Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘sexual assault’

Pervnado Is The End Of A Sexual Visigoth Holiday

Monday, December 4th, 2017

So why has “Pervnado” struck now? Andrea Peyser and Christine Emba both opine in the New York Post.

It seems odd that the New York Post has a monopoly on this story. NBC isn’t exactly excited to run exclusives on who has gotten bagged. CBS hasn’t covered itself with glory on this one either. Politicians such as Congressman John Conyers and Senator Al Franken, as well aspiring Senator Roy Moore, have all been accused of varying degrees of perverted and degrading sexual behavior. Even a perspective college football coach, Greg Schiano, can’t escape the destructive power of “Pervnado”. Again, why now?

The New York Post has run out two competing female perspectives on the story. Both ladies make some points, but I don’t feel think they’ve dug into this deeply enough. Peyser believes the #MeToo Movement has lost the willingness and ability to discern the difference between stupid, puerile mistakes and malicious male perversion. She posits this theory below.

My fear is that the pendulum will swing so wildly out of control, the fight against genuine sexually based offenses will be delegitimized as much ado about nothing. It makes me wince that comic Louis C.K., who admitted pleasuring himself in front of grossed-out females, is mentioned in the same breath as nonagenarian ex-President George H.W. Bush, accused of grabbing women’s backsides and telling a dirty joke. Wheelchair-bound at age 93 “his arm falls on the lower waist of people with whom he takes pictures,” said his spokesman, Jim McGrath. “To try to put people at ease, the president routinely tells the same joke — and on occasion, he has patted women’s rears in what he intended to be a good-natured manner.’’ He apologized.

Christine Emba, I think gets closer to truth than Mrs. Peyser. She tells us part of the problem is that people are no longer sure what is and is not harassment. That’s what happens when you try to split hair follicles over whether it is rape or, you know, rape-rape. Mrs Emba offers her perspective on it below.

This #MeToo paranoia isn’t all baseless. While some worries should rate only an eye roll, others highlight the precariously gray continuum from annoyance to harassment to assault. But it’s also true that these questions hold something in common. They gesture toward America’s prevailing and problematic sexual ethic — one that is in no small part responsible for getting us into this sexual misconduct mess in the first place. At the bottom of all this confusion sits a fundamental misframing: There’s some baseline amount of sex that we should be getting or at least should be allowed to pursue. Following from that is the assumption that the ability to pursue and satisfy our sexual desires — whether by hitting on that co-worker even if we’re at a professional lunch, or by pursuing a sexual encounter even when reciprocity is unclear — is paramount. At best, our sexual freedom should be circumscribed only by the boundary of consent. Any other obstacle is not to be borne.

When I attempt what I admit is biologically impossible, and try to see how the average human female would look at this, I can see why Christine Emba and any other reasonable woman would be both frightened and pissed off at me if I walked around town thinking I was entitled to “git me some” just for showing up with a functional penis. She, and most women that I’ve ever associated with or dated, place a certain value on their wombs and the privacy of their bodies that pretty much precludes every Tom, Rick or Harry from getting their quota of “notches,” much like Rolls-Royce and Ferrari do not make low-cost economy cars. This disconnect between what men feel is their due and what basic level of respect and dignity that women feel they deserve is a biological and sociological problem every human society has to figure out and solve. But again, even the true and accurate points these two women made have been both true and accurate since Sumerian hunter-gatherers pitched their tents and started alluvial farms along the Tigris-Euphrates Fertile Crescent. Why now, ma’am?

Squaring what I’ll call The Emba Circle has been accomplished different ways under different cultural or religious social hegemonies. It always involves a bunch of frustrated guys with achy blue balls or Rosy Palm Disease. It usually also involves a crowd of offended women who feel their dignity is affronted and their perspective is not valued in some sort of constraining courtship process. Compromises are like that. Nobody gets all the things they desire. Santa doesn’t exist and most of the poor kids aren’t getting a pony for Christmas. Except now, our society has rebelled against the unpleasant externalities of squaring The Emba Circle. We had The Sexual Revolution and deliberately threw our particular solution, however flawed it may have been, into the dumpster.

