Glenn Reynolds teaches women not to rape.

Several commenters have taken me to task for the ostensible naivety of the title of my post Teach women not to lie about rape.  For those who didn’t understand the title, feminists have rejected any advice to women on avoiding rape as part of “rape culture”.  Instead, the feminist solution is to simply “teach men not to rape”.  You can see examples of this thinking here and here, and The Boston Globe has written about it here.

Ironically the great risk here is that the idea is so absurd others won’t take feminists seriously.  It is tempting to assume they don’t really mean it, that they can’t really mean it.  However, as I’ve noted before the poster child for the Yes Means Yes law is Sophia Katz and her decision to travel to a strange city upon receiving an offer to sleep in a stranger’s bed.  From reading her own account she clearly kept her bed-mate confused about whether she was attracted to him, and she avoided rejecting him sexually because she wanted to continue to receive the freebies he was offering:

I had no interest in making out with him or having sex with him, but had a feeling that it would ‘turn into an ordeal’ if I rejected him. I had never been in a situation where I was living with someone for a period of time who wanted to have sex with me, that I didn’t want to have sex with. I knew I had nowhere else to stay, and if I upset him that I might be forced to leave.

“It’s okay. I get it. You don’t find me attractive.”

He was correct, but that wasn’t the only problem, and I somehow felt saying that would be cruel.

“It’s not that, I just don’t want to get into a sexual or romantic thing with anyone while I’m here.”

I got ready for bed with the hope that I would be treated to another evening of sleep without exhausting sexual assault, but was denied. Once again I found myself trying (and failing) to convince Stan that I didn’t find him unattractive, but still did not want to have sex with him, and was not consenting, by any means, to having sex with him. Once again I failed, and he had sex with my body while I stared up at the ceiling. I imagined what it would be like to be raped violently.

When feminists say “teach men not to rape”, they mean don’t teach women to avoid risky or even foolish choices.  They mean don’t teach women not to travel to a strange city and sleep in a strange man’s bed.  No matter how obvious and sound the teaching would be, no matter how much it would protect women, feminists would have us remain silent.  Feminist Amanda Taub explains (emphasis mine):

And yet those who criticize Katz for her role in what happened are not only saying that she was wrong to accept the opportunity Dierks offered; they are also saying that other young women should not do what Katz did. If other young women find themselves in her position, these people would argue, they should not accept the invitation, should not travel to a new place to make new professional connections, should not take that step to benefit their careers.

That attitude nibbles away at the edges of women’s opportunities.

This is the nonsense of the “teach men not to rape” slogan, and Instapundit Glenn Reynolds has written a series of posts lampooning this foolish slogan by turning it around.  Vox Day has picked this up and run with it as well.  The title of my post was a variation on the same theme.  However after looking through his archives I see that Instapundit beat me to it at least twice.

If you have a moment I highly recommend reviewing his posts on the topic as well as his blog in general.  He continuously adds new and interesting content.

Full Disclosure:  Instapundit has been very kind in sending traffic my way.  I can always tell when he has linked to something I have written because the resulting instalanche creates a pronounced spike in my wordpress toolbar:

instalanche

This entry was posted in Feminists, Foolishness, Instapundit, Rape Culture, Yes Means Yes. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to Glenn Reynolds teaches women not to rape.

  1. Pingback: Glenn Reynolds teaches women not to rape. | Manosphere.com

  2. tz says:

    From reading her own account she clearly kept her bed-mate confused about whether she was attracted to him, and she avoided rejecting him sexually because she wanted to continue to receive the freebies he was offering:

    She WAS attracted to him, except for one part.

    This is a bit like saying the stack of federal reserve notes exchanged in a cheap hotel with a “lady dressed for show” is a “freebie”. Or as even the atheist Bertrand Russel recognized, “Madame, we have determined what you are, we only have a difference concerning the price”.

    To go to the world of SciFi, in the “Virtual Mode” series, Piers Anthony has the protagonist Coleen say “Women trade sex for love, men trade love for sex”. I’m not sure if he is considered pink or blue, but his words ring true.

  3. tz says:

    Teach women not to lie by itself is more wise with its terseness. Lie as in the 6th, not the 7th commandment (catholic), adultery, not fraud.

