Aristotle's philosophies 200 years ago, and you would have gotten an impeccable answer.

Okay, this is a step too far. 200 years ago most kids were spending all days working in the cotton mill or on the farm. You're dreaming if you think anybody but those in the upper class got a good education, let alone a good classical one.

Read de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, my friend.

Post: #38

(02-18-2015 09:37 PM)aSimpNamedBrokeback Wrote:  I think Roosh has a crazy stalker.

Post: #39

Only possible feminist response to logic bomb (audio):

Post: #40

(02-19-2015 09:21 AM)Krusyos Wrote:  See my signature.

On a more serious note, I thought it was pretty obvious that this was satire. As the top comment on the article says, "I see you've read Jonathan Swift, Roosh." Or something to that effect. On another slightly unrelated note.

I think a lot of the problems with the generation of the 90's onward is that they were the generation that became COMPLETELY divorced from any kind of great book in their educations. Sure, our grandparents didn't read much Plato or Dante in school, but they at least knew it was important and often went on to read it later in their lives. Their children, the generation of the 70's and 80's lost the tradition of the Great Books altogether and except for a select few, didn't give their children even a hint about the thousands of years of intellectualism and wisdom that came before.

Schools have done not much better, either. The only "old" books they read are to showcase some kind of social injustice (like Uncle Tom's Cabin, To Kill A Mockingbird, or The Jungle), while completely ignoring the most important works Western Civilization has produced. Ask any 15 year old the difference between Plato and Aristotle's philosophies 200 years ago, and you would have gotten an impeccable answer. Ask a college graduate today, and he'll go "lolwut me love play-doh."

It's no wonder kids are so bored in school. They have nothing to discuss.

Great point. They can't recognize or appreciate a satirical piece because they know nothing of real satire.

It's even worse than many people think. Even relatively innocuous books now are given out with "trigger warnings." I remember listening to some news segment somewhere that "Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer" are now considered borderline books, due to the use of 19th century attitudes and racial epithets. Apparently there is some sort of movement to bowdlerize these (and other) books, so that the millenials who read them won't be offended.

It's a form of cultural suicide, really.

Post: #41

(02-18-2015 09:32 PM)GeroMeroHero Wrote:  In parts of Sweden according to some stuff Zelcorpion posted, blondes dye their hair to be less enticing. So yea, when there is a real rape problem girls do safeguard themselves.

It's funny you said that. I know a Swedish bartender that does the same thing.
She's a smoking hot natural blonde but dyes it black.

Post: #42

(02-19-2015 11:52 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 09:21 AM)Krusyos Wrote:  See my signature.

On a more serious note, I thought it was pretty obvious that this was satire. As the top comment on the article says, "I see you've read Jonathan Swift, Roosh." Or something to that effect. On another slightly unrelated note.

I think a lot of the problems with the generation of the 90's onward is that they were the generation that became COMPLETELY divorced from any kind of great book in their educations. Sure, our grandparents didn't read much Plato or Dante in school, but they at least knew it was important and often went on to read it later in their lives. Their children, the generation of the 70's and 80's lost the tradition of the Great Books altogether and except for a select few, didn't give their children even a hint about the thousands of years of intellectualism and wisdom that came before.

Schools have done not much better, either. The only "old" books they read are to showcase some kind of social injustice (like Uncle Tom's Cabin, To Kill A Mockingbird, or The Jungle), while completely ignoring the most important works Western Civilization has produced. Ask any 15 year old the difference between Plato and Aristotle's philosophies 200 years ago, and you would have gotten an impeccable answer. Ask a college graduate today, and he'll go "lolwut me love play-doh."

It's no wonder kids are so bored in school. They have nothing to discuss.

Great point. They can't recognize or appreciate a satirical piece because they know nothing of real satire.

It's even worse than many people think. Even relatively innocuous books now are given out with "trigger warnings." I remember listening to some news segment somewhere that "Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer" are now considered borderline books, due to the use of 19th century attitudes and racial epithets. Apparently there is some sort of movement to bowdlerize these (and other) books, so that the millenials who read them won't be offended.

It's a form of cultural suicide, really.

To Kill a Mockingbird would be questionable today. After all, it's about a lawyer defending a rapist!! Even though the rape charge is suggested to be false, the jury still convicts. Substitute white racist males on the jury with feminist women, you could update it.

And . . .

Post: #43

(02-19-2015 05:58 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 05:34 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  As far as Roosh's post is concerned - we all know that it is more of a satire piece despite the fact that it would most certainly reduce false rape accusations to zero.

I don't agree.

While the tone of the piece pokes fun at feminists, I think it's a good idea.

I find it hilarious they can't even pick up on the satire in this article, the fact they take this so seriously shows how out of touch and out in the fringes they really are.

The reality, is that if a woman cannot trust a man not to rape her, she has no business being alone, unescorted, in his home.

Precisely, if "all men are rapists" then why the fuck are you alone with any man at all ? Why are you walking into his house when you think they all are rapists ? Why do you walk down the street alone if all men will "abuse" you with cat calling ?