Having essentially chosen the Hugh Hefner ethos over an old, boring set of written and unwritten rules for determining who gets sexual access to whom, we now have the type of problems Andrea Peyser decribed in her piece about “Pervnado.” People aren’t very sure they even know what harassment is versus someone just having a predilection to be a socially awkward jerk or a bore. Let’s call it The Peyser Uncertainty Theory. The old rules have been destroyed and nirvana did not set in. What’s worse is that a lot of butt hurt people have no clue how to properly seek redress or even whether they really should. You don’t get due process when their isn’t a replicable, accepted and well-understood process anymore. When in doubt, you channel George Patton and attack. When enough people have had enough and attack simultaneously you get “Pervnado” and it feels like society has struck a really bad resonance frequency that may well cause a bridge or two to collapse.

So I think I’ve established what happened, and have offered a plausible theory as to why. But I haven’t yet put a bow-tie on an answer for the question why now? I can get close, but not completely close the sale. There just seemed to be a lot more cultural capital and more of everything. Now that stuff, whatever it may be, is running out.

Grievances hurt more when the cold wind blows and you feel a wee bit threadbare. When people don’t feel they are receiving justice, nothing seems like an accident and anyone you can get your hands on just flat-out has it coming to them. And that is just what will keep on happening until a new set of rules and ethics gets defined. The beatings will continue until a new law is conceived. Pervnado is the reaction against sexual anarchy and will rage on until order is restored.

Molestation Wave Sweeps American Media

Saturday, November 11th, 2017

The news this last week can be summarized as follows: everyone was raped, sexually assaulted, molested or at least approached with an indecent offer, and that is how you become important in mass media these days.

A parade of victimhood popped up on our screens. Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, and dozens of others were swept up in accusations about how they committed acts of indecency — which is difficult in a thoroughly indecent society — against the vulnerable and innocent.

Somewhere it was forgotten that accusations should be proven, and accusations which smolder for years are likely not true, as well as the fact that Hollywood, the news media, and entertainment have always been ruled by the quid pro quo of the casting couch. I make your career, and well, you do me a favor, if you catch my meaning…

Middle America rightfully thinks this stuff is creepy. Then again, middle America slept through it happening for the last century, so who really cares what they think?

The bigger story is that we have let cretins rule us through the power of media, academia and government. Cretins, especially sociopaths, instinctively both lie and restyle their parasitism as opportunity and moral good that you can participate in. The middle classes, basically sheep for the slaughter of mercantile corporations repackaging junk as lifestyle enhances, stumbled forward in a zombie gait and voted, bought and trended whatever the shopkeepers were offering.

If we look deeply into this abyss, we will see that the actual story is that molestation is business as usual in Hollywood and related spheres, giving legitimacy to PizzaGate and other conspiratorial suspicions that in fact our new elites are a group of crazed sexual predators, which seems to be the case if we believe the accounts of “normalcy” in the media dens:

But in the new biography Sticky Fingers: The Life and Times of Jann Wenner and Rolling Stone Magazine, author Joe Hagan writes that he “was known for his jovial sexual harassment.” The magazine’s staff “was not immune from Wenner’s own adventuring.”

He fancied himself as a sort of polymorphous-perverse William Randolph Hearst,” said Glenn O’Brien, who joined Rolling Stone in 1973 and quit after what he said were Wenner’s unwanted advances. “He told me he had slept with everyone who had worked for him.”

In another passage Hagan writes:

He didn’t discriminate between men and women; he liked them both. “He was hitting on every girl and every guy,” said Lynn Hirschberg. “He once grabbed me around the hips and said, ‘Ten more pounds and you’ll be perfect.’ This was in front of everybody at a meeting and I wanted to die. It was like this schoolboy crap.

…In 2014, an article about an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia provoked a widespread controversy when it turned out the accuser’s account was false and the magazine had done little to try to verify it. Wenner sold 49% of the magazine in 2016. Then he sold off Men’s Journal, and later, Us Weekly, to American Media. Two months ago, Wenner put the remaining 51% of the magazine that made him famous up for sale.

The 1960s had us rejoicing in the idea that we were replacing that old, stodgy, calcified, strident, and fascist WASP order with something new and enlightened.

It turns out that, as usual, “new” is a scam, and time-proven means you avoid elevating molestation experts to positions of power all around you. The Anglo-Saxons did better; the new order is a disaster.