  4. earl says:

    Don’t listen to what women say…watch what they do.

  5. honeycomb says:

    Earl ..

    “Don’t listen to what women say…watch what they do.”

    Co-Signed .. and with their bold overt behavior we get an excellent view.

  6. Will S. says:

    “That attitude nibbles away at the edges of women’s opportunities.”

    Because all women deserve the opportunity to exploit and humiliate men, thus, and telling them not to is ‘sexist’, naturally.

    @ earl: True, but what they say, also, can be very instructive, when they are brutally honest, once in a while.

  7. earl says:

    “He explained that there would be three other people staying in his apartment at the same time I would be there, and that I was “welcome to sleep in [his] bed if [I would] be comfortable with that haha.”

    “I’m down,” he continued. But if I wasn’t, I “might wanna find a different place.”

    Gee…a big red flag staring at her face. It’s not like he was hiding it. Surely someone’s spidey senses was up.

    “In the back of my mind I felt mildly concerned that he believed my main focus in New York would be pursuing a romantic or sexual relationship with him, but I put aside my concerns and assumed that this wouldn’t be the case.”

    And there it is, the rationalization hamster…leading to people’s doom since Adam and Eve. But surely when she got there she would find he is of upstanding moral character.

    “Stan made it clear that we would be going on a ‘bender’ throughout my visit, which, for the most part, I had no problem with. I have always liked drugs, and was definitely open to taking them for free. Stan explained to me in a text message that he’d “picked up a few things to aid in our bender,” specifically an enormous bottle of gin and two medium-sized baggies of cocaine. ”

    Alcohol and coke. The loser’s cocktail to easy sex.

  8. James K says:

    As D’s earlier post pointed out, Amanda Taub suggested that the pressure on Sophia Katz to have sex amounts to a “tax on women”.

    Taub may be the only person in the world who believes that male travellers avoid this tax by sleeping in the bed of a man they have not previously met.

  9. Colorstorm says:

    -rock

    A casual perusal of your sight necessitates the asking, due to the ambiguousness therein.

    Do you overtly or covertly portray christianity generally, and specifically, do u make a profession of faith? Just wondering.

    Another reason thoughtful souls may wonder as to my query, is the nature of the comments. Seems king of foggy.

    [D: I am a Protestant. As for the commenters, this post should help.]

  10. BC says:

    Feminist Amanda Taub explains (emphasis mine):

    And yet those who criticize Katz for her role in what happened are not only saying that she was wrong to accept the opportunity Dierks offered; they are also saying that other young women should not do what Katz did. If other young women find themselves in her position, these people would argue, they should not accept the invitation, should not travel to a new place to make new professional connections, should not take that step to benefit their careers.

    That attitude nibbles away at the edges of women’s opportunities.

    Funny how men are able to do all those things without making themselves defacto prostitutes. But hey – equality!

  11. Blake says:

    WC Fields to Attractive Female: “Will you have sex with me for $1,000,000?”
    Attractive Female: “Why certainly!”
    WC Fields: “Will you have sex with me for 15 cents?”
    Attractive Female: “Certainly not, what do you think I am?”
    WC Fields: “Madam, I believe we have already established that, we are merely negotiating price.”

  12. Bob Wallace says:

    “Women trade sex for love, men trade love for sex”

    That’s a very old saying, and not even true.

    And older one is, “When women become uncivilized and become feral, they turn into sluts.”

  13. feeriker says:

    If Katz and Taub are setting out to expose modern young women as utter morons, they’re both doing a Pulitzer-quality job.

  14. srsly says:

    I thought your title was clever. So clever, in fact, that it would be funny if every victim advocacy and domestic violence program in western civilization weren’t actively trying to teach women how to believe their own false accusations.

  15. Snowy says:

    Can you really teach a woman anything? Women believe they are their own authority; beyond the need of any instruction (especially when it comes from God or men), and answerable to no one; and most certainly beyond correction. For example, the wearing of provocative clothing has nothing to do with rape; the places they frequent have nothing to do with rape; their temptress-ing and cock-teasing has nothing to do with rape. Cause and effect have no place in a woman’s brain.

