About rape and consent

In the good old days the definition of rape was pretty self-explanatory: it meant forcing yourself sexually on a woman who made it clear she didn’t want your advances, or on someone who was literally unable to resist (because they were unconscious for example). To this day this is what springs to mind for most people when they hear that someone was raped.

Being drunk had nothing to do with it because people were considered responsible for their own actions even under the influence. Being vocal or enthusiastic about consent had nothing to do with it because it was understood that most women are capable adults able to express their displeasure about a situation if they want to. It was also understood that people almost always initiate sex not by asking for permission but with romantic/erotic gestures, touches, kissing. It was a given that the other party could control the pace and the direction of the encounter verbally or with their own body language. There was also an implicit understanding that any party could and would stop the encounter if it became uncomfortable. In simpler terms: the lack of rejection meant “go ahead”. Many women are shy, inexperienced, or simply just not too lively in bed – these women signal their consent by not doing anything to stop the guy. The women of yesteryear didn’t need to chant “yes” all the way through the act for it to not be rape, and that was fine.

Enter the feminists… Who infantilized women way more than teh evil patriarkee ever could. At first they took away women’s responsibility. If a woman drinks a glass o’something she’s not responsible for her own actions any more. The evil man made her do it! – cries the feminist protecting the feeble little child who’s otherwise an independent, empowered woman. Women are capable adults and the equals of men right up to the moment when they drink something – then they become fragile little puppets who have no control over themselves. This is of course total bullshit, a glaring sign that our societies treat women as a privileged class in their affairs with men. You hit someone while driving under the influence? You are still responsible for your own actions. You consented to sex under the influence? You are still responsible for your own actions – but only if you’re a man. Having a vagina means you’re not responsible for your own actions, the state will believe you when you say the man made you do it, it’s his fault! He’s the adult here, not you!

Then the feminists took away women’s agency. How could you expect women to express themselves without you directly asking them first? Women can’t do that, you silly! You have to explicitly ask for even the smallest of details and wait for the answers, otherwise it’s rape. Women are paradoxical, mythical creatures who intimidate men with their amazing strength and independence who are at the same time unable to say a word or lift a finger to express their displeasure at a man shoving his dick in their faces. You can’t expect women to say “no” to rapists because… why exactly?

So we had to change rape laws to accomodate the feminist view on women: infantile, indecisive, unable to express or think for themselves without men helping/allowing them to do so. Pathetic.

And we’ve reached the point where all sex is rape (mother Dvorkin is laughing hysterically in her grave), since you can be absolutely sure that no sane couple will ever exchange verbal permissions all the way during sex. Ideologically brainwashed fuckwits might try once or twice before realising that it doesn’t work. Sooner or later they must realize that taking part in something of your own volition infers consent, which makes it completely unnecessary to talk about it constantly. Not to beat a dead horse too much but I’m pretty interested in how a feminist would verbally express her consent about sucking a dick, with her mouth full… Should she stop every 10 seconds to say something or will the fact that she’s doing it suffice?

The most worrying part is that people pretend this excercise is not insane. They try to argue the finer details of how we should teach consent to school children boys not to rape, sweeping under the rug the fact that the taboo of rape is a logical extension of the taboo of hurting others, thus already an integral part of our culture. You don’t need to teach men to not kill or rob or rape – if they weren’t raised by monkeys in the jungle they already know. This is why 99% of men don’t kill, rob or rape. Only psychopaths do these things. Good luck trying to teach them out of psychopathy.

Some people say boys are confused about consent. No they’re not. They are confused about the legal and ideological shitstorm surrounding the issue. Don’t fuck a girl who doesn’t want you to. That’s the idea behind “consent” in a dozen words or less. And every boy knows this pretty much instinctually. How do you know if she wants you? She does not reject your advances. This works because, conversely, if she doesn’t want you, she will stop you, like all the women in the history of mankind did so for millions of years.

But of course stuff that worked fine for ages isn’t good enough for feminists, because they view women as retarded children at the mental age of probably 3.

The only other possibility is they simply want women to have power over men – the power to destroy them or send them to jail with a false accusation. The idea of “affirmative consent” is good for only one thing: shifting the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. “Innocent until proven guilty” is gone now, pal. Either you present tangible proof that she said yes all the way through sex, or you’re going to jail. How could you present such proof at all? Nobody knows, not even the sponsors of these fucked up laws. It’s practically impossible.

