Books on rape

[HandsInTheDark]

.

The value of a campaign against these books is less in whether it succeeds in getting them pulled from sale, than in showing guys that Roosh's message is not generally accepted.

Sorry, but I find this naive. Google things like "how to get laid" and "how to get a girl". (While not all of the advice sucks, be prepared to hold your nose.)

The reality is there's money to be made in hawking a magic formula to losers who want sex. It doesn't matter if the magic is effective; the target audience, being losers, won't succeed anyway. It doesn't matter if it's ethical because if you haven't worked out that most women will resent being tricked or pressured into sex, you're not all about ethics to begin with. The market will never go away because propagation of the species is a strong drive and the losers at the edges of the herd who don't make the cut, resent their failure. And anything the caters to resentment and masturbatory fantasies will sell.

Ban this book, there will be another. The book is a symbol of a larger issue. The issue is the problem, the problem is there's a market for magic solutions to personality problems. Quacks have been selling sex potions for centuries. Same shit different century.

This is why I think banning the book is meaningless. It's a great symbolic act, right up there with banning the Confederate flag. But the sociological forces that caused the book to be written will create another book. Or website, which can't be banned. Or mind implant in twenty years.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, as has been pointed out before, dropping it as an Amazon product would fulfill stated Amazon policy--which I think is Amazon's right to do for any reason they want to and that it wouldn't be censorship. Amazon doesn't owe this guy (or Zeb) or anyone else publication--of anything. The writer has no such right against Amazon's right to choose what its product mix is going to be.

 

[SikFuk]

....This is why I think banning the book is meaningless. It's a great symbolic act, right up there with banning the Confederate flag. But the sociological forces that caused the book to be written will create another book. Or website, which can't be banned. Or mind implant in twenty years.

But... sociological forces can also reinforce a rape culture that makes a book like Roosh's acceptable. In India, unaccompanied women are considered fair game for rape because they have no business being unaccompanied. That's sociological forces at work. Here in the states, even though women have a degree of independence, they're still seen as subservient by people like Roosh, and the "blame the victim" defense is still widely used. We need sociological forces to push back against that rape culture, not just shrug our shoulders and say "that's the way it is. Deal with it."

Banning books is a whack-a-mole strategy, but it's not the only strategy. It goes hand in hand with enlightening the Neanderthals among us who still cling to the conservative values of women's subservience and men's superiority. I just saw a name for that in the Christian context, but I can't remember what it was. All I know is, religion is a big part of the problem, as is apathy.

 

[Messier82]

Books on bomb making are not illegal to own, or sell for that matter. You can buy them at Amazon today and have them in your hot little bomb making hands tomorrow.

At least not illegal here in the US.

I know I'm going back several pages in this thread, but this from today's news is pertinent to this discussion of censorship. Anarchist's Cookbook

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I know I'm going back several pages in this thread, but this from today's news is pertinent to this discussion of censorship. Anarchist's Cookbook

There is a big difference between what is legal in the US and the UK.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Banning books is a whack-a-mole strategy, but it's not the only strategy. It goes hand in hand with enlightening the Neanderthals among us who still cling to the conservative values of women's subservience and men's superiority. I just saw a name for that in the Christian context, but I can't remember what it was. All I know is, religion is a big part of the problem, as is apathy.

Wow. Look around, pal. Christian and post-Christian nations? Known for woman's rights. Parts of the world where Christianity had low penetration - mid east, lots of Asia, parts of Africa? known for a striking LACK of women's rights. But thank you for your factless and sweeping misunderstanding of historical trends, you've really managed to highlight the biggest socioeconomic problem in the world today - ignorance.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Ban this book, there will be another. The book is a symbol of a larger issue. The issue is the problem, the problem is there's a market for magic solutions to personality problems. Quacks have been selling sex potions for centuries. Same shit different century.

This is why I think banning the book is meaningless. It's a great symbolic act, right up there with banning the Confederate flag. But the sociological forces that caused the book to be written will create another book. Or website, which can't be banned. Or mind implant in twenty years.

...and once again, seems like you didn't actually read the comment you were responding to there. Oh well, one more for the ignore list.

 

[SikFuk]

Wow. Look around, pal. Christian and post-Christian nations? Known for woman's rights. Parts of the world where Christianity had low penetration - mid east, lots of Asia, parts of Africa? known for a striking LACK of women's rights. But thank you for your factless and sweeping misunderstanding of historical trends, you've really managed to highlight the biggest socioeconomic problem in the world today - ignorance.

Hands - It's common knowledge that other religions are much more coercive towards women than Christianity. You think I don't know that? My point was that here, in this country, conservative Christians still think woman are supposed to be subservient to men, both in marriage and in society. This reinforces the rape culture that results in violence against women. If we don't call out this attitude of women's subservience, we help to perpetuate it.