  16. Farm Boy says:

    Can you really teach a woman anything?

    Well yes. The best approach is to learn from one of Cesar Millan’s books. Seriously.

  17. Kal-or says:

    “tz says:
    October 27, 2014 at 7:48 pm
    Teach women not to lie by itself is more wise with its terseness. Lie as in the 6th, not the 7th commandment (catholic), adultery, not fraud.”

    Is there more than one ‘ Ten Commandments’ ?

  18. Women believe they are their own authority;
    beyond the need of any instruction (especially when it comes from God or men),
    and answerable to no one;
    and most certainly beyond correction.
    For example, the wearing of provocative clothing has nothing to do with rape;
    the places they frequent have nothing to do with rape;
    their temptress-ing and cock-teasing has nothing to do with rape.
    Cause and effect have no place in a woman’s brain.

    The Curse of Eve in full display.

  19. Blake says:

    In looking at what Katz and Taub wrote, neither one of them see a problem with the choices made by Katz.

    Wow.

    I’m really not sure how Dierks is responsible for Katz showing up at his apartment looking to enjoy a weekend of booze and drugs. Maybe it’s just me, but, it seems to me that if a gal shows up for booze and drugs, sex is sort of implied/expected.

  20. Lyn87 says:

    Assuming for the moment that everything Miss Katz wrote is true, then she was, indeed, raped (in the strict legal sense) by her host.

    Bbbbbbbuuuuuuuttttttt…….

    There’s rape, and then there’s rape-rape. One of the many problems with letting feminists and other leftists define things, is that they tend to define things poorly – so many acts that are radically different are called by the same name. Rape is such a word – it can mean almost anything these days.

    She got into bed with the guy she just met and told him she didn’t want to have sex. The fact that her pushed past her actual objections (not the feigned ones women sometimes use to screen out non-assertive men), makes this a clear-cut case of rape by most current legal definitions.

    But, like the crime of murder, there are degrees involved. Mitigating circumstances come into play. The fact is that Miss Katz accepted an offer to sleep in the bed of a guy she didn’t really know, even though he had intimated that sex was on his agenda. Given the current culture, and the fact that she knew she was going into a whirlwind of hard-core, illegal-substance-enhanced partying with him, it seems unlikely that she thought her stay would be strictly platonic. The simple fact is that she would have been “DTF” is she had found him more attractive.

    But when he pushed her beyond her stated boundaries, she went along with it. Her lips said “No” but her legs came apart all the same. I’m not saying she wanted to have sex with him – it seems clear that she didn’t find him sufficiently attractive to induce sufficient desire on her part – but she did not do anything to stop it when she easily could have. She tells us that the walls were so thin that she could hear other people just a few feet away in the other room. Rather than screaming, or even saying “No!’ in a normal conversational tone, which would have ended her ordeal instantly, she made it a point to be quiet so nobody would hear them having sex. Yes… I said “hear then having sex” rather than “hear him raping her.” Deuteronomy 22 makes it clear that a woman cannot clam to have been raped if the act occurred in a place where she could have called for help but didn’t.

    The wisdom of that applies to Miss Katz. She can hardly claim that her host raped her when it was within her power to summon aid within seconds. Not only did not she not do so, but she attempted to hide the fact that they were having sex by being careful to be quiet. She also continued to go back to his bed several more times during their drug-fueled escapades that week.

    The simple fact is that she knew she didn’t have to submit to his sexual advances, and although she didn’t want to, she didn’t want to give up what he was providing for her even more.

    What happened may be considered “rape” by the law, but it wasn’t actual rape – it was a straight-up exchange of sex for drugs and shelter. She allowed it to happen because she didn’t like her other choices – having sex with her host was preferable to having to find somewhere else to crash for a few nights. Of course she could have simply avoided the entire situation by paying her own way… Just saying.

  21. Dalrock says:

    @James K

    Taub may be the only person in the world who believes that male travellers avoid this tax by sleeping in the bed of a man they have not previously met.