The logic is insane and filled with fallacies.

I don't agree with the "make rape legal" line as I'm sure none of us do, but the idea did occur to me a few months ago, that entry into a man's home should qualify as consent.

This would eliminate the problem with regret-rape accusations and other issues.

Also, if we believe that adult females are legally responsible for the decision to get behind the wheel of a vehicle while under the influence, we can also make her responsible for entering a man's home, even if intoxicated. If she knows what it means to get behind the wheel of a car, surely she can take on the legal responsibility of understanding that entering a man's home is legally the equivalent of choosing to have sex with him.

EXACTLY, if you're on a date and you agree to go over to a guys house afterwards, you know EXACTLY what's going down. It may not be immediate sex, but you sure as hell are entertaining the fact that you want to fuck him.


If we legally define entering a man's home as a decision to have sex with him (although they might not and they don't have to), we take away all of the he said, she said.

Of course, the woman would be well within her rights to leave at any time. Just because entering the man's home would be consenting to sex, doesn't mean that she's consenting to kidnapping. The moment she tries to leave, she is removing consent. It's a bitch move for her to do this after getting you all hot and bothered, but everyone deserves this right.

Exactly, that's what these retarded SJW's aren't seeing, a woman entering a man's home who isn't friendzoned is basically an invitation to have sex. BUT she can leave anytime she wants, NOONE IS FORCING YOU TO DO SHIT.

If there is any evidence of force (bruises on wrists, other injuries not consistent with consensual sex), then the dude (or the chick, if a man had those injuries), would still be on the hook for a rape/kidnapping charge. I'm sure that no one here would have any problem with that.

(Of course, you'd have to be extra careful if you engage in any BSDM, but you probably should only be doing bondage activities that are going to leave bruises with someone you know and really trust, unless you are willing to take on the extra risk).

I'm in favour of such a law, because it would redefine enter a man's home, unescorted, as what it really is -- risky. (Although not nearly as risky today as feminists would like to pretend).

Women in the Anglosphere live in a delusion where they aren't responsible for their actions. Feminists encourage this delusion. (Teach men not to rape).

That's the big problem there is the huge paranoia that all men rape. When do women EVER take responsibility for their actions especially when it comes to banging ?

"I can't believe I fucked him, he's such an asshole" instead of "I fucked up, I shouldn't of had sex with him, next time I won't put out that easy, I'm not some slut" - when have you hear a women say that ? IT'S NEVER HER FAULT


However, we all know that some men really are dangerous and rape does happen (although probably not as often as false rape accusations). If you don't 100% trust a man (or anyone bigger and stronger than you), you shouldn't be alone with him.

Modern law has often required that men PROVE that they didn't rape a woman, just so that women can feel more comfortable placing themselves in potentially dangerous situations.

Rape is heinous crime and absolutely should be punished severely.

Completely agree !

But these grey area cases (where there is no evidence of force and the woman and man knew each other) seem like a different category altogether.

We could eliminate this grey area by defining entering a man's home as consent.

No more "he said, she said."

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that you can insist on sex with a woman. I'm in favour of making the act of entering a man's home synonymous with legally consenting to sex.

By forcing women to acknowledge the risk of being alone with a man, we'll absolutely eliminate any confusion about intentions. It's win-win for both sexes.

It's rather hilarious how SJW's are freaking out and taking this literally and seriously.

The followers blindly rage in their tiny space on the internet while Jabba the Hutt licks her lips waiting for the next piece of ammunition she can use against men.

Post: #44

It's fine to implore women to accept responsibility for their safety. However, there are unintended consequences from a piece like this, especially since 99.9% of the population aren't exactly nuanced readers.

What's the audience for this piece? Your followers? Newer readers? Feminists? The press?

Even though it is posted on his blog, Roosh is a leading voice of the manosphere. As a de facto leader, he's responsible for bringing in new readers to the community.

This piece is exactly what feminists and mainstream media were looking for to effectively marginalize the manosphere as a whole. The outlets who have posted this are introducing your material to potentially new readers, and their first taste is a "legalize rape" satire piece. "Have you read Roosh's "Bang" book?" "Yea, isn't that the guy that said we should legalize rape?" The press is jumping on this because it's exactly what they need to label us wackos. Perfect intro to the works of Roosh V.

Roosh might fancy himself a modern-day Jonathan Swift, but he just supplied his detractors with guns and ammo to aim not just at him, but everyone else who follows him. This attention-whoring piece is doing a disservice to people who actually want the manosphere to be taken more seriously. It was looking up recently, but I have less hope for that now. Congrats on giving them what they want, enjoy the attention.

Post: #45

(02-19-2015 12:30 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 11:52 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 09:21 AM)Krusyos Wrote:  See my signature.

On a more serious note, I thought it was pretty obvious that this was satire. As the top comment on the article says, "I see you've read Jonathan Swift, Roosh." Or something to that effect. On another slightly unrelated note.