The rape of women may not be the biggest socioeconomic problem in the world today, but I wouldn't go expressing that opinion face-to-face with your women friends if I were you, especially if there's a broom handle nearby.

 

[Handley_Page]

But... sociological forces can also reinforce a rape culture that makes a book like Roosh's acceptable. In India, unaccompanied women are considered fair game for rape because they have no business being unaccompanied.
That's sociological forces at work.
Here in the states, even though women have a degree of independence, they're still seen as subservient by people like Roosh, and the "blame the victim" defense is still widely used. We need sociological forces to push back against that rape culture, not just shrug our shoulders and say "that's the way it is. Deal with it."

The case of Jayoti Signh Pandey, a 23-yr old Intern, has done much to change the views of many in India. The case, (details HERE) caused a great many protests. These ranged from "the Law is an Ass", "the police are corrupt idiots", via "we much move with the Century", and a general rise of the influence of women (there was one brilliant campaign criticising Mothers for not teaching their sons good manners, etc..).

Of course, there's a problem; there always is. Some women (particularly young (and stupid), wear clothes outfits best seen in the privacy of the home , and seems surprised when a bloke gets a bit wound up.
Perhaps those women might not tempt fate quite so much?

 

[SikFuk]

...Of course, there's a problem; there always is. Some women (particularly young (and stupid), wear clothes outfits best seen in the privacy of the home , and seems surprised when a bloke gets a bit wound up.
Perhaps those women might not tempt fate quite so much?

Do military women wear sexy clothes while they're on base? Rape in the military is as bad or worse than rape in civilian culture. The problem isn't women, it's men. The problem is men thinking women "deserve" to be raped.

 

[LadyVer]

The case of Jayoti Signh Pandey, a 23-yr old Intern, has done much to change the views of many in India. The case, (details HERE) caused a great many protests. These ranged from "the Law is an Ass", "the police are corrupt idiots", via "we much move with the Century", and a general rise of the influence of women (there was one brilliant campaign criticising Mothers for not teaching their sons good manners, etc..).

Of course, there's a problem; there always is. Some women (particularly young (and stupid), wear clothes outfits best seen in the privacy of the home , and seems surprised when a bloke gets a bit wound up.
Perhaps those women might not tempt fate quite so much?

Women get raped because rapists want to rape. It doesn't matter what the woman is wearing. I was dressed in jeans and a non-slutty blouse, in the privacy of my own home. Rape is about power and control, not about what the woman is wearing.

 

[sr71plt]

People don't all get raped for the same reason. I think it's sort of silly to suggest that wearing provocative clothing wouldn't trigger anyone at all to rape someone nowhere nohow.

It's sort of like the posters with account names like fukmesilly getting incensed over receiving mash PMs.

 

[LadyVer]

People don't all get raped for the same reason. I think it's sort of silly to suggest that wearing provocative clothing wouldn't trigger anyone at all to rape someone nowhere nohow.

It's sort of like the posters with account names like fukmesilly getting incensed over receiving mash PMs.

Rapists rape because they want to rape. Whether their excuse is that the rapee is dressed provocatively is besides the point. Whether someone's alt is "fuckmesilly," does not mean "please send me the most vile pm you can think of" or "please send me a pic of your dick in all its glory."

 

[Bramblethorn]

Do military women wear sexy clothes while they're on base? Rape in the military is as bad or worse than rape in civilian culture. The problem isn't women, it's men. The problem is men thinking women "deserve" to be raped.

And the more "modestly" women dress, the more exacting the standards for "modesty" become; even if a woman does dress conservatively enough to satisfy the Modesty Police, she's just making it harder for other women to be judged acceptable.

If every woman in the world wore a full-length burlap sack, the ones with the smallest sacks would be told they were dressing immodestly and provoking male lusts.

 

[sr71plt]

Rapists rape because they want to rape. Whether their excuse is that the rapee is dressed provocatively is besides the point. Whether someone's alt is "fuckmesilly," does not mean "please send me the most vile pm you can think of" or "please send me a pic of your dick in all its glory."

Oh bullshit for there to be no way of volunteering for it. Just you trying to escape all responsibility for yourself again. A fukmesilly handle here invites mash PMs just as provocative clothing will set some crazy guys off. Stop putting all responsibility on someone else. Grow up.

 

[LadyVer]

Oh bullshit for there to be no way of volunteering for it. Just you trying to escape all responsibility for yourself again. A fukmesilly handle here invites mash PMs just as provocative clothing will set some crazy guys off. Stop putting all responsibility on someone else. Grow up.

Dearest mansplainer, fuck off.

 

[sr71plt]

And the more "modestly" women dress, the more exacting the standards for "modesty" become; even if a woman does dress conservatively enough to satisfy the Modesty Police, she's just making it harder for other women to be judged acceptable.