    To recreate this as as man you would need to:

    1) Flirt with a gay man online.
    2) Accept an offer to come to his city and sleep in his bed, knowing that he is hoping to have sex with you as part of the deal.
    3) Suggest that you find him attractive.
    4) Make it a point to not reject him sexually, saying things like “Can we have sex later? I’m really tired right now” and “I think you should use a condom when you have sex with me”.
    5) Decide to let him “get it over with” when your weak protestation above isn’t sufficient.
    6) Repeat 2-5 for multiple nights.

    Am I missing anything?

  22. Dalrock says:

    @Lyn87

    Assuming for the moment that everything Miss Katz wrote is true, then she was, indeed, raped (in the strict legal sense) by her host.

    Was she? It isn’t just that she slept in his bed and made her feelings about sex ambiguous at best (deliberately, in order to have him give her free stuff). It isn’t just that she never actually said No! Stop! I don’t want to have sex with you! She also said things like “Wait, aren’t you going to use a condom?” and “Stan I really, really think you should use a condom, please use a condom.”

    He got on top of me. I began to relinquish control.

    “Wait, aren’t you going to use a condom?” I asked.

    “Oh, come on. Please don’t make me do that.”

    “Stan I really, really think you should use a condom, please use a condom.”

    “I’m clean. Are you?” he questioned.

    “Yes but it doesn’t matter. Please. Come on.”

    “Its fine Sophie, come on, we don’t need one. I hate condoms.”

    I realized there was no way for me to win. I lay back and closed my eyes. I did the things I thought would make him finish faster.

  23. Lyn87 says:

    D asks me, “Was she?”

    I think so, because although she didn’t do anything to stop him, everything she said was negative: “No,” “Not now,” “Not without a condom,” that sort of thing. At no point did she ever appear to give him the green light – she just stopped resisting him after he ignored her objections, and lack of resistance is not necessarily consent in legal terms. (Although whatever she did to “make him finish faster” would probably look a lot like “enthusiastic consent” to an unbiased observer.) It seems to me that he kept insisting and she eventually stopped objecting despite her preferences because she didn’t want him to risk losing free room and free drugs.

    That’s why I said that what he did would be considered rape in the legal sense in a lot of places, but that I didn’t consider her to have been actually raped. She thought she had to choose between having sex with a guy who didn’t turn her on and the risk of losing her free place to crash and get high. She could easily have left, but she chose bad sex over the sidewalk.

    Such a case could easily be brought to trial, but if I were on a jury and the complainant told the story she told and none of it was disputed by the defense, I would still vote to acquit him of rape or sexual assault. Perhaps it’s Jury Nullification, but feminist jurisprudence be damned.

  24. earl says:

    “He got on top of me. I began to relinquish control.”

    This is the ‘rape’ definition for your hard core feminist or female tyrant….giving up control. Which is something that naturally happens to a woman when a man does this. What we have here is a complete disregard or ignorance of human nature. She might have said she hated it…but her body said other things. She made this situation happen just as much the guy did. The first thing she should have done is not gone when he mentioned sleeping in the same bed…second thing is leave when he asked her to come into bed. Common sense…which women have little to none of anymore.

    Also worth noting…the pair bond that happens when sex occurs has been grossly underestimated since the sexual revolution.

  25. Going according to Lyn’s account, prostitution would be considered rape. Unless of course prostitutes really want to have sex with men they demand pay them for the service..

  26. This opens a shit storm of false accusations.

    “I only had sex with him because I feared him so..”
    “I only had sex with him because I needed a lift home…”
    “I only had sex with him because I was his wife and I feared he would throw me out the house if I didn’t…”

    on and on and on. No, rape needs a proper definition if anyone is required to take the crime seriously. Right now… it’s a joke and innocent men and women will pay the price. You can thank cuntish feminists for that.

  27. Such a case could easily be brought to trial, but if I were on a jury and the complainant told the story she told and none of it was disputed by the defense, I would still vote to acquit him of rape or sexual assault.

    As would I.

    Perhaps it’s Jury Nullification, but feminist jurisprudence be damned.

    We might to start to see more of this, depends on if juries and judges start using common sense or stick with the letter of the law. It wasn’t rape.

  28. Lyn87 says:

    feminishater,

    this isn’t “my account” – I’m just going by what Miss Katz wrote, and the way the laws are written in many places. I’m not saying I agree with it – quite the contrary: my point was that I do NOT agree with defining rape so broadly, although the law often does so.