Legalize Rape, revisited

Monday, April 13th, 2015

legalize_rape_revisited

My article “Legalize Rape” met with widespread misinterpretation. Most of its critics did not read past the title, which is typical, but others did not understand its mix of satire and real reasoning.

The point of the article is this: we are applying heavy penalties for rape at a time when rape is no longer as serious of a crime.

In the 1880s, a woman raped had lost her virtue and was seriously damaged as to her prospects for marriage. In the current era, few expect women to be virgins at marriage — although virginity at marriage leads to the happiest and most solid marriages — and women have sex with dozens of men in their lifetimes.

As a result, rape is no longer the capital crime it once was. It is now a variant of assault, like what happens when a man gets beat up in a bar fight. We barely even prosecute those anymore because they come down to he said/she said situations.

Imagine this scenario:

  1. Man and woman go separately to a bar, party or frat house.
  2. Man and woman separately drink, smoke weed and/or take other drugs.
  3. At some point, they meet and shortly afteward, have sex in an isolated area.
  4. The next day, she claims it is rape; he claims it is consensual.

That is what most rape cases look like now. Two people, in a situation where people often have casual sex, and the question of consent rears its ugly head.

Feminists, being the ideological blockheads they are, have been screaming for years to reduce rape from a crime requiring violent submission of the victim to an issue of mere choice. But the violence has a purpose: it provides a trail of evidence.

Evidence, you see, is how civilized societies determine culpability. With the definition of rape as a mere revocation or unclear consent, there is no trail of evidence. Under the feminist rule, a man accused would be a man convicted, every time.

That is an obvious injustice.

The equal injustice however occurs in cases of actual rape. We tell young women not to fight back, and so at the end of the night, we have no more evidence than we would from casual sex. A rape kit reveals if she has had sex, and with whom if DNA is present, and if there is vaginal tearing. But this is common in any vigorous sex which, especially if the partners are drunk, is relatively common. No justice there.

One option is to go to the military standard which says that drunk people cannot consent to sex. If you have sex with a drunk person and they claim rape, the charge will stick, so do not have sex with drunk people. In theory, that is fine, but in reality you usually have two drunk and/or drugged people in the courtroom. Should we convict them both?

This is a sick comedy where 18th century morals are used to justify destroying a man’s life for a crime without evidence.

This is why we should legalize rape, if our citizens are so foolish as to insist that casual sex remain accepted.

Make it a property crime. She has gone to the club to have sex; that fact is undisputed. She either revoked consent or he never achieved it; either way, it is not a case of her virtue and marriageability being destroyed, but that she had sex with the wrong man.

She is thus entitled to some monetary compensation equal to the value of what is lost. But it is no longer virtue being lost, more like a few hours of time. Pay her at the day rate.

Yes, that is cold and many of you are outraged. But your outrage is a sham. It is the outrage of someone who has been living in denial. This is the face of casual sex: sex is cheap and consent is cheap, and so rape should not be an expensive and life-destroying crime.

This outrages feminists who are secret authoritarians who desire any power they can have, believing that having external power will assuage their internal void of soul. Not so, ladies.

An exception can be made for attack rape, you know, the old-fashioned kind where a guy wearing a balaclava waits in the dark and launches himself from a bush at some woman as she walks home, then beats her senseless and takes her with violence. That is what most people think of when they say “rape,” but that crime has been confused with the more modern pitfall of “hazy consent,” which should be a far lesser crime.

I am certain that those who misinterpreted the original article will have trouble with this one as well. After all, I have crossed a major taboo line which is that in a society dedicated to equality, exceptions must be normed and thus one always argues from the perspective of the victim if one wants to win votes or court cases. This however is also the pathway to our doom.

It’s time to be honest about the relationship between casual sex and hazy consent. It is not a life-ending crime. It is a minor one, on the level of a fistfight in a bar or a car crash, and yet we treat it like a sacred crime when the behavior of the victims is anything but sacred.

A society dedicated to victimhood will wage war on those who are strong because it presumes they are victimizers. It is time to turn that illusion around, starting with revocation of the sacred status accorded to hazy consent.