I think a lot of the problems with the generation of the 90's onward is that they were the generation that became COMPLETELY divorced from any kind of great book in their educations. Sure, our grandparents didn't read much Plato or Dante in school, but they at least knew it was important and often went on to read it later in their lives. Their children, the generation of the 70's and 80's lost the tradition of the Great Books altogether and except for a select few, didn't give their children even a hint about the thousands of years of intellectualism and wisdom that came before.

Schools have done not much better, either. The only "old" books they read are to showcase some kind of social injustice (like Uncle Tom's Cabin, To Kill A Mockingbird, or The Jungle), while completely ignoring the most important works Western Civilization has produced. Ask any 15 year old the difference between Plato and Aristotle's philosophies 200 years ago, and you would have gotten an impeccable answer. Ask a college graduate today, and he'll go "lolwut me love play-doh."

It's no wonder kids are so bored in school. They have nothing to discuss.

Great point. They can't recognize or appreciate a satirical piece because they know nothing of real satire.

It's even worse than many people think. Even relatively innocuous books now are given out with "trigger warnings." I remember listening to some news segment somewhere that "Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer" are now considered borderline books, due to the use of 19th century attitudes and racial epithets. Apparently there is some sort of movement to bowdlerize these (and other) books, so that the millenials who read them won't be offended.

It's a form of cultural suicide, really.

To Kill a Mockingbird would be questionable today. After all, it's about a lawyer defending a rapist!! Even though the rape charge is suggested to be false, the jury still convicts. Substitute white racist males on the jury with feminist women, you could update it.

No, feminists are OK with To Kill A Mockingbird because they think that it's about white males discriminating against black men. They completely disregard the "false rape accusation" component because it's "classic literature."

If Roosh wrote it today, you can be sure he wouldn't get off so easily.

Post: #46

^ I'd also say it's because it was written by a woman.

Post: #47

(02-19-2015 05:58 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(02-19-2015 05:34 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  As far as Roosh's post is concerned - we all know that it is more of a satire piece despite the fact that it would most certainly reduce false rape accusations to zero.

I don't agree.

While the tone of the piece pokes fun at feminists, I think it's a good idea.

The reality, is that if a woman cannot trust a man not to rape her, she has no business being alone, unescorted, in his home.

I don't agree with the "make rape legal" line as I'm sure none of us do, but the idea did occur to me a few months ago, that entry into a man's home should qualify as consent.

I think what your advocating for is a rebuttable presumption of consent. It would be assumed that a woman entering into a man's home is consenting to sex and the burden would fall on her to prove that she wasn't. Practically speaking I see some problems with this, the exceptions would be a mile long and threaten to swallow the rule. (exceptions for relatives, people doing work, emergencies etc.) Also, any smart woman who regretted sex would say (and likely did say as token resistance for anti-slut behavior) "we're not having sex tonight."

I think it would be better to have a standard that a woman going with a man to his or her home is a strong factor (based on a reasonable person standard under the circumstances) that she is consenting to sexual activity. That way in the scenario of- girl meets guy at a bar and goes to his place and they end up having sex, the balance of evidence weighs heavily, but not conclusively in favor of the determination that she was consenting to sex when she entered his home. However, in other situations- female paramedic enters your house in response to a 911 call, a reasonable person under the circumstances would not think that the woman entering was consenting to sex and the balance of evidence would weigh heavily towards a determination that she was not consenting to sex.

This would be a better rule because it does not create absolutes but allows a little common sense back into the process. It still allows for the outcome where a girl goes home with a guy from the bar and refuses sex or the naughty paramedic who sets your broken arm and then asks if she can suck your dick to make you feel better. . . and all the possibilities in between.

Post: #48

(02-19-2015 12:41 PM)Kamikaze Wrote:  It's fine to implore women to accept responsibility for their safety. However, there are unintended consequences from a piece like this, especially since 99.9% of the population aren't exactly nuanced readers.

What's the audience for this piece? Your followers? Newer readers? Feminists? The press?

The audience is newer readers - especially men who haven't been exposed to red pill truths.

When a feminist says, "Roosh literally wants to legalize rape," this makes feminists look stupid. When the females in his social circle say, "Roosh is an idiot, and he should die to cleanse the planet!", they look stupid. When the males in his social circle strongly imply, "I will kill Roosh in order to have sex with you!", they look stupid.

And when everyone a man knows exposes himself/herself to be a fucking idiot, the man says, "Shit, I need new friends. Those Roosh-followers aren't stupid; maybe they'll be my friends....."

This is how the RVF and the Manosphere grow.

Post: #49

Some Reddit rage:

http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/2wd...n_private/

Post: #50

I don't see the satire aspect of this piece. Prove me wrong, I'm not a native English speaker and might have missed some subtleties here.

Roosh, you write yourself

Quote:It's fine to disagree with my proposal, but I am stating it because I really believe it would decrease rape, just like how forcing you to lock your car door would decrease car theft. But as you know, anything that makes a woman take responsibility for her actions will be attacked.

I take your word at face value and have defended you and the forum in private conversation. But if you are serious about this, then I respectfully ask you to ban me, because I don't wish to be associated anymore with this community, which I owe a lot to.