    But prostitutes engaging in prostitution would not fall under that definition, because prostitutes cannot ply their trade if they keep saying, “No,” “Not now,” Maybe later.” Prostitutes give explicit consent to sex by the very act of prostitution. Miss Katz, despite her foolishness, did nothing of the sort. She just said, “No” several times, but offered only token resistance although she could have easy extricated herself from the situation, then eventually stopped resisting rather than risk losing her free lodging and drugs.

    She was certainly stupid, and probably sexually assaulted or raped by legal definition, but she was not a victim in my book. She’s just a garden-variety slut who decided to do something incredibly foolish, but who decided that playing along with the parts she didn’t like because she viewed that as being preferable to being excluded from the fun.

    Let’s face it, the definitions of “sexual assault” and “rape” are so broad now that nearly everyone – male and female – has been both victim and perpetrator. But rather than return to sanity, feminists want to make a bad problem even worse. It used to be that “No Means No.” Now it’s Yes Means Yes” which means (in practice) “Yes Means Maybe,” since consent can be withdrawn retroactively – but only by women.

  29. Let’s face it, the definitions of “sexual assault” and “rape” are so broad now that nearly everyone – male and female – has been both victim and perpetrator. But rather than return to sanity, feminists want to make a bad problem even worse.

    Yes, that makes sense. She can’t have fun, why should anyone else enjoy sex? Misery likes company.

    Remember lyn87, the most feminist woman is never sexually desired by a man. She is never desired. That is why she MUST be feminist. After all, if you are woman and no man wants you (you are rejected) without feminism, you are completely cut off and disenfranchies from society.

  30. Blake says:

    innocentbystander, taking your thought a bit further, most feminists, if they tried, could make themselves attractive to men. However, rather than put forth effort, they prefer to blame. They think they should be “accepted as they are” without realizing how unacceptable they are as they are.

  31. Blake,

    innocentbystander, taking your thought a bit further, most feminists, if they tried, could make themselves attractive to men.

    Ummmm, no I don’t think so. Some could. Most? No. They are pretty much hopeless cases.

    It just like these boards here in the manosphere. So many of the men here are “short.” They are short men and (as a result) women don’t even look at them because they are “short.” There is not much they can do to make themselves attractive to women. Women generally don’t like short men, don’t want to have sex with them, pure and simple. There are many reasons for this and many of those reasons may seem unfair, but it is what it is.

    Don’t be born ugly, stupid, or (if a man) short.

  32. Lyn87 says:

    I disagree IBB – feminism (at least as promoted by Betty Friedan – the godmother of post-war feminism), was about further pampering the most pampered large group of human beings ever to walk the earth: UMC white women. Gloria Steinem – one of the leading lights after Friedan, was attractive enough to have been a Playboy Bunny. Tammy Bruce was a big-wig in feminism in her 20’s and she was very attractive (she still looks great for her age at 52) plus she grew up and gave up both feminism and liberalism for the most part. Even the execrable Shere Hite cleaned up pretty well when she wanted to.

    A woman doesn’t have to be rejected by men to become a feminist any more than a man has to be rejected by women to become an advocate of human rights for men. I’ll concede that feminism has special appeal for women with abrasive personalities, though, and abrasive personalities are unattractive to men.

  33. Tammy Bruce is feminist because she thinks she is a lesbian (that is if you actually believe in any of that sexuality crap.) Gloria Steinem was a feminist (don’t even know if she is anymore) because she rejected the concept of marriage and being a man’s property. It was only much later in life that she married because she found a man to marry her that agreed with her concept of marriage. Neither one of these two women would be regarded as “feminists” for what we have today.

  34. Giraffe says:

    @Dalrock.
    Am I missing anything?

    This is a pretty good example of the mindset of feminists. Feminism being about advantages for women rather than equality. Not being allowed a sex free stay in a strange man’s bed amounts to a tax on women. If men wanted a sex free stay in a strange woman’s bed that’s just creepy.

  35. Lyn87 says:

    innocentbystanderboston says:
    October 28, 2014 at 12:57 pm

    That is the most blatant example of “moving the goalposts” I have ever seen on this website.