If every woman in the world wore a full-length burlap sack, the ones with the smallest sacks would be told they were dressing immodestly and provoking male lusts.

It's not that one-dimensional either. Women are at greater risk in the military because of other factors--high possibility of high tension; great disparity in proportional numbers, among others. Yes, wearing a full-length burlap sack can be enough. Go back up to where I posted that there isn't just one set of conditions needed to set a rapist off.

 

[sr71plt]

Dearest mansplainer, fuck off.

No, as usual you're just being dumber than a mop handle. I was "splaining" you more than any man. Point out where I condone or justify rapists. I don't pretend they fit into your Pollyanna world of personal privilege to act idiotically is the point.

 

[LadyVer]

No, as usual you're just being dumber than a mop handle. I was "splaining" you more than any man. Point out where I condone or justify rapists. I don't pretend they fit into your Pollyanna world of personal privilege to act idiotically is the point.

What you said is that men will rape because of what women wear. What I'm telling you is that it doesn't matter what a woman is wearing when she is raped. Rape is about POWER, CONTROL, and HUMILIATION, and putting the woman in her place.

Pollyana? World of personal privilege to act idiotically? Let me make this clearer for you. I have been raped. It was not me acting like a Pollyana. I was in my own home and my two kids were in the house asleep. I know many women who have been raped, and none of them were dressed like sluts. One was at work when she was attacked by a robber/rapist. One was in her own home asleep. One was at an event with friends she trusted. The others were with people they trusted. Friends, supposedly. Most rapists are men the women know and trust.

What you and many men don't get is that just because you think you know all about women, and about rape (which boggles my mind since supposedly you and the men who spout off about this have never raped a woman), that means you're an expert.

You're an expert on mansplaining about women and rape, which is odd because you're not a woman, you're not a rapist, and you're not a woman who has ever been raped. So when I tell you as a rape victim that rape is not about what the woman is wearing, you have to tell me I'm wrong. How could I possibly be right? I'm a woman who is a Pollyana with personal privilege.

And getting raped is not a privilege, asshole.

 

[sr71plt]

What you said is that men will rape because of what women wear.

No (I knew you couldn't understand it). I said there will be some men who will rape because of what women wear (and/or for thousands of other trigger mechanisms across the world of rapists). I'm sure you can't see the difference in what I am saying and what you choose to think I'm saying. I'm saying that you (and I) can't control what is going to set off an individual rapist--rapists don't all come with the same trigger mechanisms.

Beyond that, I'm saying that a woman who walks into a smoky pool hall in Hell's Kitchen dressed in a G-string and pasties is an idiot not to expect to have trouble and that a woman poster to Literotica who uses the account name fukmesilly is an idiot not to expect to get some mash PMs. They don't come without personal responsibility to have good sense.

Beyond that, I'm not dealing with silly little you further on this.

 

[LadyVer]

No (I knew you couldn't understand it). I said there will be some men who will rape because of what women wear (and/or for thousands of other trigger mechanisms across the world of rapists). I'm sure you can't see the difference in what I am saying and what you choose to think I'm saying. I'm saying that you (and I) can't control what is going to set off an individual rapist--rapists don't all come with the same trigger mechanisms.

Beyond that, I'm saying that a woman who walks into a smoky pool hall in Hell's Kitchen dressed in a G-string and pasties is an idiot not to expect to have trouble and that a woman poster to Literotica who uses the account name fukmesilly is an idiot not to expect to get some mash PMs. They don't come without personal responsibility to have good sense.

Beyond that, I'm not dealing with silly little you further on this.

Fuck off. Now ig me again, permanently.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

And any learned friends can look this up...

Rape is not about sex. Yes, the rapist gets off, sexually. But Rape is not about the sex. It's about the control. The control over the woman during the act, not the act itself. Talk to any psychiatrist...it about the control the rapist feels during his abuse of the woman.

Okay, now you all can jump on me...but who here has been a cop and dealt with this crime? I don't see any hands.

 

[SikFuk]

And any learned friends can look this up...

Rape is not about sex. Yes, the rapist gets off, sexually. But Rape is not about the sex. It's about the control. The control over the woman during the act, not the act itself. Talk to any psychiatrist...it about the control the rapist feels during his abuse of the woman.

Okay, now you all can jump on me...but who here has been a cop and dealt with this crime? I don't see any hands.

Good point Zeb. That's why there's a petition circulating to remind Amazon to abide by their stated policy and quit selling the Roosh book. The Roosh book teaches men how to control a woman in order to complete a rape without having to use a weapon.

 

[Handley_Page]

But Rape is not about the sex. It's about the control. The control over the woman during the act, not the act itself. Talk to any psychiatrist...it about the control the rapist feels during his abuse of the woman.
.

And, if I may say so, nicely put.