I don’t see the logic.
Raw Story shares a plan to fix the rape problem by MRA Roosh Vörek.
Anything to do with not raping, you ask brightly? No, not at all; don’t be silly.
Here’s the thing. He saw women get drunk and then have sex with someone, and then when sober, go all angsty and get the guy thrown in jail or out of school. It’s that easy; who knew? But he says he saw it, so it must be true.
“By attempting to teach men not to rape, what we have actually done is teach women not to care about being raped, not to protect themselves from easily preventable acts, and not to take responsibility for their actions.”
“I thought about this problem and am sure I have the solution: make rape legal if done on private property,” he continued. “I propose that we make the violent taking of a woman not punishable by law when done off public grounds.”
Vörek predicted that after rape was legalized, a woman would learn to “protect her body in the same manner that she protects her purse and smartphone.”
That’s the logic I don’t get. So if murder were legalized, would we all learn to protect our bodies the way we protect our phones, so that murder stopped? Except wait, phones still get stolen, and so do purses. Also stealing them hasn’t been legalized, yet they still get stolen. Why would legalizing rape cause it to stop happening?
Especially since it’s already mostly legalized in practice, given the tiny percentage of rapes that ever get successfully prosecuted. So, no, I can’t begin to see how that could possibly work.
“Such a change will provide a mature jolt to American women who have been babied for too long, who are protected and coddled as if they have no agency or intellect of their own,” he asserted. “Let’s make rape legal. Less women will be raped because they won’t voluntarily drug themselves with booze and follow a strange man into a bedroom, and less men will be unfairly jailed for what was anything but a maniacal alley rape.”
Also? When are we going to see babies on the menu at five star restaurants? When will we finally realize it’s time to start setting fire to people when the local polo club wins a game?
I can’t imagine what world this guy lives in that he thinks this argument makes sense. If rape was made legal, what he would do? Troll for women that didn’t have sufficient protection to hurt or kill him? This is a sick argument by a twisted individual.
I’m sure if the heat gets too strong, he’ll backtrack and claim it was all satirical, like “A Modest Proposal”. But the perverse thing is that we have no idea whether he’d be telling the truth or not, based on his history.
Enlightening, though. I wonder how many women he raped while doing his “bang” tours in poor countries.
It’s troll logic; it doesn’t have to make any sense, provocation is its goal.
(My first impression? That men also get raped seems not to be a consideration)
So if a woman is bashed or drugged unconscious on the street (let’s even say she’s doing something sufficiently womanly, like grocery shopping for her husbowner) and then dragged to the rapist’s apartment, no crime has occurred, seeing how things went down on private property. Seems like an easy workaround to his brilliant solution. Heck, just break into the woman’s own home as she sleeps in bed. It isn’t public property (well, unless you’re a rapist), and if she didn’t want it, she would have surely hired a small private army to guard the premises, no?
I’d also like to hear his thoughts about those slutty pre-pubescent girls bringing rapes upon themselves. They must not be taking proper measures to protect themselves to the same extent that they would jealously guard their favorite toys.
I endorse Roosh’s suggestion, provided it is done in conjunction with my own, um, modest proposal: all women are, at public expense, to be issued side arms, open carry licenses, and a training course in gun safety, target practice, and associated self defense. Hey, if Roosh wants them to take responsibility for protecting themselves, I’m sure he wouldn’t want them doing it by half-measures….
So will Roosh put his beliefs into action and promise not to prosecute or testify, nor make a complaint, against anyone who rapes him in a bar, a bathroom, hotel, mall, house (including his own of course) etc.?
No? Didn’t think so.
So, the same geniuses who think “Schroedinger’s Rapist” was hate speech want women to be even more on guard around men?
“I invited a classmate over to study together, and he raped me.”
“Serves you right, you dumb slut! That’ll teach you not to trust a man.”
“I’m sorry, you can’t come over to study with me. You might rape me.”
“WHAT! HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A POTENTIAL RAPIST! THAT’S TOTALLY THE SAME AS CALLING A BLACK MAN A POTENTIAL THIEF! MISANDRY! MISANDRY!”
And do I even have to ask, or is Roosh one of those dudebros who think “sperm-jacking” should be a crime? You’d think men would just learn to be more careful with their sperm.
Unless I’m much mistaken, screechymonkey, Roosh complains about “the scourge of sperm-jacking” often.
Which… you know… of course…
Eamon Knight,
Then women will be told they should have known better to put their gun down if they didn’t want to be raped. We’d also have no right to fight or kill a rapists on private property because raping us would not be against the law.
Roosh is a rapist who gives advice to men who also want to be rapists. He wants a world even safer for rapists and even more dangerous for women because he HATES women.
So making it a crime to violate a person’s agency is a violation of that person’s agency? Seems legit.
Slight quibble: Roosh is a PUA (Pick Up Artist). He doesn’t identify as an MRA. But A Voice For Men’s Paul Elam just published an interview with him, and called him “a layered, tempered, and earnest guy, who truly wants to help men in their most basic and primal of life goals; a deep thinker, a powerful communicator…I got nothing but respect for the guy.”
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/02/18/criticized-for-posting-a-puffball-interview-with-pua-dirtbag-roosh-v-paul-elam-reassures-readers-he-knows-how-to-get-his-dick-wet/
To take his argument to absolute extremes: it has been known for a women to attack a man with a gelding knife. It must be dreadful for the poor chap, but he could really have taken better care of himself – not trusted her, not been alone with her, not provoked her, not removed his trousers… Would legalizing such assaults on private property make him feel safer?
I do see his “logic”. The only problem with it is that it not only works as well in reverse, it works better in reverse. Observe:
“By attempting to teach women not to make false accusations of rape, what we have actually done is teach men not to care about being accused of rape, not to protect themselves from easily preventable acts, and not to take responsibility for their actions”.
(Because, y’know, false accusations are a Really Big Problem)
So here’s my solution to that, since it’s such a huge issue an all: all accusations of rape are automatically believed, 100%, in full, by the justice system. As in, no need for a trial, jury, judge, all that time-wasting expensive crap. Just immediately arrest and jail for, say, ten years, anyone who gets accused of rape who can’t immediately prove their 100% cast-iron innocence with witnesses and stuff.
I predict that if rape trials were thus abolished, men would quickly learn to “protect their reputation in the same manner that he protects his wallet and smartphone.”