  36. She was certainly stupid, and probably sexually assaulted or raped by legal definition, but she was not a victim in my book. She’s just a garden-variety slut who decided to do something incredibly foolish, but who decided that playing along with the parts she didn’t like because she viewed that as being preferable to being excluded from the fun.
    Let’s face it, the definitions of “sexual assault” and “rape” are so broad now that nearly everyone – male and female – has been both victim and perpetrator. But rather than return to sanity, feminists want to make a bad problem even worse. It used to be that “No Means No.” Now it’s Yes Means Yes” which means (in practice) “Yes Means Maybe,” since consent can be withdrawn retroactively – but only by women.

    Remember lyn87, the most feminist woman is never sexually desired by a man. She is never desired. That is why she MUST be feminist. After all, if you are woman and no man wants you (you are rejected) without feminism, you are completely cut off and disenfranchies from society.

    So many of the men here are “short.” They are short men and (as a result) women don’t even look at them because they are “short.” There is not much they can do to make themselves attractive to women. Women generally don’t like short men, don’t want to have sex with them, pure and simple. There are many reasons for this and many of those reasons may seem unfair, but it is what it is.
    Don’t be born ugly, stupid, or (if a man) short.

    A woman doesn’t have to be rejected by men to become a feminist any more than a man has to be rejected by women to become an advocate of human rights for men. I’ll concede that feminism has special appeal for women with abrasive personalities, though, and abrasive personalities are unattractive to men.

    Tammy Bruce is feminist because she thinks she is a lesbian (that is if you actually believe in any of that sexuality crap.) Gloria Steinem was a feminist (don’t even know if she is anymore) because she rejected the concept of marriage and being a man’s property. It was only much later in life that she married because she found a man to marry her that agreed with her concept of marriage. Neither one of these two women would be regarded as “feminists” for what we have today.

    Remember: life is only unfair when it’s unfair to women.

  37. Lyn87 says:

    Except for the truly unfortunate cases of severe genetic defects or horrific accidents, any woman – feminist or not – can make herself passably attractive, at least in an age-appropriate way. Just by refraining from gluttony and getting moderate exercise a woman can put herself in the top half of her age-peers (because obesity is so common). Add in some make-up, long hair, and appropriate clothing to go even further up.

    This is the third time I’ve tried to make this post, so this time I’ll try it without links.

    Do a quick Google search to see what proper grooming and make-up did to turn Bollywood actresses Priyanka Chopra, Nargis Fakhri, and Anushka Sharma from average to stunning, for examples of what is possible.

  38. JDG says:

    Tammy Bruce is feminist because she thinks she is a lesbian (that is if you actually believe in any of that sexuality crap.) Gloria Steinem was a feminist (don’t even know if she is anymore) because she rejected the concept of marriage and being a man’s property. It was only much later in life that she married because she found a man to marry her that agreed with her concept of marriage. Neither one of these two women would be regarded as “feminists” for what we have today.

    Tammy, Gloria, Betty, and every other woman (or man) who agrees with the feminist norm that we live in today, or any of the feminist ideas that have existed in recent decades, is a feminist to one degree or another. All degrees of feminism are destructive.

  39. Gunner Q says:

    I’m with Lyn. Feminism is women rebelling against men, not ugly women being left out.

    “Women generally don’t like short men”
    They don’t generally like tall men, either, in my experience/observation. And average height is just so boring!

    That reminds me, Halloween is here. I need to decide whether to run my little experiment of covering my arms in temporary tattoos and dressing up as a thug. My Game experimenting is stalled for lack of female attention; this could be a jump-start. Assuming what women really want in a man is felony convictions.

    Oh! That’s why women like YMY.

  40. All degrees of feminism are destructive.

    True. But I think when we give the feminst red pills, we have to do it patiently, calmly, and carefully.