The situation looks like this: you must acquire verbal consent, something that you cannot record and thus cannot present when asked to. You must acquire it yet it does not protect you from false accusations. Also, even if you acquire and record it, it can be retroactively invalidated and you can do nothing about it. Even if you ask for her papers beforehand, make her perform a breathalyzer test, ask her to sign a paper before a lawyer stating that she consented, she still can say she revoked her consent during sex. Fuck you, you rapist!

And feminists throw their hissyfits now, when rape is at an all time low. Disgusting shitbags.

This entry was posted in Feminism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to About rape and consent

  1. caamib says:

    Women get fucked by retarded chads who don’t understand what consent is all the time. They hate consent, and it can no longer apply to sluts.

    Paradigm of rape itself, though, being the norm is extremely important for civilization, but that can be understood only if we know understand what sane societies saw as rape – a property crime against a woman’s father or husband. Which is is what it is and always should be.

    Then it makes sense. Which good father would want his daughter potentially impregnated by a man who won’t marry her or, since marrying virgins is a natural male instinct suppressed in modern society, having her future husband marrying as a non-virgin ?

    Which husband would want his wife impregnated by another man? Even with today’s technology we still have brains that are kinda older.

    Hence the crime of rape. The issue was never “consent”. Consent is a huge red herring. The crime of rape was never about consent but these issues. Consent and the amount of resistance were the difference between rough adulterous sex and rape.

    A huge paradox in modern society is that since thugs are reproducing in extremely high numbers and kids basically belong to the state women are bothered less with rape in feminist societies, not more.

    It’s where this society is heading, to us being utter apes, but it’s not what we have shown ourselves capable of in sane, patriarchal societies.

  2. Deansdale says:

    What you just described is popularized by feminists as a scary story about teh evil patriarkee, and I’m not entirely sure it ever existed – mostly because women were never actually the property of men. If somebody fucks you in the ass against your will while holding a knife to your throat, whose property should you be to justify putting the guy in prison? Any sane person recognizes that rape is a crime in itself, it does not need complicated explanations or indirect justification like this “property crime” bullshit.

  3. Joska says:

    Caamib, what you described is actually adultery and pre-marrige sex. In wich there is consent, but someone still can have problems from it. They have nothing to do with property though. Also pre-marrige sex is no longer considered a bad thing becouse non-virginity doesn’t ruin a girls chances of getting married and also a single mother is no longer a pariah.
    And adultery is no longer considered a crime, but it’s still considered a bad thing. However, even if you view it pragmatically, it’s not a property crime, rather a breach of contract (ie. the contract of marrige).

    Pragmatically viewed, rape can still be considered a property crime – but it’s from the woman’s point of view: her vagina is her property and she usually charges a fee (not necessery money) for letting access to it. The rapist gets access without paying the fee. (Classical joke: A woman goes into the bank with a checque. The banker says: “Miss, this checque is forged!” The woman: “My God! Then I have been raped!”)
    From men’s point of view pragmatically the act of rape is cheating in the game: while the rest of men have to play The Game of courting, investing time and money for (the mere chance of) gaining access to the pussy, the rapist cuts it out and makes his access “the easy way”, by force.

    (This point of view hardly applies to homosexual rape though, and not at all in case the rape is done specifically to humiliate the victim, and the seek of pleasure is secondary. (Like prison rape or wartime rape.)

  4. belfrylove says:

    Joska, good point about a sexual act becoming rape when the “consent” was not sufficiently earned, but it’s totally half-baked. It is a woman’s notoriously arbitrary whim that decides whether or not there was “sufficient consent.” Since lack of sexual fulfillment for men is a living death, this putting ALL the power of defining “consent” into women’s hands (like they are born with the intelligence and morality of great judges) is a stupid mistake. Without the culturally-enforced “oppression” of being shamed and bullied into not being a slut, chicks go after the worst morons and then have their feral bastard kids, forming a retarded criminal underclass that slowly undermines society like a vast amoeba.

    Using the prevailing logic of how rape is defined, attraction = consent. So since chocolate cake tastes good, I should eat cake all the time instead of veggies and lean protein.

Leave a Reply

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