The rule in sexual assault: self-preservation

Tuesday, September 2nd, 2014

you_are_not_special
Currently a debate rages among our dim-witted fellow egalitarian voters about whether a woman has a right not to be raped.

One side argues that women should not ‘have to’ use precautions against rape. In this view, rape simply should not occur and the responsibility for that lies with men, not with women in taking precautions against date rape drugs, intoxication, provocative attire or other issues.

“Anything that reduces sexual violence from happening is a good thing,” Tracey Vitchers, Chair of the Board at Students Active For Ending Rape (SAFER) told Mashable. “But at the end of the day, we need to think about why we put the responsibility of preventing assault on women instead of men. The problem isn’t whether a woman knows there are roofies in her drink, but the fact that someone put roofies in her drink.”

The other perspective is that, while in an ideal world we would simply tell men not to rape and be done with it, in every conceivable reality we have experienced, some men do rape, and thus women should take precautions.

This debate echoes the controversy that instigated the “slutwalks” where women dress skimpily and march around in the SWPL capitals of the world but somehow avoid doing so in the third world or internal third world ghettos of the USA. The controversial comments were kindly-intended advice:

“You know, I think we’re beating around the bush here,” Michael Sanguinetti began, blandly enough, as he addressed the 10 students who turned up for the pep talk. Then he said: “I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this – however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised.”

His advice echoed traditional wisdom for women worried about rape: don’t get too intoxicated to run; don’t wear high heels or tight clothing, for the same reason. Don’t dress or look like a prostitute. Never leave the room and go somewhere out of sight with a man you do not know well. But now, the surging proleocracy of feminists view such practical advice as an imposition on their will, and an insulting restriction on their ability to do whatever they want.

Luckily, past examples and present events show us exactly where to stand on this issue. Instead of relying on society to provide for you, since such a thing is not only logistically impossible but unlikely, stand by a single rule that works in every situation no matter how complex: self-preservation. Act for your own best interests and expect other people to be dishonest, self-deceiving, corrupt, opportunistic and short-sighted, all of which are conditions that lend themselves to act like theft, assault, rape and graft.

The first example comes to us from a devastating war a century ago:

Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan wanted to warn Americans not to travel aboard British ships. But President Woodrow Wilson, writes Windchy, “said that American citizens had a right to travel on belligerent ships with impunity, even within a war zone,” a defiance of common sense and an absurd interpretation of international law.


President Wilson: Our ships have a right to dress like sluts even within a known torpedo rape zone.

Sec State: But there’s a high risk that, if we float high-value targets within range of their submarines in a war zone, they’ll torpedo the ships.

President Wilson: Don’t you dare limit my potential, you cisgendered eye-rapist! This isn’t about practicality, it’s about what ought to be.

We all know what happened. Making yourself bait and having no defenses against the obvious attack means that you run the risk that someone will call your bluff. And they did, and 1,500 corpses in the surf later, people started to figure out that screaming about your rights against hostile parties is a futile and self-destructive act.

Maybe the feminists will wake up. Another historical event might wake them up as well, which is the hacking of celebrity nudes and their widespread distribution through the lonely masturbators network of basement-dwelling neckbeards. While the real lesson here might be “never trust an Apple product,” another lesson on our point here is that if you make yourself a victim, someone will victimize you.

The same standard applies to women out on the town. If you dress like a prostitute and get blackout drunk, you are low-hanging fruit for any sexual abuser. They will be looking for such low hanging fruit because it is easy. You have just made their job a lot easier.

You can rant and hashtag about how you should be able to do whatever you want, but that’s a red herring. The fact is that the world has never been a safe place and never will be. You need to defend yourself at all times, including against those who say the terrifying words “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

This lesson will fall unheard upon the ears of modern women. They have been deceived by a media that panders to them on the surface, but underneath that surface, manipulates them to be slaves. They slave away in offices and miss out on the best years of their life with family, and they slave away at sex busily giving up their intimacy with anonymous penis donors, losing out on their chance for actual bonding. They slave away at finding the right products because they do not have any culture to give them direction. And they are brainwashed to consider themselves brave for defiantly defending their “right” to their own slavery. No wonder past generations treated women like large children, because intellectually, they must be so.

Recommended Reading