    Just last month I patiently and calmly explained to a woman (who claimed she was bi-sexual) why it was so important that she be “owned” by a man, her husband. I did it in a way that was as sensitive to her feelings of individualism and entitlement as I could get. When I got to the part about a wife being “owned” making her a man’s “property” such that he would be willing to die for her (instead of whore he just rents for sex) I believe a light bulb went on over her head. She started to get it, started to WANT to be property. It is at that point where feminism starts to lose its appeal. But she (sadly) slipped back into feminism with a tear in her eye stating that in all her life, she has never known a man that she wanted to be “owned” by…. (sigh)

  41. James K says:

    @D:
    Am I missing anything?

    3.5: Bring your sleeping bag and start to unwrap it, explaining that you like sleeping on the floor; then accept his offer to sleep in his bed instead

  42. JDG says:

    But I think when we give the feminst red pills, we have to do it patiently, calmly, and carefully

    Absolutely. If they aren’t Christian, then for me sharing the gospel is the priority. If they are, then ‘red pill’ Bible teaching is in order. One really shouldn’t have to say ‘red pill’ Bible teaching because an honest reading of the Bible is what ‘red pill’ tries to describe IMO.

  43. Sidebar…

    In just a few hours, the College Football Playoff Committee will be announcing their very first “poll” of what they perceive to be the best 4 college football teams in the country. This is a historical event. It will never happen again…. so to usher in that moment gentlemen I want to ask you, which 4 teams in the country will be their initial picks?

    I have it: Mississippi State, Florida State, Oregon, Notre Dame, not necessarily in that order

    5-8? Alabama, Michigan State, Ole Miss, Georgia

  44. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lyn87
    That is the most blatant example of “moving the goalposts” I have ever seen on this website.

    It’s typical, surely you were not surprised?

  45. greyghost says:

    Dalrock

    He got on top of me. I began to relinquish control.

    “Wait, aren’t you going to use a condom?” I asked.

    “Oh, come on. Please don’t make me do that.”

    “Stan I really, really think you should use a condom, please use a condom.”

    “I’m clean. Are you?” he questioned.

    “Yes but it doesn’t matter. Please. Come on.”

    “Its fine Sophie, come on, we don’t need one. I hate condoms.”

    I realized there was no way for me to win. I lay back and closed my eyes. I did the things I thought would make him finish faster.

    Ha haha ha ha
    That looks like they eloped and fast fowarded the marriage 7 years.

  46. “Feminism being about advantages for women rather than equality”

    Absolutely.

  47. JDG says:

    “Feminism being about advantages for women rather than equality”

    I would say “perceived advantages” because many of these so called advantages don’t really pay off in the long run.

  48. JDG says:

    Another thing that feminists get wrong is believing that equality = sameness.

  49. JDG,

    Another thing that feminists get wrong is believing that equality = sameness.

    Strange words those. What does that mean exactly?

    I would say that you have perfectly defined the ideal goal of feminism, sameness. Buts lets break that down. The feminist wants you or I to look at an obese, smelly, twice divorced wilderbeast, and regard her with the SAME level of physical attraction that you and I would have toward Katy Perry or Kate Upton. In that sense then YES, sameness truly would equal equality.

    But feminism takes that level of sameness to a whole new level. Because some women can find husbands who support them the feminist wants government to impose severe taxes on those men so that the lifestyle that each woman has (with or without a husband) is the same. Because some women can get laid whenever they want and others cannot (will never be desired by a man) the feminist wants government to impose severe legal restrictions on what is consentual sex vs rape so that all women (with or without attractiveness) will have the same amount of sex. Because some women are smarter than others (have more aptitude for working in a man’s world) the feminist wants government to impose strict regulations and beurocracy on how free market work is done in the workplace forcing companies to have bullshit HR departments, sensitivity training, and value bullshit women’s degree programs creating lots of well-formed politically correct bullshit jobs for women (with or without intelligence) so they will have the same success in the working world.

    Yes its about sameness. Its just not fair to the feminist that she was born the way she was. So feminism must step in to make her “whole” at the expense of men (and also at the expense of beautiful women) such that she will have access to the mainstream of society with our without a man. Such is the Life of Julia.

  50. desiderian says:

    JDG,

    “Absolutely. If they aren’t Christian, then for me sharing the gospel is the priority. If they are, then ‘red pill’ Bible teaching is in order. One really shouldn’t have to say ‘red pill’ Bible teaching because an honest reading of the Bible is what ‘red pill’ tries to describe IMO.”

    Yes. The red pill is nothing more than the doctrine of Original Sin.

    Gunner,

    “Feminism is women rebelling against men, not ugly women being left out.”

    Feminism is women, fathers of women, and hopeful suitors of women rebelling against God. It is fueled by unsatisfied hypergamy and thus exacerbated by female egos overinflated by such men; the former to boost their own, the latter in hopes of winning favor for themselves.

    All consumed by Self, losing sight of God. Original Sin.

  51. I realized there was no way for me to win.

    There it is. She had lots of choices: have sex enthusiastically; have sex but be as boring and awkward as possible hoping he’ll lose interest; get him off with a blowjob and hide in the bathroom until he falls asleep; gently refuse and ask his forgiveness for leading him on, hoping he won’t throw her out; refuse loudly, bringing the other people into it, in which case he wouldn’t be able to throw her out; stay up all night in the common room; go find another place to stay; etc. Lots of possibilities, many of which didn’t include sex.

    But none of them would mean she “won,” which in this case meant enjoying all the benefits of his company — even the comfort of sleeping in his room with him — while withholding what he wanted at the last minute. She got herself into a situation where there was no perfect happy solution and had to choose the outcome she preferred. Sensible people call that “life,” but to a feral woman who expects to “win” every moment of her life, someone (someone else) must be blamed.

  52. Oh, I forgot an option: when she was trying to get him to wear a condom, she could have claimed she had VD. But that would have been embarrassing, so also not a “win.”

  53. Can he not teach them to make sammiches instead?

  54. Oh, horse manure, she could have at any stage of the encounter, got up and walked out. The guy was probably stoned and would have done nothing but light up another blunt. These types of women just cannot live with the realisation that they’re sluts and thus unfit for anything else..

    I would really like to hear a persuasive argument as to why a woman would return, numerous times, to her ‘rapist’ to sleep in his bed, again and again. This is a non-case. A slut being a slut.

  55. Honestly it seems like defining rape, or any crime, based on an ambiguous emotional consent is going to lead to madness for both sides. He said-she said makes for the worst cases, and there isn’t much more to a rape claim than that any-more.

    It seems like sanity would define rape based on propriety in both the old and new sense. If she is my woman then sex is fine, if she is not then it’s de-facto rape (or adultery, if she is someone and doesn’t actively resist). That was once a big part of what marriage was about, a clear and public declaration of a relationship and the rights it conveys.

    In that case rape is very clean-cut in all but the most extreme circumstances. Women are well protected when they clearly either belong to someone, are becoming someone, or are untouchable.

    The more sexual restraint is passe the less women benefit from mens restraint… It’s unrealistic to expect that to change.

    Now marriage seems to be a tax thing practically and less than nothing socially.

  56. TWS says:

    Day after regret not rape by any means. On the other hand she has the bad judgement to party in strange cities with strange men expecting drugs and alcohol. She probably is incapable of recognizing what rape actually looks like.

  57. Pingback: Glenn Reynolds teaches women not to rape. | Tru...

  58. honeycomb says:

    hmmmm ….

    http://thesmokinggun.com/documents/texas-woman-sexually-assaults-man-687432

    Texas Woman Charged With Sex Assault On ManCops: Perp broke into sleeping victim’s home, climbed into bed

  59. Instalanche. Just add the ‘e’ on the end for the sake of my OCD, Dalrock, and Happy Halloween!

    [D: Thank you. Fixed.]

  60. bob says:

    Sophie is an idiot. In fact, she is a whore. The obvious solution was to sleep on the floor in the sleeping bag she brought. But then she might lose her free rent and drugs. So she’s intentionally stupid and wants validation after the fact. She traded sex for benefits, pure and simple.

    Stan is an asshole – I don’t think that makes him a rapist – though it’s close call.

  61. After reading how feminists are trying to encourage women to act in a manner that maximises their chances of rape I’ve concluded that feminists accuse men of being rape apologists so that they can keep that title to themselves. Men won’t touch any issue that even has a whiff of rape apologia about it but these feminists just absolutely roll in it. Thank you feminists for showing by your actions who the true rape apologists are.

  62. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/11/05 | Free Northerner

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s